• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BYD 5 minute EV charger

Not at all, but the replacement needs to be better than what is being replaced, and battery electric cars are not quite there.
If they can double the battery energy density, they would be getting close.
I would rather see them change the fuel than all the end users, they have to eventually anyway.
The refineries use the surplus electricity from Wind and Solar and store that energy as hydrocarbon transport fuels.
Hybrid technology continues to improve, (Yes using some of the things learned from battery electrics)
My grandchildren grow up in a world improving lifestyle from where we are now not depreciating it.

Climate change is not real. I am not sure why any of this even matters or why anyone is even trying. Drill baby drill!
/s
 
I'm skeptical that it's safe to try and charge a lithium-ion battery at that level of current regularly.
So am I. I still do not think they made a battery that lasts very long with such fast charges either. Unless they have overcome this problem as well, rapid charges reduces a batteries life.
 
But in peak time the gas pump could refill 12 cars an hour, the electric charging station could not.
But you need less capacity since no American refuels the gas in their car passively overnight while at home, where over half of all EVs receive most of their energy this way and don't even require a fast charge station. So, if you replaced every combustion vehicle with an EV (hypothetically) and every gas pump with a fast charge station (hypothetically) there would actually be less congestion than at gas pumps today.
 
Indeed. As long as we can think of any problems with it, it must be shut down before it even gets a start.
No. Just need to keep reality in mind to avoid disappointment.
 
No, no problem with my imagination. I see a very bright future for humanity,
but short of some major advancements in battery energy density, vehicles carrying their
energy in batteries will only fill some roles.
I too would love to have an EV. But it would have to be a third car.
 
Climate change is not real. I am not sure why any of this even matters or why anyone is even trying. Drill baby drill!
/s
Sorry man made hydrocarbon fuels can be 100% carbon neutral, i.e. they will not change the CO2 level.
 
Oh, it's best to ignore @Lord of Planar and his uninformed rants. I mean, Tesla did, deciding to liquid cool the charging cables making them substantially thinner and more flexible. Engineers solving problems. As @Lord of Planar has no engineering background that can be discerned, he's incapable of imagining the idea of problems being solved and technology moving forward. While the rest of us move the ball forward, he prefer to stand where he is and shout at the clouds about the art of what's not possible. That's why his ilk will be left behind while they yell 'libtard!' from the top of their lungs in order to feel better about themselves.
I was around when we made the switch to unleaded gasoline. You would have thought the world was coming to an end.

The switch from incandecent to LED must absolutely freak them out.
 
Yes. Reality is the status quo. Any attempt at anything different is just a pipe dream and needs to be shut down.
Are you always full, of such unreasonable bias?
 
Sorry man made hydrocarbon fuels can be 100% carbon neutral, i.e. they will not change the CO2 level.
I'm sure that's something that's a possibility in the future, and will have a role- and I'm all for it.The idea that man-made hydrocarbon fuels can be 100% carbon neutral is, at first glance, an appealing notion. It suggests that we can continue using familiar fuels—gasoline, diesel, jet fuel—without contributing to climate change, provided we produce them synthetically rather than extracting them from the ground. In theory, this is possible: if carbon dioxide (CO₂) is captured from the atmosphere and used to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels using renewable energy, and those fuels are later burned, then the CO₂ released is simply the same CO₂ that was previously removed. On paper, this creates a closed carbon loop, one in which atmospheric CO₂ levels remain unchanged. However, the leap from theoretical neutrality to real-world implementation is enormous—and often misleading.

To begin with, the energy source used to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels is critical. Producing these fuels requires large amounts of electricity, typically to power electrolysis (splitting water to create hydrogen) and to drive chemical reactions that combine hydrogen with captured CO₂ to make hydrocarbons. If that electricity comes from fossil fuels, then the entire process adds CO₂ to the atmosphere, defeating the purpose. For synthetic fuels to be carbon neutral, the electricity must come entirely from renewable sources such as wind, solar, or hydroelectric power. At present, the global energy grid remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels, making truly clean synthetic fuel production a rarity.

