SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Save?
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1770283933

Message started by zevenenergie on 02/05/26 at 01:32:13

Title: Save?
Post by zevenenergie on 02/05/26 at 01:32:13

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aE-TokVXd2M (Its a short)

The mandatory energy transition, which environmental activists consider a good thing, is not without its problems, such as serious environmental issues related to resource extraction, unaffordability for low-income earners, serious capacity issues with the electrical grid, fire hazards, ridiculous operating ranges, and long charging times.

Now, the safety issues associated with accidents have also been added.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aE-TokVXd2M (Its a short)
They nearly died, but they saved the planet with that electric car.

Are we sure we are on the right track?

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Needles on 02/05/26 at 14:40:25

We are absolutely on the right track. The environmental extraction issues are more along the lines of requiring the mining industry to put things back like they were--- the "industry" doesn't want to clean up. China and Mexico have apparently addressed the low income worker problems with EVs--- don't put all the unnecessary high tech in there, and EVs can be sold new for less than half the cost of a gas burner. The EV loads on the grid are wildly exaggerated--- look at AI data centers to see some REAL grid loads. Fire hazards? EVs are far, far less likely to catch fire than internal combustion engines. (Fun fact: Take the Teslas out of the mix and EV fires are almost non-existent.) What ranges are ridiculous? 400 miles on a charge is easily doable, plus newer batteries can recharge in a matter of minutes. Electronics development moves FAST--- you're complaining about how things were 15 years ago, not now.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Eegore on 02/05/26 at 15:12:02

400 miles on a charge is easily doable, plus newer batteries can recharge in a matter of minutes.

I'd be interested in seeing information on a newer battery that can charge in a few minutes and then propel a vehicle 400 miles.

For clarification my interpretation of "a few minutes" is under 10. Also I think (this implies opinion) it is important the chargers be available to the consumer for an assessment like this so a level 3 charger - charging a vehicle up to 400 miles of range, in a few minutes.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Needles on 02/06/26 at 09:09:20

Rivian, Mercedes, even Cadillac EVs can go over 400 miles on a charge. Your argument about Level 3 chargers is specious and out of date--- do you fill up your gas tank at home, or go to a gas station? I'm in a rural town of maybe 8000, and there are at least 3 fast charging stations in town, and several businesses have level 2 hookups for their customers' use.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Eegore on 02/06/26 at 09:31:33

Rivian, Mercedes, even Cadillac EVs can go over 400 miles on a charge.

Agreed. None of them can charge in a matter of minutes. Unless we want to dodge the issue by saying any battery can technically charge in minutes which is true. All rechargeable batteries can "charge" in a matter of minutes, but can they charge from let's say 20 miles left to 400 miles left?

No. Not one can even get close to charging a 400 mile battery in minutes.

Your argument about Level 3 chargers is specious and out of date--- do you fill up your gas tank at home, or go to a gas station? I'm in a rural town of maybe 8000, and there are at least 3 fast charging stations in town, and several businesses have level 2 hookups for their customers' use.

I never said they were not available. I meant it is important that if one claims a battery can be charged to go 400 miles, in "a matter of minutes", that specific charger type should be available to the public. For instance if a charger at a research facility in Sweden can supercharge a specialty battery in minutes, that means nothing to consumers.

The chargers available today can not charge a battery from near empty to 400 miles of charge in "a matter of minutes". A level 2 would take 8-15 hours, so they should not even be considered.

And yes I do fill my fuel tanks at home.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by zevenenergie on 02/06/26 at 09:56:35

I don't know about you, but when I get in my car, I average 400 km.

The stated figures are often inaccurate. In realistic driving conditions, cars often achieve 20–30% less.
Charging to 100% takes a very long time, and 80% is what people generally do when they're on the road.
And then you have to hope you don't have to be plugged in for 15 hours because there aren't enough fast-charging stations.
Charging at home takes 15–20 hours.

For a 1,400 km trip, which I also drive regularly, you have to charge four times.
In the Netherlands, which is 200 km wide, there are quite a few charging stations, but not enough. But as you drive towards Germany and beyond, you'll encounter fewer and fewer chargers, and you don't want to wait a long time for your turn.

