Electric Suburban / Electric Tahoe / Yukon / Escalade EV

[cardude2000]

Im sure your definition of “American” is the same as mine.

You appear to lean marxist.

Your style of insult definitely shows progressive but I repeat myself.

Facts only insult the ignorant and I certainly applaud progress. Thanks for noticing! [emoji869]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HiHoeSilver]

Facts only insult the ignorant and I certainly applaud progress. Thanks for noticing! [emoji869]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still at it, eh old buddy? You'll be pleased to know that I've purchased a Tesla with my profits from Dogecoin since we last talked...




...And then I woke up from my slumber, which was extra super deep, as I was comfortably nestled in my 15 year old leather recline.....I mean, drivers seat. The upside, of course, is that the vehicle can't drive without me being awake and telling it what to do, so I'm still here. I know you were worried for a while there.

 

[Quark]

So here’s the thing: I read it, word for word, last night.

And rather than comment on any of the points delivered you can only voice your overall dissatisfaction with the tone of the author.

 

[Holy Roller]

And rather than comment on any of the points delivered you can only voice your overall dissatisfaction with the tone of the author.

My dissatisfaction was not with tone. Although there is definitely an air of arrogance about it. As already stated, my dissatisfaction lies in the lack of balance in its content or nuance in its arguments. It is written by a lifetime creature of O&G and is targeted at a specific audience as though it was an authoritative analysis of facts. Something that it clearly is not.

If it made you feel good to read something that confirms your own bias, then perhaps it accomplished the writer’s objective. It did not however move the goal posts any closer on a discussion that is going on everywhere around.

I’m curious if you actually read it, word for word, as I did? And if so, could you please explain why you felt that it was a rebuttal so powerful in your mind that it was worthy of your endorsement in this thread?

 

[Quark]

My dissatisfaction was not with tone. Although there is definitely an air of arrogance about it. As already stated, my dissatisfaction lies in the lack of balance in its content or nuance in its arguments. It is written by a lifetime creature of O&G and is targeted at a specific audience as though it was an authoritative analysis of facts. Something that it clearly is not.

If it made you feel good to read something that confirms your own bias, then perhaps it accomplished the writer’s objective. It did not however move the goal posts any closer on a discussion that is going on everywhere around.

I’m curious if you actually read it, word for word, as I did? And if so, could you please explain why you felt that it was a rebuttal so powerful in your mind that it was worthy of your endorsement in this thread?

You probably won't like this either, it doesn't meet your standard of confirmation bias.

"The IEA stipulates up front one underlying fact that advocates of a transition never mention: Green-energy machines use far more critical minerals than conventional-energy machines do. “A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power plant,” the report says. “Since 2010, the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables has risen.” That was merely to bring wind and solar to a 10% share of the world’s electricity.

As the IEA notes dryly, the transition is a “shift from a fuel-intensive to a material-intensive energy system.” That means a shift away from liquids and gases whose extraction and transport leave a very light footprint on the land and are transported easily, cheaply and efficiently, and toward big-footprint mines, the energy-intensive transport of massive amounts of rocks and other solid materials, and subsequent chemical processing and refining."

"Well buried in the report is a warning about the “high emissions intensities” of ETMs. Energy use per pound mined is even trending up. This is no arcane nuance. It’s the key hidden factor that determines whether, or to what extent, a clean-energy machine actually reduces carbon-dioxide emissions on net. The IEA data show that, depending on the location and nature of future mines, the emissions from obtaining ETMs could wipe out much or most of the emissions saved by driving electric cars."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-not-so-clean-energy-transition-11620752282?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

 

[cardude2000]

You probably won't like this either, it doesn't meet your standard of confirmation bias.

"The IEA stipulates up front one underlying fact that advocates of a transition never mention: Green-energy machines use far more critical minerals than conventional-energy machines do. “A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power plant,” the report says. “Since 2010, the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables has risen.” That was merely to bring wind and solar to a 10% share of the world’s electricity.

As the IEA notes dryly, the transition is a “shift from a fuel-intensive to a material-intensive energy system.” That means a shift away from liquids and gases whose extraction and transport leave a very light footprint on the land and are transported easily, cheaply and efficiently, and toward big-footprint mines, the energy-intensive transport of massive amounts of rocks and other solid materials, and subsequent chemical processing and refining."

