• 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!

EV's (electric vehicles) aren't the best idea right now.

Are Electric Vehicles Really Better for the Climate? Yes ...
https://blog.ucsusa.org › dave-reichmuth › are-electric-...

Feb 11, 2020 — [ Blog ] Union of Concerned Scientists ... To compare the climate-changing emissions from electric vehicles to gasoline-powered cars, we ...

Three Truths About Electric Vehicles - Union of Concerned ...
https://blog.ucsusa.org › dave-reichmuth › three-truths-...

Mar 3, 2021 — EVs offer us a way to have personal mobility with much fewer global warming emissions than gasoline vehicles. It's clear that the emissions from driving on electricity are lower than those from using a gasoline vehicle, even when accounting for electricity generation.
 
Court Jester said:
You don't have one single wrench in the garage do you? I own four vehicles; they all serve different uses.
Click to expand...
I do so.

Helping people move???? Are liberals not familiar with the word "NO"? It's a great word--- try it!
Click to expand...
That's when I was younger. I have no problem saying 'no' now.

And BTW, a pick up truck isn't efficient to use to help a person "move" unless you are helping some college age kid who only owns a bed, tv, and bicycle. Moving requires a moving truck with a hydraulic lift gate for most people. Anyone dumb enough to bother a buddy to help them move household belonging with a pick up truck---- probably requiring 10 trips to do so--- would not be any kind of "friend" I would have anyway. But a good buddy calling me up in the middle of the night to help get rid of a body.... well, then that would be an appropriate request.... talking about a REAL friend.
Click to expand...
I have a crossover now and it's got lots of room in the back for several bodies, easy to load with the hatchback and there's a slide out cover so no one sees who's in there. Or, so I've heard.
 
IMO electric cars would be excellent travel to in town and to work and back including short commutes.
This type of travel is most polluting.

EC travel such as the above would put a big dent in Global Warming/Climate Change
 
Last edited:
Razoo said:
Are Electric Vehicles Really Better for the Climate? Yes ...
https://blog.ucsusa.org › dave-reichmuth › are-electric-...

Feb 11, 2020 — [ Blog ] Union of Concerned Scientists ... To compare the climate-changing emissions from electric vehicles to gasoline-powered cars, we ...
Three Truths About Electric Vehicles - Union of Concerned ...
https://blog.ucsusa.org › dave-reichmuth › three-truths-...

Mar 3, 2021 — EVs offer us a way to have personal mobility with much fewer global warming emissions than gasoline vehicles. It's clear that the emissions from driving on electricity are lower than those from using a gasoline vehicle, even when accounting for electricity generation.
Click to expand...

Cleaner EVs | Union of Concerned Scientists
https://www.ucsusa.org › resources › cleaner-evs
May 4, 2020 — Electric vehicles will be an important part of the US transportation future— especially when charged by a clean electricity grid.

Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave | Union of Concerned ...
https://www.ucsusa.org › resources › cleaner-cars-cradle-g...
Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming ... How Electric Cars Beat ...
Oct 29, 2015 · Uploaded by Union of Concerned Scientists
 
Logical1 said:
In a serious high speed accident EVs and their batteries full of very toxic chemicals become a HASMAT situation.
Click to expand...
Gasoline is not a dangerous and toxic chemical?

The-Main-Causes-Of-A-Car-Fire-Burned-Destroyed-Ruined-Vehicle-Blaze-Flames-Smoke_1.jpg
 
MAGA = Make America Green Always by way of clean energy, more green space, green economic growth, re-use,
small homes , more efficient hybrid vehicles , walking and cycling.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Truck that seats 6 people is not really a truck. It is a car with a ton of excess weight in the back.
Click to expand...
I would not say it seats 6 conformable, but it does seat 6 adults in a pinch.
 
iguanaman said:
Ide feel better about nuclear power if we had a plan to store the nuclear waste. Storing it all on site seems to be tempting fate.
Click to expand...
Granted this is a nuclear power advocacy group, but it includes references to how reprocessing waste has changed in recent decades.

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.
www.world-nuclear.org www.world-nuclear.org
 
mrjurrs said:
Granted this is a nuclear power advocacy group, but it includes references to how reprocessing waste has changed in recent decades.

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.
www.world-nuclear.org www.world-nuclear.org
Click to expand...
So nuclear power without nuclear waste is what they are promising? They need to deal with the fact that nuclear power costs so much if they are going to make a dent. It is by far the most expensive source of power on Earth which is why countries like Germany are abandoning it.

Cheap dreams, expensive realities
In the dawn of the nuclear era, cost was expected to be one of the technology's advantages, not one of its drawbacks. The first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss, predicted in a 1954 speech that nuclear power would someday make electricity “too cheap to meter.”

A half century later, we have learned that nuclear power is, instead, too expensive to finance.

