Why do staunch republicans hate electric vehicles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, Republicans aren't opposed to EVs, they just arent sold that EVs meet the needs of every consumer in America. Tesla ownership is split between Rs and Ds. And Republicans are much less sold on the environmental benefits of EVs, and the actual ability of the US to power EVs (without a grid crisis) if everyone owns an EV by 2030. This is true even among Republican EV owners like me.

No republicans are scared of “new” things and science.

Every single mechanical engineer I know (and I know a lot) says that electric cars are a joke and very bad for the environment because of all the hydrogen stores you need for them.

It seems like the people screaming science and progress the most know literally nothing of the actual science involved.

You must only know one mechanical engineer and he is a crusty old MAGA boomer. Most of the engineers I know agree that electric is in the long term a much better way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, Republicans aren't opposed to EVs, they just arent sold that EVs meet the needs of every consumer in America. Tesla ownership is split between Rs and Ds. And Republicans are much less sold on the environmental benefits of EVs, and the actual ability of the US to power EVs (without a grid crisis) if everyone owns an EV by 2030. This is true even among Republican EV owners like me.

No republicans are scared of “new” things and science.

Every single mechanical engineer I know (and I know a lot) says that electric cars are a joke and very bad for the environment because of all the hydrogen stores you need for them.

It seems like the people screaming science and progress the most know literally nothing of the actual science involved.

Well, your large network of electrical engineers better get together to figure something out because there’s a ticking clock on oil reserves. The argument will finally transition from political to scientific out of necessity.

Most engineers and scientists know that EV problems are solvable. Fossil fuel problems, on the other hand, are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, Republicans aren't opposed to EVs, they just arent sold that EVs meet the needs of every consumer in America. Tesla ownership is split between Rs and Ds. And Republicans are much less sold on the environmental benefits of EVs, and the actual ability of the US to power EVs (without a grid crisis) if everyone owns an EV by 2030. This is true even among Republican EV owners like me.

No republicans are scared of “new” things and science.

Every single mechanical engineer I know (and I know a lot) says that electric cars are a joke and very bad for the environment because of all the hydrogen stores you need for them.

It seems like the people screaming science and progress the most know literally nothing of the actual science involved.

Well, your large network of electrical engineers better get together to figure something out because there’s a ticking clock on oil reserves. The argument will finally transition from political to scientific out of necessity.

Most engineers and scientists know that EV problems are solvable. Fossil fuel problems, on the other hand, are not.

EVs use fossil fuels....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, Republicans aren't opposed to EVs, they just arent sold that EVs meet the needs of every consumer in America. Tesla ownership is split between Rs and Ds. And Republicans are much less sold on the environmental benefits of EVs, and the actual ability of the US to power EVs (without a grid crisis) if everyone owns an EV by 2030. This is true even among Republican EV owners like me.

No republicans are scared of “new” things and science.

Every single mechanical engineer I know (and I know a lot) says that electric cars are a joke and very bad for the environment because of all the hydrogen stores you need for them.

It seems like the people screaming science and progress the most know literally nothing of the actual science involved.

Well, your large network of electrical engineers better get together to figure something out because there’s a ticking clock on oil reserves. The argument will finally transition from political to scientific out of necessity.

Mechanical != Electrical

The current electrical grid will not be ready in 10 years to support EVs for everyone. Not to mention the issue of on-street parking and charging. Even fleet conversions are difficult because the energy requirements for the depot are difficult for the current grid to meet.

It's mostly practical issues blocking EV adoption.

All of this. The clean energy goals are running headlong into the laws of physics. You can demand 100% carbon free energy by 2050, but that doesn't mean it can actually happen. Go look at what energy companies are saying about these goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, Republicans aren't opposed to EVs, they just arent sold that EVs meet the needs of every consumer in America. Tesla ownership is split between Rs and Ds. And Republicans are much less sold on the environmental benefits of EVs, and the actual ability of the US to power EVs (without a grid crisis) if everyone owns an EV by 2030. This is true even among Republican EV owners like me.

No republicans are scared of “new” things and science.

Every single mechanical engineer I know (and I know a lot) says that electric cars are a joke and very bad for the environment because of all the hydrogen stores you need for them.

It seems like the people screaming science and progress the most know literally nothing of the actual science involved.

Well, your large network of electrical engineers better get together to figure something out because there’s a ticking clock on oil reserves. The argument will finally transition from political to scientific out of necessity.

Most engineers and scientists know that EV problems are solvable. Fossil fuel problems, on the other hand, are not.

EVs use fossil fuels....

They also use renewables. What's your point, exactly?

