General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

remliqa
Upper Echelon
comments

Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Upper Echelon" channel.

Previous
1
Next
...
All

There are Teslas (multiple of them ,actually) that have travelled more than 500,000 km in real world condition without needing to change battery so my claim is based on facts and reality. Again, based on the current projection a Tesla's battery pack is expected to last at least 20 years. This is also the expected lifespan of your average gas powered car . Would you complain about needing to buy a new gas car after 20-30 years too? Only someone totally ignorant would try to compare battery technology in handphone to state of the arts a BEV like Tesla, that like comparing a Cessna to an F15 . For starter a Tesla isn't designed with planned obsolescence in mind , hence why they have great power management on their battery (including thermal managements) which extend the lifespan several magnitude above the "disposable" gadgets.
5
Fortunately the battery of current BEV are expected to last around 20-30 years before needing any replacement, Basically the same age of ICEV . After that the batteries can either be used for less intensive usage or simply be recycled.
4
@walterkruse348 So you suggest we keep on using internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) that are far worse for the world than a battery electric vehicle? Despite it own flaws , switching very possible ICEV to BEV is still a better option than continuing to use ICEV. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
3
That is the ting: BEV are far eco friendlier than ICEV even if all it energy cam from coal, this is fact that was supported by multiple independent studies. Fortunately , we are moving away from coal so an EV will only widen the gap as time goes on.
2
Unfortunately tjis vide spread the myth than EV is just as bad as an ICEV. This is far from the truth.
2
It dosn't mater. Studies have show that even if 100% of an EV's energy came solely from coal, the EV will still less polluting than a gas or diesel car.
2
That TEDex talk have as much credibility as Andrew Wakefield , though. That guy lied and manipulated data to suit his pro hybrid agenda(hybrid are worse than BEV). Transport Evolved even did a video debunking the guy.
2
@DC-ml6cv In that case I suggest you buy an EV of your own . Tesla for example have very, very good crash ratings and is one of the safest vehicle around.
2
@walterkruse348 Driving your ICEV until it fall apart is worse for the environment than than simply switching to a new BEV. Unless your current ICEV nearing the end of its lifespans , they will still pollute more than that new BEV for the rest the old ICEV's remaining life as older ICEV tend to have worse pollution footprint than newer ICEV (which is still worse for the environment than a BEV) . Anyone who (who claims to care for the environment ) is in the market to switch to a new car but choosing a new ICEV despite being able to afford BEV doesn't really have any excuse for not owning a BEV. The only better solution toe the car compared to a BEV is not owning a car at all. Of course as we are all are this solution need robust public transportation and city/community that is planned in manner that car are unnecessary. But even with such system in place , it will not eliminate the need and want for personal vehicle (as shown by the large car ownership in countries like Netherland and Japan) so the lesser evil solution like a BEV is still needed rather than sticking to an ICEV status quo.
2
@walterkruse348 I suggest you put 2010 instead of 1990s as your ICEV cutting point as even ICEV produced during that decade still have rather bad emission (the average surprisingly almost double current ICEV emissions) .The Dieselgate Scandal underlines this. This isn't and shouldn't be an OR situation. There is no reason why both better city planning and public transport should be mutually exclusive to the transition to EV, both are needed for a cleaner and better future . To advocate otherwise is just golden idiocy.
2
@saltyapostle44 Warranty =/=actual lifespan. All the warrant does is give us the expected time in which the manufacturer are almost certain that their product would deliver as promise. After all gas car have the exacts same warranty as a BEV yet you don't dump your gas car every 5 years (the average warranty for gas and diesel cars). Current generation of BEV like Tesla is expected to to keep most (over 60%) of its battery capacity after 20 years (which is also the average lifespan of a gasoline powered car) "Would you buy a 6 or 7 year old used EV - that costs 25 or 30% of your annual salary - that might need a $12,000 replacement battery in a couple years that will no longer be in warranty - that cost nearly as much to replace as you paid for the car? Hell no. I wouldn't. You're asking for trouble that could bankrupt you." Again so many thing wrong that I'm astonished confidently type this. You obviously know very little of second-hand EV market Firstly, no 6-7 year old BEV needed a news battery change in normal circumstances . There is little to no difference in battery capacity for a BEV in just after 7 years (unless it's a Nissan Leaf). Secondly, of course I could buy a hand hand BEV. A cheaper vehicle (except for second hand Tesla) , with all the cost saving of a BEV at just a slightly lower range than a new car? A rather obvious answer. "Also - because of the energy price spike it's now costing people in the UK more to charge their EV than to fill up a ICE car with gas or diesel. " That is literally fake news that have been debunked . Petrol and diesel price in the UK rose more than electricity cost so it is still cheaper to drive a BEV than an ICEV . In fact is is currently a lot cheaper to drive a BEV there compared to an ICEV. "Can you guarantee me these new ridiculous energy prices aren't going to become the new normal?" It is almost impossible (99% certainty if you ask any economis based on market forces ) for electricity to be more expensive than gasoline and diesel without huge subsidies to keep gasoline and diesel cheap, so yes, I can almost guarantee that it will always be cheaper to top up a BEV than an ICEV. " California - a day after making EV's mandatory in 2035 - told people not to charge their EV's yesterday because of stain on the power grid. It's LAUGHABLE. These politicians have no F-ing idea what they are doing." Hence why the infrastructure bill is so important.