Gasoline cars also burn, but the fuel tank has been perfected over the years, and it's rare for a car to catch fire in an accident.

And EVs don't just catch fire at the slightest provocation; you can only extinguish them by immersing them in a container of water.

Here in Europe, electric driving is becoming mandatory.
But why make it mandatory? Why not just let people choose?
If it proves itself, everyone will want it.

It,s Mandatory becourse it is not feasible. :P

Title: Re: Save?
Post by WebsterMark on 02/06/26 at 10:06:49

It would be great if EV were as viable an option as gas cars but they are not for a large portion of the automobile market.

And by viable, don’t tell me I can drive across the country in an EV if I just plan ahead because that’s not viable. Don’t tell me I can use an electric car 75% of the time and rent a car for long trips. I don’t wanna do that. That’s not viable.

Saw this earlier today:

The massive bill for the Big Three's EV pivot has come due to the tune of $52.1 billion.

Following Stellantis's (STLA) filing on Friday morning reporting a $26 billion charge from its latest EV strategy change, the cumulative bill, including General Motors' (GM) $6.6 billion hit and Ford's (F) $19.5 billion write-off, has the Detroit automakers vaporizing $52.1 billion from their EV bets.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by zevenenergie on 02/06/26 at 10:11:51

The same thing happened here in Europe. The entire German car industry is practically dead and dependent on government support.

The only one profiting from this is China. You could almost say that this madness is being encouraged by them.

Guys, we could go back to the truth topic and discuss further there?
I feel like we're not done there yet.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by zevenenergie on 02/06/26 at 11:51:00

Guys?

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Needles on 02/06/26 at 13:09:52

Title: Re: Save?
Post by zevenenergie on 02/06/26 at 14:10:38

The best cars do about 500 km, says the manufacturer, so you subtract 25% of that. That makes 375 km.
Then subtract 80%, which is 300 km.
After four years, you still have 85% of the battery life remaining, so that's 255 km or 159.4 miles.
So you can drive a maximum of 80 miles there and back without recharging.

That car would cost you about 50,000 euros.

I don't know who that's practical for, but it's not for me.
Moreover, electricity has become expensive, so the days when you could charge your car for 50 cents are over.

The major environmental savings should come from natural power sources, but in Europe, that's not working, and fossil fuels are still being used. And the future looks far from bright in that regard.

And on top of that, those fuels are now in short supply because of the war in Ukraine, and we are forced by America to import fuel from America sailed here with with large oil tankers. :P

China is blackmailing us with raw materials for batteries and magnets for EVs, so we're forced to open mines in places where Europe's last remaining natural areas are. (Not very good for the environment.)

Australia is going to do the same. (Also very bad for the environment.)

So I'm curious where exactly the environment is being spared? :-/

If all countries, all governments, and all people decided to end all wars, all political conflicts, and work together,
then it has a chance of success.

But for that, we have to sacrifice our egos.

So that's why we need to return to the topic of truth.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Needles on 02/06/26 at 14:54:22

The truth is the US is backsliding under MAGAT leadership. Letting criminals run the country was a terrible idea. The USA will not turn around under Trumpedo.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by WebsterMark on 02/06/26 at 15:34:52

485744575C575C5740555B57320 wrote:

Throw in cold temperatures and guess how much performance drops.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Eegore on 02/06/26 at 15:35:12

Splitting nonlogical hairs again. A 400 mile battery can charge to 80% in 30 minutes on a fast charger. That would be 320 miles--- about what you get from a non electric. As long as we're splitting hairs, don't come back with any sh1t about 30 minutes being too long--- you said MINUTES, not how many there could be.

You said "minutes".

Specifically "a few minutes" directly in relation to a battery that propels a vehicle 400miles. I clearly defined my personal interpretation of "a few minutes" to be under 10. If I charged "a few dollars" for something I do not expect it to be multiples of 10. If I was asked for "a few minutes" of my time, I do no expect a half hour of my day to be spent there.