[Anonymous]

I disagree with the premise. The staunch republicans I know all have EVs and were early adopters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with the premise. The staunch republicans I know all have EVs and were early adopters.

Might be, but the a-holes "rolling coal" in their big-ass trucks aren't Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, Republicans aren't opposed to EVs, they just arent sold that EVs meet the needs of every consumer in America. Tesla ownership is split between Rs and Ds. And Republicans are much less sold on the environmental benefits of EVs, and the actual ability of the US to power EVs (without a grid crisis) if everyone owns an EV by 2030. This is true even among Republican EV owners like me.

No republicans are scared of “new” things and science.

Every single mechanical engineer I know (and I know a lot) says that electric cars are a joke and very bad for the environment because of all the hydrogen stores you need for them.

It seems like the people screaming science and progress the most know literally nothing of the actual science involved.

Well, your large network of electrical engineers better get together to figure something out because there’s a ticking clock on oil reserves. The argument will finally transition from political to scientific out of necessity.

Mechanical != Electrical

The current electrical grid will not be ready in 10 years to support EVs for everyone. Not to mention the issue of on-street parking and charging. Even fleet conversions are difficult because the energy requirements for the depot are difficult for the current grid to meet.

It's mostly practical issues blocking EV adoption.

All of this. The clean energy goals are running headlong into the laws of physics. You can demand 100% carbon free energy by 2050, but that doesn't mean it can actually happen. Go look at what energy companies are saying about these goals.

Man you do not know anything but keep posting. It is a great representation of maga make believe science. Again you do not even have minimum grasp of basic science or the state of technology.

[Anonymous]

I highly recommend "Power After Carbon" by Peter Fox-Penner. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067424107X

He lays out how the US can decarbonize the grid by 2050. Author is a former senior official in the Energy Department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm on my second EV.

I know many with solar panels on the roofs of their homes.

You know many who wouldn't have bought those panels without heavy govt subsidies and them having to pay full fare for those panels out of their own pocket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm on my second EV.

I know many with solar panels on the roofs of their homes.

You know many who wouldn't have bought those panels without heavy govt subsidies and them having to pay full fare for those panels out of their own pocket.

You know that the fossil fuel industry has been heavily supported with tons of subsidies and government help and interventions for the last 100 years, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, Republicans aren't opposed to EVs, they just arent sold that EVs meet the needs of every consumer in America. Tesla ownership is split between Rs and Ds. And Republicans are much less sold on the environmental benefits of EVs, and the actual ability of the US to power EVs (without a grid crisis) if everyone owns an EV by 2030. This is true even among Republican EV owners like me.

No republicans are scared of “new” things and science.

Every single mechanical engineer I know (and I know a lot) says that electric cars are a joke and very bad for the environment because of all the hydrogen stores you need for them.

It seems like the people screaming science and progress the most know literally nothing of the actual science involved.

Well, your large network of electrical engineers better get together to figure something out because there’s a ticking clock on oil reserves. The argument will finally transition from political to scientific out of necessity.

Most engineers and scientists know that EV problems are solvable. Fossil fuel problems, on the other hand, are not.

EVs use fossil fuels....

Less and less with each year. It's a solvable problem. But the issues of internal combustion engines will never be solvable.

[Anonymous]

Because getting the batteries to power them is a massive strip mining effort and exploitation of labour and destruction of nature that democrats ignore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because everyone in the EV movement, except Toyota, is chasing the less efficient, non-scalable solution. So, in 10 years you will have tons of lithium batteries to recycle when everyone switches to hydrogen power. Yes still need batteries but a smaller pack. Also hydrogen is scalable to support the rail and shipping industries, while the “Tesla model” of EV technology is not. People are chasing the wrong technology. We did the same with nuclear power, so now instead of building molten salt reactors that cannot melt down we chase solar and wind, unreliable and inefficient solutions. Must be a byproduct of the past 20 years of a failed education system in the US.

Hydrogen? You're delusional. There's no net energy in hydrogen (even putting aside the massive transportation and storage issues). Far more efficient to use the electricity directly.

In 10 years, the vast majority of cars will still be using gas/diesel.

But in 20 years the vast majority of cars will be EVs. The life span of a new car is about 12 years. Projection show 1/2 the new cars will be EVs by 2032. So by 2043 most cars on will be EVs. Specially because EVs have a longer projected life span 15-20 years.

Maintenance and TCO is also much cheaper in the longterm where it comes to EVs.

Really? At 10-12 years, your battery is shot. It's 50% or more of the original price of the car to replace. If you get in an accident, there's a good change that EV can't be repaired.

What happens in a decade when you have a glut of used EVs on the market an no one buys them? The owner takes a hit.