2
@BriBCG Considering many BEV today have over 8 years of warranty (in which the battery will still have over 60% capacity on their battery) , the idea that they will be unusable in just 10 years is absurdly laughable. While we don't really have many 10 year old BEV, we do have Tesla that have been driven over 500,00km and retains most (in some cases over 95% ) of their original range (somethin no ICEV can do with major component change) . Li-ion battery can last along time with proper power management . Some battery chemistry such as Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP batterie ) can last even longer at the cost of lesser power density, LFP battery is already bein used in over 60% of vehicle in China and companies like Tesla is suing it on some of their cars. Of course there are other improvement been made to Li etch that improves their performance and longevity such as using silicone, sulphur and graphene in place of other material (such as cobalt and nickel). We have facts and data that show currents EV battery can last for 30 years under proper and easily replicable real world conditions. I would say it would be delusional to go against these facts and data and says otherwise .
2
@jonathantaylor6926 Thank you, I am pleasantly surprised that your concern about BEV shortcomings is actually reasonable instead of FUD and debunked EV myth spouted by some of the people I talked to here.
2
@liuwang2201 If you own a scrap yard :Congratulations, you are posed to be ahead in EV battery recycling industry. Of course if you are not capable of capitalising on that emerging market, then you can always send/sold the battery to those recyclers and do what you normally do (with an ICEV) with the rest of the vehicles . I don't see why would any scrap yard operator be complaining about a new income source.
2
@liuwang2201 You can probably get a lot more than $200 from a scrapyard on a 25 year old BEV . Unlike an ICE, most major components (electric motor eg) of BEV would still be usable after 25 years . I am willing to bet that your 25 years old ICEV have several major components (timing belt, valve etc) that it that have been changed through that 25 year or else it would be dead years ago.. That is another advantage of BV over ICEV: you can drive a BEV for its entire lifetime without needing to replace any major parts at all .
2
@liuwang2201 Weight doesn't really matter here : Despite their weight , a BEV is still far more better at converting energy to power than even far lighter ICE cars due to how inefficient ICE is. You will actually have better range if you burn gasoline/diesel in an electric generator and charge a BEV than it is to use that same amount of fuel in an ICEV.
2
@liuwang2201 What are you talking about? All current BEV have regenerative braking, That is a feature that predates Li- ion tech. BTW, 10 years is an abysmal life expectancy for a car . Tesla for example is expected to last 20-25 years (before losing a significant range) and may even stretch to over 30 years with some chemistry (LFP batteries).
2
@liuwang2201 Again, that is not somethin unique : All current BEV have regenerative braking. In theory you can literally charge some BEV from zero to full just by allowing the BEV to roll down a mountain and using regenerative braking . That is one of the reason not only weigh doesn't matter much for an EV range, it may help extend it (HINT: Check your physics book about the relation between mass and energy). One mining company in Australia is even building an electric train that never need to be recharged because the power created rolling down a fully laden train (with mined iron ores) from the mines to port would be enough to enough for the empty train to go back to the mines.
2
@liuwang2201 Firstly , you are conflating electric diesel train with pure electric train. Pure electric trains don't have diesel generator onboard. TGV for example is a pure electric trains. That ore train I mentioned will be purely electric. Secondly, there are several electric 18 wheeler that are coming or are already in service such as the eCascadia and Tesla Semi. Thirdly any BEV uses less fuel than your ICE car climbing and going down a hill . How? As I said the electric drive train is far more efficient than an ICE drive train and unlike your car, a BEV can recover as significant portion of that energy back downhill by regenerative braking . You could use less fuel than that even if you completely shut down your car engine downhill.
