One big thing I think so-called green movement people don't seem to grasp is that truly the rest of us for the most part don't want to destroy the planet, destroy life, etc. We simply suspect that some of the things pushed are based upon politics and manipulating emotions and do not actually achieve the goals the green movement claims to be aiming for. In many cases if you truly think about such things and dig deep you start to see some other possible goals that they seem to satisfy much more accurately.
I'm going to get something out of the way before I continue so my bad anti-green person image someone might use to justify stopping reading as their mental spam filters engage can perhaps be stopped before it happens. (ugh that run on sentence sucks)
My mother and father were hippies. I was raised to love nature. I was heavily involved in my youth and early college days on Earth Day as those movements began. I listened to many studies on many different types of pollution, as well as solutions people proposed to them. This involved plastics, fossil fuels, strip mining, electro magnetic radiation as pollution, etc. I also was a dual major at the time in Physics and Music. Yes, I love the scientific method. It is a wonderful tool. I recognize it as the TOOL that it is (not a religion, not dogma). It is a set of steps people can use to try to find explanations for how and why things happen without their own biases and assumptions steering them off into an inaccurate direction. It is about being open and providing sufficient data and instructions so other people can attempt to replicate, improve upon, OR challenge your findings. If someone challenges your findings and their challenge cannot be answered then it becomes a hint to guide someone into seeking a better model, or perhaps it will lead to a better answer. It becomes very clear that asking questions and challenging things in actual science is not only a good thing, it is critical for it to properly function. If you cannot question something then it is not science. It may have begun there but once you can no longer question things and you must blindly "believe" it then it has been dragged out of the realm of science and into the realm of dogma. A lot of people calling themselves scientists these days are firmly within the camp of dogma. I and others often refer to what these people practice as Scientism.
It should be noted that in the tool that is the scientific method there is no step that references the number of people believing a thing to be true. This is known as consensus. Consensus is irrelevant. If every person on the planet is using a model and it is the best one they have and a single person says "Hey, something is not right, what about this?" then what everyone else "believes" is irrelevant in true science. If that persons question cannot be explained away then in science they can actually be correct while everyone else is wrong. In statistics it might be highly probable they are wrong but not certain. That is statistics. Not science.
- I tend to write in stream of consciousness format. It is a journey. I get a seed of an idea and I start writing. This can cause me to get side tracked. The side journeys are sometimes I think interesting but I am aware sometimes I don't balance it correctly and they can distract from what I wanted to talk about. I hope that is not the case here. I shall continue...
Electric Vehicles...
The concept of electric vehicles is a great one. It has potential to be the thing that people that support EVs think it is. The problem is that what we have now is not GOOD. Sure it looks cool, it drives fast, and you can virtue signal that it isn't "Fossil Fuels". Yet the tech we have now should NOT be mass produced and deployed. It is actually far more destructive to the environment than the internal combustion vehicles it is replacing. People are so busy virtue signaling and saying "We need to save the planet" that they give in to the cognitive dissonance that occurs when someone points out a negative about our current EV tech. They shrug it off and say "Shut up, we are saving the planet, you are a denier!" which is straight out of Scientism.
I will tell you now that the current wave of EVs is highly destructive not only to the planet, but also to your freedoms. I will talk about the planet aspect first, but I really think you need to be aware of the freedom aspects as well. I also want it known I do think we need EVs to be ubiquitous in the future just not based upon our current tech. I will tell you now that when our EVs no longer are reliant upon batteries that we may be in a position to mass deploy them. That all depends upon how destructive the manufacturing process ends up being.
What goes into making the current crop of Electric Vehicles is vastly more destructive to the environment than internal combustion. It isn't just the batteries but that is where the bulk of the problem lies. The batteries require a ton of rare earth non-renewable (did you catch that bit?) resources. Places that mine these resources usually do so with vast pits pulling out massive amounts of dirt and ore in order to produce a small amount of the needed materials. If you think about your battery in your car so nice and compact and how great you feel when you drive it and then you flip that to a vision of a world with massive pits pock marked here and there to extract these metals you might start to have a sliver of doubt. Now think about this... How did they dig all of that up? They certainly didn't use Electric Vehicles to do so. They used a ton of internal combustion machinery to dig that up. Then they used internal combustion to transport it, and they often keep internal combustion generators on stand by at the charging stations. In the long run your EV is more destructive to the environment that many of you virtue signal about protecting than the internal combustion engines.