Using the phrase "a few minutes" is a manipulative statement that attempts to equate electric charging times with gasoline fueling times by avoiding actual data and real time and space. Nobody is going to spend a half hour at a gas station and tell you it takes "a few minutes" to fuel up a vehicle.

Simple fix, all you have to say is "a few minutes" to you, is 30 minutes or less. People can almost charge a 400 mile battery in 30 minutes. That is at least an honest comparison, but honesty has never been your thing.

This post is an opinion.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Eegore on 02/06/26 at 15:42:57

Throw in cold temperatures and guess how much performance drops.

Yeah but if we make equal comparisons under real life scenarios we can't claim EV's are equal to combustion engines.

EV's certainly have their place, but they can't replace the combustion engine at this time in my opinion. At least the local EV dealer is honest, in my opinion, about the importance of a home charger. Given Colorado's mountains and weather, EV's take a huge hit in the winter.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by MnSpring on 02/06/26 at 16:56:38

072C2C2D252C3A490 wrote:

"... A 400 mile battery can charge to 80% in 30 minutes on a fast charger. ..."

NOPE !

Tell us which battery charger,
can do a 400 mile battery,
to 80% in 1/2 hour.

Tell us how many their are ?????
Tell us where they are ?????

(Or you just crying WOLF. AGAIN)

If I had a day job which was 30/80 miles round trip.
You bet, a only electric car, then plug it in at home, slow charge.

But drive 400 miles, when the goal is 1600 miles, (MN to AZ)
And have to STOP every 400 miles, and charge for 5 to 10 HOURS.

Long range electric only,
not even remotely close.

Hybrid, (the ones that can run on gas also) are better.
Yet still a long way to go.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by WebsterMark on 02/07/26 at 02:42:18

The bottom line for EV in the foreseeable future is the demand is small. Maybe too small for companies to invest R&D. My company invested time and money marketing our products to the EV battery plant construction field but we pulled back significant amounts. The demand just isn’t there.

My daughter has a all electric mini Cooper, and it is one of the funnest vehicles I’ve ever driven. She lives in Denver and commutes a total of 6 miles back-and-forth to work. That’s it. Even in the coldest temperatures, it’s not a problem. It’s perfect for her, but they have a gas vehicle for long rides.

My household COULD do that. We don’t need a new car right now, but if we did, we could have one electric vehicle along my truck. That would work for us. If I wanted it to, but I don’t. I would rather have the distance capabilities and mass infrastructure for fuel and repair that standard combustion cars delivers.

And that sums it up. I represent the majority of car buyers

I’ve never ridden an electric motorcycle, but people who have, say they’re amazing. If you can afford $10,000 for a motorcycle that has a range of about 50 miles.

EV is on the back burner until something forces it off.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Needles on 02/07/26 at 05:57:29

https://chargingtimecalculator.com/guide/ev-charging-time-comparison

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/fastest-charging-electric-cars?onepage

Y'all have old information. Try to keep up. And, BTW, nearly ALL commercial charging stations are Tesla type DC chargers.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Needles on 02/07/26 at 06:20:18

BTW, the SAVE Act is just another scam. It would require you to have a passport to vote. Most people don't have a passport, and the $165 fee means it's buying voter status. Illegal AF in the US. The Feds are strictly forbidden to be involved with the way the states run elections. Period.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Eegore on 02/07/26 at 07:31:29

Y'all have old information. Try to keep up. And, BTW, nearly ALL commercial charging stations are Tesla type DC chargers.

No that information is exactly what we are talking about.

I've never spent anything close to 18 minutes fueling a vehicle, and that's under "optimal conditions" which isn't a thing for standard fuel. Also due to minimal infrastructure, there are often wait times when there is a line.

There's a place for EV, I own them, but they can not even get close to replacing combustion engines at this time. They certainly take more than "a few minutes" to recharge.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by zevenenergie on 02/07/26 at 13:04:49

4A616160686177040 wrote:

This a photo from your link:
http://https://i.imgur.com/G8MaUKq.png

Are you shure your a sosialist?