2
@liuwang2201 Why would any BEV owner be "well be out 27K " in 10 years? You don't throw away your ICEV after 10 years, why would you do that with a BEV? A BEV like Tesla can last more than 20 years and they are cheaper to own than a ICEV that is USD10K cheaper . At the rate BEV price is going, you will be able to buy a new BEV for less than USD27K in less than 10 years. It seems to me you are moving the goalpost every time I scored another hit.
2
@liuwang2201 No, I'm just an older man who is educating you on BEV and destroying your misconception about them.
2
@Password450 There is no conclusive study that shows this is the case. The study that anti-EV people like to quote is extremely flawed to the point that it is useless as the study did not involve any EV at all. What they did instead was put weight in the boot/trunk of an ICE to simulate the added weight of batteries an EV. This is an inaccurate simulation because: 1)The ICEV they used have terrible weight distribution (unlike a BEV which usually used skateboard configuration ) which in impacted handing and caused additional stress to the tyre, decreasing the tyre's life. 2)The ICEV they used did not have regenerative braking . It have been shown in real world condition that regenerative braking caused less stress the braking system of a car(the brake pads and the tyre itself) that it help prolongs theses components life. 3) The type of tyre they used in the simulation isn't the type that is used by EV at all. Many EV (including Tesla) uses High Load tyres to compensates for the added weight. While these tyre cost more they offer improved performance (having better grip ) and lasts longer than standard ICE tyres . In shorts the sudsy dis not simulate the actual wear and tear of actual BEV tyres .
1
@Password450 You are exaggerating the wear an tear caused by EV's weigh o the road . The cost of their maintenance is insignificant compared to the environmental cost of using ICE. That is the main reason why we must transition to EV: we can no longer ethically afford to use ICE
1
Actually the facts anyone driving an EV is doing better for the environment than anyone who drives gas or diesel. The only people who could look down on EV owner are those who don't use cars at ll.
1
@Patrickf5087 Except he's not really telling the truth at all. Notice he conveniently omits the fact that Tesla and other auto manufacturers are moving away from Cobalt and Nickel (LFP eg) ? Or the fact due to our grid moving towards renewables, it would take less than 5 years for a Tesla to become less polluting than an ICE?
1
@Patrickf5087 Youtube have a habit of yeeting long post so I I don't kniw if this will be seen "and what about thr cost of energy i have yet to see my electric bill go DOWN despite more windmills going up monthly " You do know that yiu still be spending less than simply paying for gasoline, right? "Not to mention our grid can barely support everyone running thier AC at the same time during summer, without causing a brown out." Sound like a call to upgrade the grid. Thankfully the use of batterie both in EV and static storage will help to stabilise the grid. Not to mention other tech like smart grid. "It will take states and the county DECADES to get the power grid up to w state to deal with the load, baring any terrorist or natural disaster." It would also took DECADES before the percentage of EV on the road's need t to close to matching the current power generation capacity of the USA. The country have plenty of time to adapt. Europe and China could do it, why not the US? "Not to mention the elephant in the room that a chunk of the renewable engine stops when the sun goes down." Look up/google energy storage. "As for Nickel its a lot more abundant than cobalt, and considering the largest suppliers of that is Russia and China." Why do you think everyone is trying to cut down on both of them? For example most BEV sold in China doesn't use either of them and Tesla is also heading in that direction (LFP battery eg). "The government is pushing way to hard to hurt people of lower economic tiers, to be pushing so hard on "ending oil" Fossil fuel dependency will hurt lower income people more than the switch to EV. For example will be less disease related to air pollution (huge issue due to US healthcare cost problems). Your other grievance with intel is irrelevant here . "They also promised Hydrogen fuel as well, but right now there are ZERO REMAINING STATIONS out of the 4 in California. In fact those stations have been sitting empty for a long time now." The is a reason there there are tens millions (and growing) of BEV on the road compared to less than 100,000 Hydrogen Fuel Cell EV globally despite the latter's market start: BEV are superior and easier to transition from compared to HFCEV, hydrogen is a dead end that can't compete with batteries for consumer market.