(In that photo do you see those tiny trucks hauling material? They are actually massive. Think about that in terms of scale. There is a car between the bottom most truck and the one behind it and that car actually looks like a pickup truck but it is small and difficult to tell for sure from this photo.)
Yet if the goal is to sell these for profit it is convenient to spin narratives, marketing, and propaganda to turn you into a zealot who attacks any naysayers with near religious fervor.
Now you may have noticed I didn't cite any specific articles, or proofs to my mental wanderings so far. I have not done that because that will again distract from the message. If you truly want to see if I am possibly onto something with all of this then the best journey you can make is to look for yourself. I will link some sites at the end of this article that could begin a journey but will likely contain far more information than just Electric Vehicles. If when you get to the end of this article the sites are not there then I likely will be adding them to an edit that will appear shortly.
Now that isn't the only problem with Electric Vehicles based upon current tech.
Freedom
One thing I read years ago before the world had gone completely to crap as it has done in the past decade was about steps that tyrants and dictators historically take to overthrow a government and usher in their dictatorship, empire, etc.
Many of you likely encountered similar information. It had things like disarming the populace. Yet one thing it also had in there was controlling and limiting the movement of people. Right now if you know these steps you likely realize that those steps have been falling like dominoes not just in a single country but globally and it is very much looking like our would be dictators and oligarchs do not have warm, fuzzy, and beautiful plans for the rest of us. They also don't actually seem to care about protecting the planet though that is often their narrative. That narrative helps them to recruit zealots to fight for them.
With the current tech of electric vehicles they only hold so much charge. In fact if you happen to have a very nice design you might be able to make it 300 miles on a charge. Yet if you do that you will also have discharged your battery too low which decreases the life of your battery (you'll need another one eventually which will translate to another pit or pockmark on the Earth). To charge it you need to get to a charging station, or worst case an electrical outlet.
If you know EVs you know that all charging takes time. Some charging takes way longer than others. One thing is certain ALL charging takes far longer than stopping to refill your internal combustion engine tank. At a fast charging station you likely are going to be there for a full charge for at least a half hour, though probably longer. I know that in some situations where you must use an electrical outlet it could take 20+ hours to charge.
Now imagine this. You need to drive somewhere that is 600 miles away. Let's do some of those old math problems that people love to hate.
600 miles to travel.
Average speed 60 Miles Per Hour.
If we didn't have to stop we could cover that distance in 10 hours at that speed.
For the sake of this explanation let's say that the internal combustion engine can get 300 miles on it's tank so it will have the same effective range as the EV.
Internal Combustion Car stops... fills up in 5 minutes (or less) and resumes traveling. That is 10 hours and 5 minutes travel time.
Electric vehicle car stops... depending upon charger charges up in 30 minutes to 20 hours. That is anywhere from 10 hours and 30 minutes to 30 hours.
That is also discharging the battery more than is recommended if you want to keep your battery in good shape.
In reality to protect your battery you'd probably end up stopping 3 or 4 times to charge.
One of the big things about the modern world is how rapidly we travel. That can make it more difficult for would be RULERS to contain us.
The current tech behind EVs makes it far easier to contain us.
Also another thing about these EVs and those charges. If the weather is colder that distance that charge will cover is greatly reduced and it also take longer to charge them. The charge is greatly reduced depending upon load as well. If you have a nice EV Truck that can get 200 miles on a charge and you load up the truck bed you may find that it only can make it 100 miles or LESS.
Tech
The concept of EVs is not bad. It is just shackled to battery technology that is highly destructive to the environment and also quite dangerous in terms of thermal runaway potential. If we could get fusion working, or something else that could continuously generate electricity then we wouldn't need to be tied to this battery tech. It actually might be "renewable" as this current crop of EVs is far less renewable than internal combustion engines due to the nature of the batteries and what materials are required for them.
You could also use other forms of energy generation tied to an electric drive chain if need be. The problem with electric vehicles at the moment is primarily in the batteries.
There are also some very dangerous lies that are pushing us towards embracing this incarnation of the tech, as well as many other so-called "renewables" that actually are worse for the environment but the priests of Scientism are making sure they have zealots ready to slap down anyone that tries to question such things.