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Needles on 02/07/26 at 13:28:03

I posted that because self-appointed 'experts' said they didn't exist. If you're complaining about the price tag, look at Korean or Chinese EVs. Oh, and that car was only $52,000 before the Trumpedo tariffs. ( ;)) As far as charging taking longer than fueling, that wouldn't be a deal killer for me. Plus, how long does it take to get your oil changed? Fuel injectors cleaned? Air and oil filters? All that takes time and money. At any rate, EVs CAN be your only vehicle nowadays. It just depends on which set of cons you want to put up with.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Save?
Post by MnSpring on 02/07/26 at 17:35:31

517A7A7B737A6C1F0 wrote:

"...charging taking longer than fueling, that wouldn't be a deal killer for me...."

So, let's say you want to take a trip to MN, to help all your Rock in snowball throwing, damaging cars, spitting/shoving people, blocking traffic, and so many more destructive Anti American, SOCIALISTIC endeavors.

Gas trip, about +/- 18 hours
EV trip, about +/- 37 hours
(If you can find a charge station,
and NOT have to wait to use it)

But Hey,
Go For It !

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Eegore on 02/07/26 at 21:25:26

Plus, how long does it take to get your oil changed? Fuel injectors cleaned? Air and oil filters? All that takes time and money.

Substantially less time annually than charging an EV in my opinion. Very few humans have a lvl 3 charger at their home, which is reasonable. Let's really lowball it and say the average EV charges only 5 days a week at a home, for 5 hours. No weekend usage.

That's 1,300 hours of charging annually.

If my general vehicle maintenance reaches over 1000 hours annually I will gladly accept routine maintenance as a reason to stop using combustion engine vehicles. All my vehicles combined don't have that many man-hours of scheduled maintenance.

There are no 400 mile EV's that can charge in "a few minutes" at this time.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by MnSpring on 02/08/26 at 06:20:10

6D4646474F4650230 wrote:

"... the SAVE Act is just another scam. It would require you to have a passport to vote...."

Again, CRYING WOLF.

"... documentary proof of citizenship, ...
or birth certificate ..."

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Needles on 02/08/26 at 14:34:40

Who dafuk walks around with those documents in their pockets? And, in the country where you've never had to show "papers"? You MAGATs are such hypocrites! Oh, and your leader is a criminal pedophile.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Eegore on 02/08/26 at 14:53:26

Who dafuk walks around with those documents in their pockets?

Illogical argument in my opinion.

I would if it were required for me to do something, like vote, when I go to... vote. Do you carry a driver's license 100% of the time? Do you have it on you when you sleep at night? Or do you have it with you when you are doing something that requires you have it by law?

I carry my birth certificate to locations that require it for me to get a job. It makes zero sense to carry it all the time. No law is presented that requires we carry proof of citizenship all the time.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by zevenenergie on 02/10/26 at 00:19:53

705B5B5A525B4D3E0 wrote:

So far, no evidence has been found against Trump. He is mentioned, but it concerns social contacts with Epstein. I'm not naive, and I'm following the developments. There are indications that incriminate many powerful people. Just look at Bill Cates and the Clintons, who now have to answer for their actions.

A few threads ago, you firmly claimed not to be a pedophile, but we all know by now that you have no problem lying.
Do you see how easy it is to smear someone?

You can say anything here without repercussions, but no one wants to make your life miserable.
It's different with Trump, and yet they haven't managed to bring him down with the Epstein files.

I'm sure Trump is now largely aware of everything Epstein was involved in. And I realize the cesspool really stinks. But I think Trump was well aware of his role and the culture of blackmail, and he probably drawn a line for himself.
But perhaps that's naive. I'm convinced that time will tell.

Title: Re: Save?
Post by Needles on 02/10/26 at 06:31:17

Trumpedo's minions don't ADMIT they've found any evidence. That's different from being exonerated. Trumpedo is a lying criminal pedophile, and is all over the files. He was likely behind a lot of the illegal sh1t.
He has laundered money, committed fraud, and sex crimes. He's going down unless he dies first.

8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

Title: Re: Save?
Post by zevenenergie on 02/10/26 at 13:47:58

Nope...
Trump will go down in history as the best president America ever had.