1
@Patrickf5087 ". Fuel prices on the other hand can be MUCH lower if left out of the hands of government controls. IE our current fuel crisis." It seem to me you are ignorant of why the current gas price is so high. I suggest you watch Wendover Productions video about this . "That's a miss conception, Electricity like every other finite resource gets a market price on it, more demand = higher cost, Electricity prices have only gone up in most regions despitw windmills power plants being constructed." That have more to do with the increase in fuel price than anything else. It is pretty much impossible for the increase in electricity rate to outpace fuel price hikes . "And as of right now, theybare installing them as fast as theybare.being produced." "So your "time to upgrade" is already happening at a snails pace, not estimated to be "finished" probably never, because demands on Electricity are out pacing the component production speeds" Not they are not. There are plenty of problem with how the US handles it grid upgrade from NIMBY to lack of funding to upgrade them. EPA regulation is not the limiting factor at all. Left to their own device utility companies only spend just as much to expand capacity as their short term profit outlook will allow them. Furthermore, the currents expansions of electric capacity in the US is still ahead of the current EV adoption rate in the country (seriously, look up the numbers) . Again the bottleneck here is mostly artificial . That is why the infrastructure bill is so important. 'Thats not true as again your unaware of the problems, Government is PUSHING to hard to the EV market, and EV production is expected to increase in speed baring matrial shortages. And will soon drastically outpace Electricity supply and sustainability. " Did you took a look at the infrastructure bill that was passed couple of month ago? That bill included billion allocated to upgrade the electricity grid. "False, emissions regulation has changed that argument drastically, I younhave said that 40 years ago and I would have agreed but current day emissions aren't that way." No, studies as late as 2021 (date of publishing) still shows that environmental and health problem cause by fossil fuels burning and handling (even gas/diesel fume are scientifically confirmed carcinogenic) is major threat, especially among the poor. In contrast there is no such risk with EV. "Hydrogen " Everything said about hydrogen is false: Hydrogen actually receive far more funding and attention from government and multinational mega corporation in the last 40 decades than batterie did (until 2012) . Huge conglomerates in both the auto industry (Toyota eg) an the petroleum industry (Shell eg) spent billion researching hydrogen technology and lobbying government to adopt hydrogen (Japan and Korea eg) . The problems was the technology hurdle was too great to overcomes. Then Li battery tech came in and took over EV Today hydrogen is just too expensive , too complicated and too slow to competes with battery for EV. 'Also thr "Intel" is relevant sd its a data point on how companies promise advancement of technology and fall far short of expectations and promises" Irrelevant as BEV isn't a promise it is already a reality. Evident by the tens of millions of EV on the road and its massive adoption increase year after year.
1
@Patrickf5087 Hydrogen is reality ? LOL. tell me how many hydrogen car are on the road today. Japanese and South Korean government even went full throttle with hydrogen yet the sale of hydrogen car in those countries are abysmal. Toyota spesnt billion developing hydrogen cars and lobbying governments to chose hydrogen over batteries Hydrogen for consumer vehicle is a dead end because it it's just to complicated, too energy inefficient compared so simply charging a battery, too costly in both infrastructure and the vehicles themselves (only the rich can afford them) and offers worse performance than both BEV and ICEV. The only thing hydrogen have advantage is range but that range don't matter to 99% of car users. In fact due to how inefficient hydrogen cycle is, you need to construct more than double the power plant for hydrogen car fuel need compared to BEV. It is purely market forces that push hydrogen out of consumer vehicle market, not regulations. 'And in fact are now CAUSING BROWNOUTS in States that dibt have the electricity to support them. Which during summer and winter can cause life treating problems." "All I'm asking is for the government to stop pushing and let energy generation catch up, so people don't die to heat stroke because of brownouts." That is why you need energy storage . It have been shown that energy storage do helps mitigate problems like brownouts. "Where in it does it say funding to build manufacturing of industrial transformers? Other than the BILLIONS going OUT OF COUNTRY." Did you fail to read the provisions that clearly stated funding will be allocated to upgrade the the electricity grid? Guess what is part a of the electricity grid? Transformers. Transformer don't really require much electronic as the technology didn't' change much over a hundred years . They are is just basically simple device constructed of widely available metal like aluminium and copper. "Nor have I seen plans of putting up more power plants. " Did you not read the part about ramping both the construction of renewables and even nuclear? Again the power capacity of the US is currently expanding faster than the adoption of BEV in your country even before the new infrastructure bill was proposed. "Right this very second we are not ready, for BEV switch over unless you literally want only the rich to have them and be able to use them" Again, the switch to BEV will take decades to complete. Anyone who think that BEV will be the majority of vehicle driven on US roads before 2030 is delusional . The energy grid (whose expansion currently outpaced the switch to BEV ) have more than enough time to adapt.