Emissions
The big push as someone who loves science that I personally despise in the current scientism narrative that is actually controlling much of the world right now is the attack on Carbon Dioxide. Attacking carbon dioxide is like getting people to build their own noose strand by strand to hang themselves with.
First. The planet historically has had far higher levels of carbon dioxide than it does now. We are at one of the lower periods.
Second. The correlation of carbon dioxide to global warming is actually quite small. The amount related to humans (aka anthropogenic) is also small.
Third, and most importantly. It is required for plants to live, and by extension US.
If you reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere you reduce the amount of a critical component needed for plants to grow. By extension you reduce the amount of Oxygen they generate. This is why many greenhouses actually pump extra CO2 in to improve plant growth.
When we have more CO2 we have more plants. We end up with a greener world. What color do you think the world would be if there is insufficient CO2 to maintain good plant life?
The primary driver for Climate Change is not Man, and it is not CO2. It is the sun. What we see happening on our planet correlates far more directly and accurately with observations of behavior of the sun. The number of sun spots, the number of solar events, etc.
Can humans have an impact? Sure. Cities can be pretty warm due to all the black top, pavement, concrete, etc. that absorbs massive amounts of solar energy and releases it later. Making black surfaces is one of the earliest solar energy technologies.
IF you happened to put a lot of your planetary temperature monitoring stations in such places what do you think you might observe? Perhaps massive temperature increases? Yet you have the sensors near black top, and other essentially solar thermal radiative batteries. It is not reflective of the entire planet.
Historically before mankind was here and while we were here there have been events that lead to massive climate change. That had nothing to do with us. Yet it happened. We need to realize that as we live on this planet as a species the likelihood of something like that eventually occurring again increases statistically speaking. That isn't due to man. That is due to reality.
When that comes are the Scientism Priests going to blame it upon man and climate change? It is what they do now with what we in the past simply called weather. They will blame anything negative on climate change these days even things that have nothing to do with climate. It is about fear and control. They've created the zealots who have this raging fire of fear in their minds and the priests of Scientism keep throwing fuel on the fire to keep the people afraid. When we are afraid we often don't think as clearly, we get tunnel vision trying to flee that which we fear, and we are easy to control/manipulate.
I am as interested in protecting the Earth as anyone. That is not what the green movement is doing. They are using fear to guide you into tunnel vision, and then they are telling you that things they want to happen will be the solution so you embrace things they want you to embrace whether they end up being good or bad.
Most of what you are hearing from politicians, legacy media, big tech, and celebrities these days are incorrect. They are quite dangerous to the planet, and to our freedoms. It is about control.
How can you fight this? Don't be a zealot. Think for yourself. Don't blindly follow "experts" without looking into their claims. Pay attention. If you see something that makes you feel uncomfortable don't ignore it, try to find out why you feel that way and what it means.
Speak to zealots and help free their minds from the shackles of the would-be dictators.
EDIT: I'll add some sites here after I have published this.
Watts Up With That? The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not “Green”
“Rare Earths,” Electrification Mandates, and Energy Security (Part I)
“Rare Earths,” Electrification Mandates, and Energy Security (Part II)
The Best Video On Climate Change That You Will Ever See
Man plugs in electric truck, learns it will take a week to charge
Reveal spoiler
The premise of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" was that well organized political forces squashed attempts to develop alternative automotive technologies in the twentieth century to create a single-source economy controlled by big oil and big business.
I support the development of EVs. I even signed up to buy an Aptera.
However, I can't help but notice that the political system pushing the EV is of the same form as the political structure which squashed technological development last century.
What is going to happen is that in 50 years there will be a huge political backlash that points at all of the pollution created by the current EV craze.
This future movement will be run by the same political clowns that killed the electric car and that is seeking to end the combustion engine today.
The best path forward is one in which society develops a diversity of technologies.
!WINE
AKA - Free Market without governments and control dictating technologies.
Congratulations, @irivers You Successfully Shared 0.100 WINEX With @dwinblood.
You Earned 0.100 WINEX As Curation Reward.
You Utilized 1/1 Successful Calls.