The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-cost
 
Logical1 said:
Try driving clear across country.
Click to expand...
Between battery range, and faster charging, we are a few years away of that not being an issue.
 
iguanaman said:
So nuclear power without nuclear waste is what they are promising? They need to deal with the fact that nuclear power costs so much if they are going to make a dent. It is by far the most expensive source of power on Earth which is why countries like Germany are abandoning it.

Cheap dreams, expensive realities
In the dawn of the nuclear era, cost was expected to be one of the technology's advantages, not one of its drawbacks. The first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss, predicted in a 1954 speech that nuclear power would someday make electricity “too cheap to meter.”

A half century later, we have learned that nuclear power is, instead, too expensive to finance.

The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-cost
Click to expand...
Nope, they are saying that they can reduce the amount of fuel that is unused. By using it more effectively total waste is reduced and while I don't get the technology, apparently moving away from fuel rods also reduces the amount of unusable waste.
 
beefheart said:
Is your masculinity defined by a car? That's sad.
Click to expand...

I don't need to define my masculinity, I am a NORMAL male, my masculinity is obvious to other NORMAL people.

And no, I would not drive a Prius, buy a girls bike, wear Croc shoes, order coffee with whipped cream and sprinkles, have any conceivable use for a yoga mat, or feel the need to call a buddy and have "a good cry" because of something sad I saw on TV that day that made me sad. You may conclude from that whatever you like. Sorry if my brand of normal maleness is a problem for you.
 
Court Jester said:
I don't need to define my masculinity, I am a NORMAL male, my masculinity is obvious to other NORMAL people.

And no, I would not drive a Prius, buy a girls bike, wear Croc shoes, order coffee with whipped cream and sprinkles, have any conceivable use for a yoga mat, or feel the need to call a buddy and have "a good cry" because of something sad I saw on TV that day that made me sad. You may conclude from that whatever you like. Sorry if my brand of normal maleness is a problem for you.
Click to expand...
Look how threatened you are...having to type "normal" twice in CAPPS! :p Its like you need to prove something to others, but others really don't give a shit.

I own a Prius (charcoal grey with all the fun add ons), its fantastic. I've had it for 3 years, never broke down, I get 55-65 mpg. I owe nothing on it. I am looking at the plug in Prius which runs off battery, then goes to hybrid. . I have a hitch so we can take our bikes anywhere.

And, I own my house, completely, paid off mortgage, and my GF and I have been in a fantastic relationship for a long time. I don't have any need for a truck, and if I do, I can afford to rent one, no big deal.

There is so much fear in your posts, is your masculinity and ego that tenuous that you have to keep convincing yourself that material goods is what makes you manly? Are you that weak?

You want to be a real man? Treat women as equals, and do good things for others.
 
mrjurrs said:
Nope, they are saying that they can reduce the amount of fuel that is unused. By using it more effectively total waste is reduced and while I don't get the technology, apparently moving away from fuel rods also reduces the amount of unusable waste.
Click to expand...
That does not deal with the 1000's of spent fuel rods stored at reactors around the country or the inherent high expense of nuclear energy. When building one plant costs $9 Billion or more it is hard to pay that back without exorbitant electric rates. The best thing about it is that it makes solar and wind power seem cheap by comparison.
 
longview said:
And quite a few of us may do 300+ mile days one or twice a month, do we have to have a second car, just for those occasions?
Click to expand...

Not only that, but consider this scenario: Something happens and you need to 'bug out' with your family and head to another location. Could be due to natural disaster, or civil unrest. For those of us with a pickup or large SUV (truck based not some crossover crap), and one with an extra fuel tank....or able to carry a few extra fuel containers--- what is our RANGE compared to someone with some electric toy vehicle? Then consider that electric power may not be available, or in the case of gas/diesel, stations may not have power to run the pumps---or just long crazy lines, and then who is in the better position?

Maybe not something many people think about, not all travel may always be short drives to and from work, or taking the kids to play laser tag. Having a range of 1000 miles can get a long way out of town without needing to refuel. Or get you 500 miles out of hostile territory and not being on empty when you get there.
 
longview said:
Assuming you plan your route where there is a fast charging station, and you are willing to give up that extra hour,
because of your choice of vehicle.
Click to expand...
So you don't need to eat? Are you a robot? What about your batteries? :)
Oh and soon you won't have a "choice" either and you will need to plan you route to find a gas station if you keep running that dinosaur.
Even Shanghai Motors will stop making IC cars...

General Motors Says It Will Stop Making Gas-Powered Vehicles by 2035

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/general-motors-gm-zero-emission-gas-powered-vehicles.html#:~:text=General Motors Says It Will Stop Making Gas-Powered Vehicles by 2035&text=General Motors announced Thursday that,for producing gas-guzzling SUVs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom