nice troll attempt

the 0-60 time of my vehicle is ~3 seconds as its a motorcycle and since we talk about the environment and the bigger picture here

the goal has to be to have affordable tech with a long lifespan and not lifestyle bullshit for fakes like you

I'm saying either MSX98, or the person who created that meme to begin with, need to. Not necessarily you in particular.

I think it really depends on the tech. Industrial machinery where there won't be changes for decades should be built to last (or at least maintained easily). Technology like phones can break down easily because the technology becomes obsolete within a couple years. IMO, cars are sort of in the middle and I'd say you shouldn't hang onto a car for more than 7 years because they constantly add safety features, senors, ergonomic stuff, efficiency, etc.

I want to see alternatives of all kinds being equally subsidised not just electric.
Hydrogen, biofuel vehicles etc

if you put it like this it makes perfect sense combined with my argument

you move on from a regular car after 7 years, but that does not mean that its dead

someone else picks it up and uses it for another few years and even if it has reached a state where westeners dont want it anymore, it has a potential second life in a poorer country

the tesla is done after that first lifespan and building huge amounts of new batteries is absurd

last i read you need to put ~200k kilometres on such a thing to justify the production compared to a classic car

>US buys lithium batteries from china
>china poisons all of their major rivers and releases massive amounts of CO2 in the process of making the batteries
>US charges the lithium batteries with energy generated from oil and natural gas
>US sells the used batteries to african countries, where they "recycle" them in a giant poisonous landfill
>papa elon pockets $3 billion dollars in tax subsidies every year in order to fight climate change

"GREEN ENERGY"

We've already been over this. If the whole world moved toward nuclear energy, the global uranium reserves would be used up in 12-20 years. Yes, nuclear energy should be used as a bridge technology, particularly the already existing nuclear power plants which should be kept running as long as they're not too old or dilapidated. But nuclear power is not a long-term solution.



--------------



Defense is a market on which the government is the main customer by default. Pharma and finance need regulation, but not a planned economy. The government isn't saying "we're outlawing American options, banks may only provide European options after 2025" or "we're outlawing oral pharmaceuticals, only suppositories will be allowed going forward".



LOL! All else being equal, EVs are more expensive, heavier, take longer to recharge/refuel, have a shorter range, a shorter life-span and their performance is more susceptible to very hot or cold temperatures.


Car companies are putting out electric vehicles because governments around the world, particularly in China (sic!) and the EU, have been signalling for years that there will be ever-increasing quotas for the share of EVs in their fleet, until fossil cars are eventually banned altogether. On top of that, EVs are receiving MASSIVE subsidies - subsidies which are given precisely because governments want to push EVs into the market before they would organically replace fossil cars.




There's a huge difference between being unwilling and being unable to spend tens of thousands of bucks on a new car every 5 years.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 6 2022 04:09pm

Stares in thorium.

Don't worry everyone Jerone Davison got our backs protecting us from those "Democrats in Klan Hoods" with his AR-15

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jerone4Congress/status/1544700948164972546

Governments ban stuff ALL the time, what are you talking about? After the financial crisis, they banned certain types of securities because they were too risky. They ban certain chemicals in America due to health concerns. They ban certain chemicals due to environmental impact. I really don't understand your concern regarding overreach. In aggregate, ICE cars emit a substantial amount of greenhouse gases so they are saying you should use a different technology. It's no different than them changing the Saran wrap formula to make it more environmentally friendly. As for subsidies, who cares? The government subsidizes medical research, food, etc. Hell, the auto-industry received subsidies for decades so I don't know why you're crying all of a sudden.

When I say performance, I'm talking about acceleration, power, etc. You're right that EVs are heavier, are more susceptible to environmental factors, etc. I'd push back on them being significantly more expensive though. Here in the US, you can get an EV for under $30K new. When you include maintenance and fuel costs, EVs are a bit cheaper in terms of cost of ownership. For most people, EVs are already a superior choice. They just don't have the capital to take advantage of it yet.