1
@Patrickf5087 I never said hydrogen is new tech. I personally been hearing out about prototype hydrogen car and and how it's the "fuel of the future" in the 1980s (yes, I'm old) so I know more than most people how old hydrogen tech is. What I repeated said is governments , independent research (universities) and mega companies (Toyota eg) have been pouring billions into hydrogen research over decades (since last century) . Hydrogen is just too hard of a nut to crack. It fate in the consumer market was sealed the moment Li-ion battery entered the EV story . The reason hydrogen is fading away from consumer market is simply due to market pressure: Hydrogen is just too expensive and logistics intensive to be viable while offering no performance (they are slower nd less responsive compare to BEV) and cost advantage (they're to expensive to own) for consumers. Again, despite massive government support in Korea and Japan, the sale of hydrogen cars (Toyota Mirai eg) were still marginal. Current BEV tech is is too superior for it to compete against. "Thats a nice hand wave, which you have brought up TWICE currently there are no large scale ENERGY STORGE in the US, and even if we start now, would take a decade or 2 to build." You are wrong on this one as well. I suggest you look up what pump-hydro is. Until 2021( when China launched a bigger facility) the US have the largest pump hydro energy storage facility in the world ( a record method since the 1980s) . Energy storage isn't a new thing , what is new is just the technology that are currently been added such as pressurise air, liquid air, thermal batteries and the multitude of newer battery chemistry (from Li-ion to redox flow) battery. Currently quite a number of these storage solution that are been constructed in the US and the rest of the world. Ironically, large scale static energy storage is one utility in which hydrogen would perform well.
1
@Patrickf5087 " Who CARES ABOUT CHINA, can USA access Chinese power grids? NO stop bringing it up, I never said theybdint exist in fact I disnt say they existed 2 comments ago, im talking MAINSTREAM NON EXPERIMENTAL." Bath County Pumped Storage Station is in Virginia. Is Virginia in China now? "Yes thank you for PROVING MY POINT outside of 1 or 2 facilitieS." I suggest you google what storage facilities that are currently been constructed in the US alone if you think it is just "one or two" facilities . "As THE ORGINAL IDEA AND GOAL WAS TO use to scale up large scale to use green energy to crack Hydrogen from water, use that Hydrogen in cars, thus creating a cycle. " Again, you need more than double the power needed to charge BEV to do that . The Hydrogen cycle is just far too inefficient . Real Engineering did a great video on this (titled "The Truth about Hydrogen) that shows how inefficient and expensive . The laws of physics itself proves how bad hydrogen is for this task . That is before factoring the high cost to set up aa hydrogen distribution network for cars. If you think upgrading the electric grid is hard wait till you see how much it would cost to set up hydrogen. And the hydrogen cars themselves... Again, the reason whys hydrogen car sales tanked is because they are far to expensive to own and offers worse performance . "IN FACT it was going to be paired up with sea water use so that they could pull deuterium from the ocean then use it in. You know so it could be used in potential reactors or other projects." You mean fusion project that are at least 30 year away from producing any result let alone commercially viable ? You complain about storage facilities bein porotypes (despite many major project outside of their prototype phase) yet clamour for technologies that doesn't even exist and won't exist for decades?? "Either way building a DAM runs into even BIGGER problems as not only the EPA but wildlife conservation will get in the way of any Dam building, as many places that are low cost places are protected lands that have already been denied use by power companies and water companies. " Hence why we are also building other type of storage facilities that are less constrained by geography and regulation compared to pump storage
1
@My1xT Tom Scott currently use VPN. He said in one of his latest video he found out what VPN are good for when he realise that some site an contents are region-blocked.
1
@b.joggin3484 You can still use non Tesla charging stations or even charge at home (the majority of Tesla owner charge at home) , should this happens to you , though.
1
Ann Reardon already debunks them.