"Projection show 1/2 the new cars will be EVs by 2032." - You can project anything you want. China has most of the materials required for batteries. Are you willing to strip mine here in the good ole USA for rare earths and lithium? Well, are you? Or just foist your problems on the Congo?

Please stop with the talking points.

Why do you lie? You keep repeating lies that have been shown to be false. First EV batteries depending on the type last 15-20 years. The industry standard warranty is 8 years or 100k vs ICV(for you “gas power” cars) is 5 years or 60k. The replacement cost for the battery is about 4-6k and dropping each year.

China does not have “most of the materials”. China just developed a few resources and kept the price artificially low to stop exploration and extraction. These are the top six countries with the largest lithium reserves in the world. Bolivia – 21 million tonnes, Argentina – 17 million tonnes, Chile – 9 million tonnes, United States – 6.8 million tonnes, Australia – 6.3 million tonnes and China – 4.5 million tonnes. Now the US has just discovered the largest lithium deposit in the world on Nevada and Oregon border area. It is estimated to hold 40-120 million tonnes.

And here we come to the real issue. You do not even know how lithium is mined. It’s not strip mine like say for coal and steel. Those material that are use heavily in gas powered cars.

You are just totally clueless on this topic. You do not even have the basic information to carry on a conversation or should we just call it a disinformation campaign on the topic. Please just go away.

So you have no probable destroying sacred ingenious sites for lithium? What about the almost 2 billion gallons of water it will consume each year? Or that it’s the habitat of the endangered golden eagle? And the Nevada-Oregon mine will be strip mined due to the lower percent of lithium per metric ton of Earth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because everyone in the EV movement, except Toyota, is chasing the less efficient, non-scalable solution. So, in 10 years you will have tons of lithium batteries to recycle when everyone switches to hydrogen power. Yes still need batteries but a smaller pack. Also hydrogen is scalable to support the rail and shipping industries, while the “Tesla model” of EV technology is not. People are chasing the wrong technology. We did the same with nuclear power, so now instead of building molten salt reactors that cannot melt down we chase solar and wind, unreliable and inefficient solutions. Must be a byproduct of the past 20 years of a failed education system in the US.

Hydrogen? You're delusional. There's no net energy in hydrogen (even putting aside the massive transportation and storage issues). Far more efficient to use the electricity directly.

In 10 years, the vast majority of cars will still be using gas/diesel.

But in 20 years the vast majority of cars will be EVs. The life span of a new car is about 12 years. Projection show 1/2 the new cars will be EVs by 2032. So by 2043 most cars on will be EVs. Specially because EVs have a longer projected life span 15-20 years.

Maintenance and TCO is also much cheaper in the longterm where it comes to EVs.

Really? At 10-12 years, your battery is shot. It's 50% or more of the original price of the car to replace. If you get in an accident, there's a good change that EV can't be repaired.

What happens in a decade when you have a glut of used EVs on the market an no one buys them? The owner takes a hit.

"Projection show 1/2 the new cars will be EVs by 2032." - You can project anything you want. China has most of the materials required for batteries. Are you willing to strip mine here in the good ole USA for rare earths and lithium? Well, are you? Or just foist your problems on the Congo?

Please stop with the talking points.

Why do you lie? You keep repeating lies that have been shown to be false. First EV batteries depending on the type last 15-20 years. The industry standard warranty is 8 years or 100k vs ICV(for you “gas power” cars) is 5 years or 60k. The replacement cost for the battery is about 4-6k and dropping each year.

China does not have “most of the materials”. China just developed a few resources and kept the price artificially low to stop exploration and extraction. These are the top six countries with the largest lithium reserves in the world. Bolivia – 21 million tonnes, Argentina – 17 million tonnes, Chile – 9 million tonnes, United States – 6.8 million tonnes, Australia – 6.3 million tonnes and China – 4.5 million tonnes. Now the US has just discovered the largest lithium deposit in the world on Nevada and Oregon border area. It is estimated to hold 40-120 million tonnes.

And here we come to the real issue. You do not even know how lithium is mined. It’s not strip mine like say for coal and steel. Those material that are use heavily in gas powered cars.

You are just totally clueless on this topic. You do not even have the basic information to carry on a conversation or should we just call it a disinformation campaign on the topic. Please just go away.

So you have no probable destroying sacred ingenious sites for lithium? What about the almost 2 billion gallons of water it will consume each year? Or that it’s the habitat of the endangered golden eagle? And the Nevada-Oregon mine will be strip mined due to the lower percent of lithium per metric ton of Earth.

"Two billion gallons of water" is one of those numbers that sounds like a lot but really isn't. Six gallons per person, per year. We probably use more water flushing toilets during the Super Bowl.