The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

also here in the states gas is far more economical than electricity....my sister and her now ex-hubby once lived in a place that had fully electric-powered heating (likely electricity powering an enormous heating coil then fan-forced through the air vents) and their electric bill was astronomical as a result....eventually necessitated them moving to a more affordable place with more economically priced utilities

maybe it's different in Israel but that's the thing.....environmentalists seem to think "one size fits all" when spouting off when that's quite clearly not the case

Making things more expensive has long been one of the tactics of the enviros. The idea is clear. If the lower classes can't afford something, they don't use it. While the elites that push this crap can afford the added cost easily.

Just another example of "do as I say, not as I do."

[Annoyed]

alrite how about you give it a try & come back tell us how that worked

Did it, well before you were born. I grew up around gas stations and auto repair facilities.

[jelgate]

also here in the states gas is far more economical than electricity....my sister and her now ex-hubby once lived in a place that had fully electric-powered heating (likely electricity powering an enormous heating coil then fan-forced through the air vents) and their electric bill was astronomical as a result....eventually necessitated them moving to a more affordable place with more economically priced utilities

maybe it's different in Israel but that's the thing.....environmentalists seem to think "one size fits all" when spouting off when that's quite clearly not the case

BS. It was about the same for me when you factor in their is no gas bill. I probably paid a little less but I'm known to be quite frugal with the thermostat

[Annoyed]

BS. It was about the same for me when you factor in their is no gas bill. I probably paid a little less but I'm known to be quite frugal with the thermostat

You don't pay for natural gas? We do. The utility sends out one bill, with both electricity and natural gas sections.

[mad_gater]

BS. It was about the same for me when you factor in their is no gas bill. I probably paid a little less but I'm known to be quite frugal with the thermostat

meaning that you're a male version of Elsa

[mad_gater]

BS. It was about the same for me when you factor in their is no gas bill. I probably paid a little less but I'm known to be quite frugal with the thermostat

also....don't know about you but the kind of electric-powered heating coils I'm familiar with have an exceptionally large current draw...to the point that if me and my sister were both operating space heaters at the same time we'd trip the breaker for the circuit our bedrooms were on which would also knock out power to the hall light and living room

[Gatefan1976]

You don't pay for natural gas? We do. The utility sends out one bill, with both electricity and natural gas sections.

Jel means he does not use gas, nor do I, so no gas bill.

[aretood2]

and I daresay that such widespread numbers of charging stations would be highly tempting targets for any terrorist with an EMP weapon

A terrorist who targets charging stations with an EMP isn't worth anyone's attention beyond local law enforcement. There are much better targets today that would cause a lot more harm and mayhem and even death. Besides, and EMP device would render most gas pumps inoperable so there really wouldn't be much of a difference. You could rig some to work the "old fashioned" way...but not enough of them to provide for even basic transportation needs of the public.

You don't pay for natural gas? We do. The utility sends out one bill, with both electricity and natural gas sections.

My family used gas for heating many winters ago. It was abandoned due to it being much more expensive than electricity.

[Annoyed]

These days, Gas is cheapest.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-...r-home-2012-12

Granted, local conditions & govt. policies may change that. But isn't it best to leave the choice to the individual homeowner, rather than mandating electric as Calif. is planning on doing?

[Womble]

Cars are a marked improvement over horses; they do the job better.

Same goes for electric cars. You need to experience a Tesla to understand the level of improvement.

They are? Automobiles can last 10-20 years or more with proper care.

Average lifespan of a car right now is around 8 years or 150 000 miles. Some can last longer, but past 8-10 years the cost of maintenance rises to the point when it makes more sense to replace.

But no one is forcing you to ditch your car today. You are simply being asked to not try and oppose the oncoming train of progress. By the time your current rust bucket kicks bucket, electric cars will be the better replacement.

Whether or not you or anyone else thinks they need replacing is irrelevant for one simple reason: There isn't an equivalent replacement available at this time. See the above comment about children.

Tell that to the Norwegians. Right now the best-selling passenger car in Norway is Nissan Leaf. Market share of plug-in electric cars in Norway was 49% in 2018. Oh, and 98% of their electricity comes from hydroelectric and tidal power stations, even though oil and gas are abundant (Norway is in the top 10 of fossil fuel exporters).

You are speaking of industrial use, in factories and such. I'm speaking of far more widespread use in homes, which began at the behest of the enviros.

In homes they were popularized for energy savings not for environment.

Sure, wealthy people can afford to change cars easily. Most folks can't. Or do you propose the govt. provide replacement equivalent vehicles for those that can't? Where do you think the strong level of opposition to this BS stems from? Again, talk to France's yellowshirts.