1
@TheAstralCatastrophe I don't know if posting outside link will get yeeted here so I'm gonna just post the name of the studies: A GLOBAL COMPARISON OF THE LIFE-CYCLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OF COMBUSTION ENGINE AND ELECTRIC PASSENGER CARS- Georg Bieker at the International Council on Clean Transportation. "Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of BEV’s environmental benefits for meeting the challenge of ICExit (Internal Combustion Engine Exit" "Pricing indirect emissions accelerates low—carbon transition of US light vehicle sector" This one id from Yale "Environmental Benefits from Driving Electric Vehicles?" by researcher from University of North Carolina (UNC) Greensboro, Dartmouth College, Middlebury College, and UNC Chapel Hill And there are many more . The thing you need to remember is: A) the electric drive train is far more efficient than an ICE. Depending on the model of car , a BEV can get 4.8 - 7.3km/ kwh , the latter belong to the Model 3 (Tesla tend to be on the higher end of the efficiency curve) which gives it the minimum of 105g/km to as low as 70g/km (Tesla Model 3) of CO2 if it only uses coal (abased on your number of coal emission) . In contrast the typical ICE have an emission rating of around 120-over 200g/km .Some older models (one produce in the decades 2010s) even goes higher than 400g/km . B)The cost would also need to account for the power need to distribute the fossil fuel(gasoline and diesel) and maintenance(oil change, components like valve timing belt etc) through the vehicle's lifetime . C)The energy grid is getting cleaner very day. For example today 25% of all electricity produced in the US is generated by renewables.
1
@TheAstralCatastrophe I actually cited my sources and even put out the facts and calculation that proves my point, but it seem YouTube algorithms decided to yeet them for some reason.
1
@Brian-om2hh He just repeating the myth that EV are more polluting that ICEV.
1
@Toberumono No, recent report shows that only EV that are either powered by Green hydrogen (not Blue Or Grey hydrogen) of pure BEV will have any impact toward greenhouse gas emission. The report found that Hybrid don't really do much at all.
1
@Gisiebob Why would you wants hybrid? They are worse for the environment than BEV while only be marginal better at cutting pollution than a pure ICE. They combine the worst aspect of BEV (expensive and polluting material mined in poor countries) with ICEV's (terrible long term emission as you need to burn fossil fuel for the rest of the car's life).
1
@Toberumono It not meaningless because unlike hybrids, BEV actually solves the pollution and emission problems associated with having a vehicle in the first place. Face it: people will always have need and want for personal vehicle , so why not transition to the cleaner BEV instead of maintaining the destructive status quo of ICEV.
1
@Toberumono Unfortunately , the is comment section have bad habit of yeetin post that point/links to outside source (even quoting a large portion of it would trigger the algorithm , it seem) so I can't really do much about citing the true source. But other channel on youtube (Sabine Hossenfelder, Engineering with Rosie, Just Have a Think, Transport Evolved, Real Engineering etc) hade covered the hydrogen problem . As I said even if we have very robust city planning and public transport, it will not and could not eliminate the need and want for private vehicle . The fact that countries like Japan and Netherland having high percentage of car ownership underlines this.
1
@BriBCG " The only reason the EV batteries last any longer than smartphones is because they are intentionally oversized to prolong the perceived degradation until the warranty expires." This is so wrong that I am dumfounded you type that with such confidence. You statement is only true when it comes to early BEV such as Nissan Leaf but not Tesla and other currents BEV. Because the battery pack in the Leaf isn't really different from the one in your phone and other gadgets (laptops eg) , they actually degrade at around the same rate hence why Leaf tend to have junk range . In contrast newer and better designed EV such as Tesla have multiple features the life of their battery such as active thermal management (the main reason for battery degradation) that it keep most of the capacity even after decades of usage and thousands of recharge cycle. This is why BEV battery will still keep most of it charges after 30 years while your phone would be no better than a brick less than half that time.
1
@saltyapostle44 I don't see how BEV will ruin the used car market. Kindly explain. Logically they would better for the poor and poor and lower-working classes as second hand BEV have all the cost saving advantage of a new BEV at less the cost and lesser range.
1
@liuwang2201 If you follow EV news, then you would know that an " EV recycling yard is coming to your neighborhood" figuratively speaking. Currently, there are dozens of EV battery recycling companies that are popping up in the US alone (including one by one of Tesla's founder J.B. Straubel). Being submerged in water will damage all cars, not just BEV. That not an EV problems . Go and drown your Camaro or Land Rover (HINT: 4 wheel drive need to be prepped to survive complete submersions) completely in water an see the results.