Moreover, capturing CO₂—especially directly from the atmosphere—is not a simple or free process. Technologies such as Direct Air Capture (DAC) are still in early stages of development and require significant energy inputs. The infrastructure needed to pull diffuse CO₂ from the atmosphere, compress it, and store or convert it is both energy-intensive and expensive. While capturing CO₂ from point sources like industrial smokestacks is somewhat more efficient, it is still far from the carbon-neutral ideal often promoted in discussions about synthetic fuels.

Another challenge lies in the full lifecycle emissions associated with synthetic hydrocarbons. Even if the fuel itself burns cleanly in a closed carbon loop, the broader system required to produce, transport, store, and utilize that fuel rarely achieves zero emissions. Building and maintaining CO₂ capture facilities, renewable energy infrastructure, transport pipelines, and conversion plants all carry embedded emissions—emissions that are often overlooked in overly optimistic narratives. As a result, while the fuel may appear carbon-neutral in isolation, the entire process frequently yields a net increase in CO₂.

Scalability also remains a serious concern. Producing synthetic hydrocarbons at the scale needed to replace global fossil fuel consumption would require an astronomical expansion of renewable energy infrastructure. Converting electricity into liquid fuel is also highly inefficient compared to direct electrification. For example, using renewable electricity to power electric vehicles is significantly more energy-efficient than producing synthetic gasoline to run internal combustion engines. Therefore, while synthetic fuels may have niche applications—such as in aviation or long-distance shipping where electrification is difficult—they are not a practical or efficient substitute for fossil fuels on a mass scale.

Finally, the promotion of synthetic hydrocarbons as a climate solution can become a form of distraction. When these fuels are framed as a way to continue business as usual, they serve more to delay necessary transitions than to solve climate problems. The opportunity cost is significant: every dollar and kilowatt of renewable energy spent on producing synthetic fuels is a dollar and kilowatt not spent on scaling up already proven, more efficient technologies like wind-powered electricity grids, battery storage, or electric mass transit.

So while synthetic hydrocarbon fuels can be carbon neutral in theory, their real-world production is rarely, if ever, truly zero-emission. They are technologically feasible but energetically costly, logistically complex, and currently impractical as a large-scale replacement for fossil fuels. If used strategically and sparingly in sectors where no better alternatives exist, they may play a supporting role in the global energy transition. But presenting them as a catch-all solution risks reinforcing the illusion that we can avoid fundamental change. True climate solutions lie not in perpetuating the fossil fuel model, but in transforming our energy systems entirely.
 
I was around when we made the switch to unleaded gasoline. You would have thought the world was coming to an end.

The switch from incandecent to LED must absolutely freak them out.
You most certainly overstate the facts.

There was a real concern regarding unleaded gas. many older engines could not handle it and would die fast. Only a very small segment of people resisted LED lighting. The cost vs. tungsten was the only valid concern.
 
No. Just need to keep reality in mind to avoid disappointment.
That reminds me of a quote by Thomas Edison.

Edison's invention factory has hit a dry spell and not much new and innovative had been coming out the pipeline for awhile. A reporter asked Edison "How do you feel about not getting any results lately"

"Results?" responded Edison. "I'll have you know I now know hundreds of things that don't work!"

There are lots of very smart people working on the limitations of EV right now, and they are in fact making progress. They will solve the problems of today and then they will start working on the problems of tomorrow.

All the while there will be people like you, constantly telling us what can't be done.
 
I do have an engineering background. Yes, you can cool those cables so you are not handling 140F temperatures. Uncooled, they get pretty dams hot. The minimum size for a modern completed liquid cooled cable rated for 150 amps is about 1-1/8th inch in diameter. This still ends up being a cable diameter of around 2-3/4 inches for 1,000 amps. More manageable, but still rather heavy per foot.
You do not have an engineering background. BYD's cable and plug are slimmer and lighter than the 350A CCS2 we have here in North America that are bulky but manageable. Nowhere near the 2.75" outer diameter you had a fever dream about. That said, you should continue to stick your head in the sand. A few of these stations are actually open now in China, and there's no shortage of articles and hands on video showing exactly how large the cables are, so the rest of us will stick to reality while you shout at clouds about three inch diameter cables.
 
I was around when we made the switch to unleaded gasoline. You would have thought the world was coming to an end.

The switch from incandecent to LED must absolutely freak them out.
I'm surprised that they're not railing against the automatic crank starter.
 