Contact Us : WINEX Token Discord Channel
WINEX Current Market Price : 0.150
Swap Your Hive <=> Swap.Hive With Industry Lowest Fee (0.1%) : Click This Link
Read Latest Updates Or Contact Us
If we were actually concerned about the planet, there wouldn't be any EVs.
But, we aren't looking at the actual pros and cons
It is, as you said, "Oil bad, EV save the planet."
So much of the materials used for batteries is mined by hand in 3rd world countries.
Destroying the planet and bunch of people who do rock breaking work for tiny amounts of rice.
The thing about ICEs is they can be made to run by themselves. Don't need electronics. No external control.
But, TPTshouldn'tB want control, and EVs and self driving give that to them.
If you forget to pay a bill, your EV doesn't go.
If you are wanted for questioning, your EV drives you to the police station.
And this technology seems to be creeping into all cars.
To me, it looks like we, the little people, are going to have to make our own electric vehicles with technology that is being ignored and/or squashed. A group of people who make parts, and other people that assemble the far simpler car. (or build it yourself)
Back in the 70s we experimented with turbine engines in cars. Turbines are far more efficient, but they do not really have variable speeds and torques (can't just apply more gas). However, we could build a hybrid with a turbine for power, super-caps for short term electric storage, and electric motors at the wheels.
A Tesla Turbine, at 10 HP per pound would be a great turbine to use. Very easy to make and fix by any machinist. And it is very small for its power. Hook it to a genset, and we could have a far more efficient car.
I should actually add there are two kinds of EVs that do make sense.
Short range hauling vehicles. Big enough to carry nickel-iron batteries. And are parked in industrial parks with large amperage 3 phase power.
electric bicycles. If we all really cared about the environment, we would get rid of the cars, and all get electric bicycles.
If the advances in fusion pan out then EVs of many types might become viable. Also depending upon conspiracy theories there could be repressed tech that would make them viable. As long as the "elite" cannot monetize it to their advantage though they tend to repress such things.
I personally would be fine with bicycles other than most of the time I am driving it is to haul things from one place, back to my house. I can't haul that much on my bicycle. I could make more trips though and at least do SOME of it. Anything big though and I'd be out of luck.
The population would be a lot healthier if we were using bicycles too as long as they haven't taken any of these mRNA injections.
Haha... Bicycles for personal transportation, horse an buggy for hauling.
Great info, and reply. You of course are just giving some examples that scratch the surface. There quite a number of alternatives to what the world is pushing for.
Yep, just scratch the surface.
The KNOWN tech we are ignoring is monstrous. Just go read through 70s Hot Rod Magazines.
It is amazing how much we forgot.
And we were all supposed to have flying cars by now.
(which is actually quite easy, but "Science" has decided to ignore that technology exists because 'gravity')
For me the issue is simpler, at least for the moment. Electric cars are still too expensive. If you are looking to buy a luxury car then something like a Tesla will fit right into your budget. If you are looking for a small, inexpensive car, electric just can't (or isn't) competing yet on price. At least in the U.S. I hear there are some cheap electric cars in China.
Cost can be in more than money. If it is actually more destructive to the environment to produce that removes the "Saving the planet" advantage. If it cannot travel as far and is very inconvenient to charge? That removes another. If it can't actually haul loads far at all for vehicles you purchased for that purpose then that is another failure.
From what I can see all of these problems are tied to the battery tech. It is also not remotely renewable. We have renewables we can use in some internal combustion engines, but the things required by these batteries are far from renewable.
Still, I can't buy something I can't afford.
Yep. If the price of electricity keeps going up too due to their policies then if you can buy one you still might not be able to afford to drive it. 😜
I don't see EVs truly viable until we have a power source that doesn't require a battery. Perhaps if they came up with batteries made from renewables that didn't destroy the surface of the planet to extract them it might be viable. It depends upon how much energy and material is required to produce them. If it is more than just going with internal combustion engine then that is what we call a CON.
I guess it depends on where battery technology goes. I don't think we are necessarily stuck with Lithium forever. Solid state batteries seem to be on the horizon which are potentially better in a number of ways and use different materials. I'm not sure of the environmental impact though. But yes, trying to force everyone to a new technology that really isn't ready is bound to have bad results. That's happening across the board with supposed "green" energy.
Yep. That's the biggest problem as far as I am concerned with "green".
It isn't really green.