See above. No one is putting a gun to your head and telling you to get rid of your rusty old gas guzzler tomorrow or else. But arguing that electric cars are not a viable alternative is absurd. Especially when you argue with those who just tried one out.

[Annoyed]

Same goes for electric cars. You need to experience a Tesla to understand the level of improvement.


Average lifespan of a car right now is around 8 years or 150 000 miles. Some can last longer, but past 8-10 years the cost of maintenance rises to the point when it makes more sense to replace.

But no one is forcing you to ditch your car today. You are simply being asked to not try and oppose the oncoming train of progress. By the time your current rust bucket kicks bucket, electric cars will be the better replacement.


Tell that to the Norwegians. Right now the best-selling passenger car in Norway is Nissan Leaf. Market share of plug-in electric cars in Norway was 49% in 2018. Oh, and 98% of their electricity comes from hydroelectric and tidal power stations, even though oil and gas are abundant (Norway is in the top 10 of fossil fuel exporters).


In homes they were popularized for energy savings not for environment.


See above. No one is putting a gun to your head and telling you to get rid of your rusty old gas guzzler tomorrow or else. But arguing that electric cars are not a viable alternative is absurd. Especially when you argue with those who just tried one out.

Are you kidding? The Kindergartner and her ilk, as well as many other enviros would happily ban the sale of fossil fuels tomorrow if they could. They have outright stated that want to eliminate fossil fuels, as well as air travel, etc.

Oh, and that's a good point. Flight is a very high energy usage endeavor. If batteries/electric can match the energy provided by petroleum, why aren't there any electric airliners? Answer: It can't match it.

[aretood2]

Are you kidding? The Kindergartner and her ilk, as well as many other enviros would happily ban the sale of fossil fuels tomorrow if they could. They have outright stated that want to eliminate fossil fuels, as well as air travel, etc.

Oh, and that's a good point. Flight is a very high energy usage endeavor. If batteries/electric can match the energy provided by petroleum, why aren't there any electric airliners? Answer: It can't match it.

That's like asking if nuclear power is the most powerful, why not use it to power my analog wrist watch. You are effectively comparing flight with turning wheels on the ground. What car engine can match the air suckers of a Boeing 747 airliner? Why don't small drones operate on gasoline? If a Super Aircraft Carrier uses Nuclear Power, why don't small Harley bikes? Wait, let's flip that. If Gas is used by Harley bikes, why don't the new Gerrard Ford Class aircraft carriers use gas? That last question matches your question perfectly...

[Annoyed]

That's like asking if nuclear power is the most powerful, why not use it to power my analog wrist watch. You are effectively comparing flight with turning wheels on the ground. What car engine can match the air suckers of a Boeing 747 airliner? Why don't small drones operate on gasoline? If a Super Aircraft Carrier uses Nuclear Power, why don't small Harley bikes? Wait, let's flip that. If Gas is used by Harley bikes, why don't the new Gerrard Ford Class aircraft carriers use gas? That last question matches your question perfectly...

Ummm... We don't HAVE nuclear power small enough to be used in cars/trucks. Or Motorcycles. If we did, or another equivalent portable energy source, you might get a car or bike like that.

Haven't I been saying all along we don't have the required tech. yet so we must be patient?

[Womble]

Are you kidding? The Kindergartner and her ilk, as well as many other enviros would happily ban the sale of fossil fuels tomorrow if they could. They have outright stated that want to eliminate fossil fuels, as well as air travel, etc.

But you're not making an argument that it will take some time to replace gasoline cars with electric, you are arguing that because it can't be done right now, it should not be done at all.

Oh, and that's a good point. Flight is a very high energy usage endeavor. If batteries/electric can match the energy provided by petroleum, why aren't there any electric airliners? Answer: It can't match it.

You mean why aren't there any electric airliners yet, of course.

Electric flight propulsion is a bigger technological challenge than ground propulsion, but it's been proven viable decades ago. There's actually a fair number of all-electric and hybrid-electric light aircraft models right now both in development and in production (I'm talking passenger flights, not drones). Large passenger airliners are probably a decade or so away.

[Annoyed]

But you're not making an argument that it will take some time to replace gasoline cars with electric, you are arguing that because it can't be done right now, it should not be done at all.

No, I'm saying and have been saying all along that it shouldn't b done until we can do it. When we have something, on the shelf that can do the same job as gsaoline (or better), then we can think about beginning to phase out fossil fuels. It will still take decades to do.
What I object to is efforts to pretend we have such technology now and the government pushing or requiring changing BEFORE we have a replacement.

Technology will eventually come up with a suitable replacement. We just have to be patient and wait for it. And patience is something that children such as the Kindergartner and her ilk are woefully short on.