"Well buried in the report is a warning about the “high emissions intensities” of ETMs. Energy use per pound mined is even trending up. This is no arcane nuance. It’s the key hidden factor that determines whether, or to what extent, a clean-energy machine actually reduces carbon-dioxide emissions on net. The IEA data show that, depending on the location and nature of future mines, the emissions from obtaining ETMs could wipe out much or most of the emissions saved by driving electric cars."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-not-so-clean-energy-transition-11620752282?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

so your concern around EV’s is around the use of (largely reusable/recyclable) minerals and the impact on the environment?

So this is largely an environmental issue for you?

 

[Quark]

so your concern around EV’s is around the use of (largely reusable/recyclable) minerals and the impact on the environment?

So this is largely an environmental issue for you?

Why is it that none of you proponents care to respond to the subject presented. It's as if you have an agenda and anything that doesn't support that agenda must be avoided. Why else would you try to redirect attention to my concern about the environment, is it your intention to imply that since I'm not in the EV camp I don't care about the environment? Don't even bother to answer that as it is more rhotorical than not. Just respond to the IEA report or don't waste my time. Sorry for being abrupt but I'm more than tired of your ducking and dodging and always ending with, get used to it it's coming anyway, when you come up short.

 

[cardude2000]

Why is it that none of you proponents care to respond to the subject presented. It's as if you have an agenda and anything that doesn't support that agenda must be avoided. Why else would you try to redirect attention to my concern about the environment, is it your intention to imply that since I'm not in the EV camp I don't care about the environment? Don't even bother to answer that as it is more rhotorical than not. Just respond to the IEA report or don't waste my time. Sorry for being abrupt but I'm more than tired of your ducking and dodging and always ending with, get used to it it's coming anyway, when you come up short.

Sigh. More non answers.

Look. You don’t like the inevitable move to electric vehicles. I understand that. Change is hard and it’s always going to be met with resistance. It appears now that you’re throwing any argument against the wall to try and make your feelings about the change seem rational and warranted.

I’ve dodged absolutely nothing in this thread. Ive remained consistent in my thoughts and opinions on the subject.

Here they are again...

I love vehicles of all sorts and electric vehicles, with hybrids as a logical bridge, is really exciting to me. The idea of never having to go to a gas station again and having insane instantaneous torque is thrilling. Additionally, there’s no question in my mind that moving away from a finite non-reusable resource like petroleum (which increasingly require extraction from more costly and environmentally sensitive areas) is a good LONG TERM decision for us to be making.

I’m not sure what type of feedback you’re looking for specific to this report? If you’re asking whether or not mining for largely recyclable minerals changes my mind about EV‘s being the inevitable future of transportation, my answer is no, absolutely not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quark]

Sigh. More non answers.

Look. You don’t like the inevitable move to electric vehicles. I understand that. Change is hard and it’s always going to be met with resistance. It appears now that you’re throwing any argument against the wall to try and make your feelings about the change seem rational and warranted.

I’ve dodged absolutely nothing in this thread. Ive remained consistent in my thoughts and opinions on the subject.

Here they are again...

I love vehicles of all sorts and electric vehicles, with hybrids as a logical bridge, is really exciting to me. The idea of never having to go to a gas station again and having insane instantaneous torque is thrilling. Additionally, there’s no question in my mind that moving away from a finite non-reusable resource like petroleum is a good long-term decision for us to be making.

I’m not sure what type of feedback you’re looking for specific to this report? If you’re asking whether or not mining for largely reliable minerals changes my mind about EV‘s being the inevitable future of transportation, my answer is no, absolutely not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yours is an absolute non answer and a sophomoric attempt at debating. I asked you not to waste my time and you couldn't resist. Have fun, evidently that is your intent as you have evaded every attempt to discuss feasibility of a new technology that is supposed to save the planet and end all wars.

 

[cardude2000]

Yours is an absolute non answer and a sophomoric attempt at debating. I asked you not to waste my time and you couldn't resist. Have fun, evidently that is your intent as you have evaded every attempt to discuss feasibility of a new technology that is supposed to save the planet and end all wars.

Nope. I’ve answered everything you’ve put out there with almost painful specificity. Heck I even specifically responded to the snippet of the report that you pasted and your associated comment. You’re playing a parochial game of gotcha around an entrenched worldview and it hasn’t worked. Beyond that you’re arguing, mostly, against things I never claimed. I’ll comment, again, on two areas I have discussed.

Regarding feasibility:

-currently it takes govt subsidies to make EV’s profitable. I’ve discussed this in much depth.

Regarding wars:

-I believe that most modern long term conflicts are heavily influenced by the need for reliable cheap oil. I’ve discussed this over and over again.

You’re welcome to stomp off and not answer a single question but remember, just linking to a report isnt debating. It’s clear you’re emotional about EV’s and simply looking to rationalize that emotion.