Thank you for proving my point.
" Electric is the future of the car but, before this technology can establish itself on a large scale, there are still some small knots to be solved. One of these is related to battery life and charging times, which may soon no longer be a problem thanks to the new **[graphene battery]
MAY…MAY… MAY!
(https://www.smartgreenpost.com/2019/05/26/graphene-battery-it-is-ecological-and-makes-our-smartphones-last-longer/)** that recharges in 15 seconds."
We’ll talk more about it over the next few years as more and more come to market. I’ll be getting some for my solar/wind arrays.
Sounds pretty neat. I don’t plan on having an electric paramotor any time soon, so hopefully they’ll have it in 93 octane.
You are just causing more pollution by buying windmills and solar panels. They may or may not ever make more energy than it took to manufacture them. T
I’m currently driving a Chevrolet Bolt to experience it. Then last night a Tesla owner informed me of this; GM warns Bolt owners to park car outside after recall fix doesn’t reduce fire risk
GM warns Bolt owners to park car outside after recall fix doesn’t reduce fire risk - mlive.com
I don’t give a damn about my CO2 emissions. My land outputs far more O2 than CO2.
The main goal is to get my well off the grid. I hate the idea of not having water when the electricity goes out. If it all works out, I’ll have another array to power the fridge and an AC unit.
I have no problem with EV’s. It’s just not less pollution that the combustion engine. But they are quiet and quick . I hear it’s like always having a 1/4 tank of gas. And not real useful in cold weather because the battery has to be drained to run the heater.
IMO…electric cars solving pollution makes about as much sense as using plastic bags to save the trees. The problem that’s being created to solve one problem, is worse than the one attempting to be solved.
Any Democrat that refuses to consider nuclear power doesn’t actually care about climate change. They’re using the issue as a mechanism to control the American citizenry, nothing more. Progressives in Congress won’t rest until we’re all dressed in burlap sacks.
They can help with pollution over the course of 100,000 miles. It really depends on the ICE car it’s being compared to. It takes anywhere from 40,000 miles to over 100,000 miles for the no emission electric car to lower its environmental impact from its battery production compared to a gas powered vehicle.
That said, I like them for reasons other than pollution. Mainly the torque and the low maintenance.
I once read a good article that concluded that if automobiles were the path to a clean environment, we’d all be better off just continuing to drive an old Buick. 
That person isn’t wrong.
Technically the best thing you can do for the environment is to buy a used car and drive that thing until it literally falls apart.
Those guys getting 1,000,000 miles out of their old Tundras are helping the environment a lot more than the dudes buying more efficient modern trucks.
That’s where lithium ion batteries started too.
Think battery packs, not simply batteries.
That’s one of the main reasons I would not buy an EV. I have several friends who drive hybrid vehicles who tell me the heater really sucks. I would, however, entertain the idea of an EV sports car for summer use only.
We have a solution for that … nuclear power generators. Unfortunately environmentalists fly into fits at the very mention of nuclear.
Yep. We drove our last two previous vehicles for 26 and 32 years respectively. Our 2010 Tacoma and 2016 Forester should last us the rest of our lives if some idiot doesn’t total them on the highway.
Thanks FDR.
Allan