You most certainly overstate the facts.

There was a real concern regarding unleaded gas. many older engines could not handle it and would die fast. Only a very small segment of people resisted LED lighting. The cost vs. tungsten was the only valid concern.
BS! I can remember when Rush Limbaugh, with an audience of 20 million listeners a week would spend entire days ranting about how LED was was going to be the downfall of America. His audience lapped that shit up.
 
BS! I can remember when Rush Limbaugh, with an audience of 20 million listeners a week would spend entire days ranting about how LED was was going to be the downfall of America. His audience lapped that shit up.
Yup, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michelle Bachmann, Tucker Carlson, even Lord and Planar's Lord and Savior Donald J. Trump railed against LED lights being horrible.

Obviously @Lord of Planar forgot about all of this.
 
I'm sure that's something that's a possibility in the future, and will have a role- and I'm all for it.The idea that man-made hydrocarbon fuels can be 100% carbon neutral is, at first glance, an appealing notion. It suggests that we can continue using familiar fuels—gasoline, diesel, jet fuel—without contributing to climate change, provided we produce them synthetically rather than extracting them from the ground. In theory, this is possible: if carbon dioxide (CO₂) is captured from the atmosphere and used to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels using renewable energy, and those fuels are later burned, then the CO₂ released is simply the same CO₂ that was previously removed. On paper, this creates a closed carbon loop, one in which atmospheric CO₂ levels remain unchanged. However, the leap from theoretical neutrality to real-world implementation is enormous—and often misleading.



Moreover, capturing CO₂—especially directly from the atmosphere—is not a simple or free process. Technologies such as Direct Air Capture (DAC) are still in early stages of development and require significant energy inputs. The infrastructure needed to pull diffuse CO₂ from the atmosphere, compress it, and store or convert it is both energy-intensive and expensive. While capturing CO₂ from point sources like industrial smokestacks is somewhat more efficient, it is still far from the carbon-neutral ideal often promoted in discussions about synthetic fuels.

Another challenge lies in the full lifecycle emissions associated with synthetic hydrocarbons. Even if the fuel itself burns cleanly in a closed carbon loop, the broader system required to produce, transport, store, and utilize that fuel rarely achieves zero emissions. Building and maintaining CO₂ capture facilities, renewable energy infrastructure, transport pipelines, and conversion plants all carry embedded emissions—emissions that are often overlooked in overly optimistic narratives. As a result, while the fuel may appear carbon-neutral in isolation, the entire process frequently yields a net increase in CO₂.

Scalability also remains a serious concern. Producing synthetic hydrocarbons at the scale needed to replace global fossil fuel consumption would require an astronomical expansion of renewable energy infrastructure. Converting electricity into liquid fuel is also highly inefficient compared to direct electrification. For example, using renewable electricity to power electric vehicles is significantly more energy-efficient than producing synthetic gasoline to run internal combustion engines. Therefore, while synthetic fuels may have niche applications—such as in aviation or long-distance shipping where electrification is difficult—they are not a practical or efficient substitute for fossil fuels on a mass scale.

Finally, the promotion of synthetic hydrocarbons as a climate solution can become a form of distraction. When these fuels are framed as a way to continue business as usual, they serve more to delay necessary transitions than to solve climate problems. The opportunity cost is significant: every dollar and kilowatt of renewable energy spent on producing synthetic fuels is a dollar and kilowatt not spent on scaling up already proven, more efficient technologies like wind-powered electricity grids, battery storage, or electric mass transit.

So while synthetic hydrocarbon fuels can be carbon neutral in theory, their real-world production is rarely, if ever, truly zero-emission. They are technologically feasible but energetically costly, logistically complex, and currently impractical as a large-scale replacement for fossil fuels. If used strategically and sparingly in sectors where no better alternatives exist, they may play a supporting role in the global energy transition. But presenting them as a catch-all solution risks reinforcing the illusion that we can avoid fundamental change. True climate solutions lie not in perpetuating the fossil fuel model, but in transforming our energy systems entirely.
The technology is loosely called Power to Liquid and I think the oil companies already have the process worked out
and know what the cost will be. (I think the breakeven is $96 a barrel oil sustained) Only Exxon is talking,
and they started making low carbon jet fuel last year on a unit scale.
From what I have read, most modern cracking refineries could make the fuel, they just need feeds of hydrogen and carbon.
 