1
@liuwang2201 "the train is running on a electric power line ?" Most eclectic train does, this one doesn't. It will be powered sole by gravity and the regenerative braking . Engineering With Rosie (she an engineer) YouTube channel explained the physics behind this new train design. " no the truck thing is a dream and grate your driving a perpetual motion machine" You must failed physics in school if you think regenerative braking somehow creates perpetual motion . HINT: ask your physics teacher or any engineer on how those works.) And no, the eCascadia truck are already in service and the Tesla semi will be entering service by the end of this year to mid 2023.
1
@saltyapostle44 That is where both the government and public sector could play a hand . The government could (and should) introduce financial incentive that helps people of lower income to buy BEV. That $14K BEV may seem expensive , but it is cheaper to own (compared to a $1500 ca) to a for lower income due to both electricity being cheaper than gasoline and diesel and it needing far less maintenance. The biggest problem like with US car manufacturers (including Tesla which rather focus on that stupid Optimus Subprime instead of working on their $25K car) who currently seem more interested in building premium brand BEV rather than more affordable car, unless they are willing to open up their cat market to Chinese BEV, that is. The problem with nuclear energy in the US have more tod o with the extremely high cost to set it up and the asinine NIMBY attitude of the American people. The US government and politician don't mind nuclear but no elected US representative would be willing to lose their seat in the next election if they push nuclear on their constituencies. The ignorance and paranoia associated with nuclear power have taken terrible toll on the environment : we could have weaned fossil fuel a lot earlier had nuclear be an option in the past. Fortunately , the tide seem to be changing and next generation fission plants are on the way (even if it's in experimental/prototype capacity) in the US.
1
@harleymitchelly5542 Firstly, affordable BEV doesn't ' always equal crappy cars. Both Europe and China have quite a number of good an serviceable BEV that are not available on the US market at this point .None of these BEV are what you would call "disposable" as they share the same long lifespans (they won' last as long as Tesla due to Tesla great battery management but tat won't matter to most consumer) of standard BEV. This is in no way comparable to the ethanol fiasco (which is subsidising the corn industry in the US, an effort to appeases corn farmers.) . Even if it would be a new car loan, they would still be able to pay it back thanks to the savings BEV provided (cheaper fuel and maintenance ) if the loans have low interest (why would you put high interest of a relief loan?). Secondly, Tesla's purported goal was always to bring BEV to the masses instead of bein a luxury car company. That was what they stated when the released the Model 3 and Model Y. That was also their supposedly goal when the idea USD25K car concept was first floated. Right now this gaol seem to shelved for more profitable projects and for experiments that won't see the light of day for decades (that stupid robot project) . Oh , and Tesla doesn't' receive any subsidy , you moron. The closes to what can be called as "subsidy" is the tax rebate consumers get (It mean Tesla don't get the money) , all car manufacturers in the US receive this "subsidy", not just Tesla. The difference is Tesla (as well as Toyota and GM) used all their allocated slots (there is a quota for how many car are eligible) years ago so it doesn't affects their sales at all , currently Ford buyer can uses this subsidy. On another note, the so called "whompy wheels" problem only affect a few car and this minor issue have pretty much been solved. Thirdly , the current the NIMBY problems isn't solely left wing issue. I mean Nevada scrapped the proposed nuclear waste storage site isn't and that left wing states at all. The same goes for the objection over building new power lines (one republican lawmaker sated he won't support spending money to build over his constituency) and objection to new solar and wind farms. Ring wing and conservatives seem to be very opposed to spending money to increase the capacity of the electric grid (evident by how much the infrastructure bill was stonewalled).
1
@liuwang2201 That is one proposals on how the train will function, they will weight that against using battery power to move a single train (rather than laying two tracks, extra power line and twice the trains) to the mines based on feasibility and cost. I don't know what you point about the truck supposed to be. BTW, your conspiratorial and anti-science post is gone. Did you deleted it yourself after realising how bad that portrayed you or was it yeeted by youtube.
1
@liuwang2201 I don't know about the Tesla semi (because it still haven't came out) but the eCascadia used a 438-kWh battery pack to have a range of 220 miles. The Tesla semi have a maximum range of 500 miles fully loaded so it will probably have a bigger pack , though Tesla tend to have more efficient vehicle compared to their competitors thus tend to have more range/watt so it could used similar sized battery.
1
@liuwang2201 False data? Those number are from the manufacturers themselves (google it). I don't see the point of your obsession with weight It it also rich coming from guy who believes conspiracy theories and spout anti-science bs.
1
@liuwang2201 Energy recession? WTF are you talking about?
1

Previous
1
Next
...
All