The switch from incandecent to LED must absolutely freak them out.
Yes, a handful of fools freaked out over the decline of incandescent bulbs.

They're also absolutely furious about a handful of attempts to phase out gas appliances in residential units... even though most of the MAGAPies live in states that don't even use gas appliances in residences. :rolleyes:
 
That reminds me of a quote by Thomas Edison.

Edison's invention factory has hit a dry spell and not much new and innovative had been coming out the pipeline for awhile. A reporter asked Edison "How do you feel about not getting any results lately"

"Results?" responded Edison. "I'll have you know I now know hundreds of things that don't work!"

There are lots of very smart people working on the limitations of EV right now, and they are in fact making progress. They will solve the problems of today and then they will start working on the problems of tomorrow.

All the while there will be people like you, constantly telling us what can't be done.
My way to solve the charging problem, which I stated years ago, is to use inductive charging. It can be used at supermarkets and other parking lots. park your car, a disk rises out and matched the proper location when you swipe your credit card.

No cables to manipulate. No high power electrodes to corrode, etc.
 
Oh good! That means their work will continue.
Electric cars are better on many levels than IC cars, the problem is how they carry their energy.
My Hybrid truck is an electric vehicle, (only electric motors drive the wheels) but it carries it's energy as gasoline.
I think battery electric car are very close to being viable to a broad spectrum of people,
a doubling of the battery energy density is what I think it would take to push it further.
Something like a 500 mile 500 lb battery.
 
You do not have an engineering background. BYD's cable and plug are slimmer and lighter than the 350A CCS2 we have here in North America that are bulky but manageable. Nowhere near the 2.75" outer diameter you had a fever dream about. That said, you should continue to stick your head in the sand. A few of these stations are actually open now in China, and there's no shortage of articles and hands on video showing exactly how large the cables are, so the rest of us will stick to reality while you shout at clouds about three inch diameter cables.
Lesser standards allow for less safety.

I am still troubled that such high power charging via wire is allowed. The Arc Flash potential is real.
 
BS! I can remember when Rush Limbaugh, with an audience of 20 million listeners a week would spend entire days ranting about how LED was was going to be the downfall of America. His audience lapped that shit up.
I'm sorry you believe such nonsense.
CALLER: Well, what’s happening is the LED traditionally was like you just said; it was an indicator on your stereo system.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: Or a TV or whatever. Now in the last five, six years there’s been a transition in the semiconductor industry where they can make LEDs with high wattage output. Now, we’re talking about one-watt, three-watt, and five-watt LEDs.
RUSH: Cool. Very cool.
CALLER: So they put them in series, and they have 12 of them and they make a 12-watt recessed picture. That puts out quite a bit of light.
RUSH: That’s it. That’s true.
CALLER: So that’s all I wanted to just make sure at least take a look at this. If you want to really look into it more, you can look at the company we work with, LLF, and basically that market’s taking off. It will be in restaurants, hotels, and high-end residential.
RUSH: Let me ask a quick question here, because I’m very sensitive to these kinds of technological advances being thrown into the open market. Will the poor and minorities be able to afford these new lights?
CALLER: No. No.
RUSH: Or is it one of these things where people like me are going to have buy them at exorbitant prices at the outset, in order to bring the price down for the poor?
CALLER: Well, what I see happening is… Your point is correct. What I see happening is that the utilities, as they do with the CFL lights today —

I will bet you were listening to some Rush hater making invalid claims.

 
Yup, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michelle Bachmann, Tucker Carlson, even Lord and Planar's Lord and Savior Donald J. Trump railed against LED lights being horrible.

Obviously @Lord of Planar forgot about all of this.
Sorry, I never heard these Fairy Tails you believe. When LEDS because available, I bought over $400 worth and replaced almost every bulb. I skipped the dryer, refrigerator, and range bulbs, but I replaced even my floodlights outside. I bought enough to share masny with my family so they could decide if they wanted to pay the extra money for them.

Does it somehow make you feel superior to project such nonsense on others?
 
Back
Top Bottom