I was talking to a friend last night at a party.
Their cousin is a nurse who was terminated because she wouldn't vax.
She was breastfeeding her first child and didn't want to get jabbed. So she was fired.
Even though she worked through the early scary days. Risked her life. Now fired.

It is despicable.

tailgater wrote:

CA is leading in embracing clean energy, but they're not doing it successfully. They show it being sufficient day to day, in real life conditions, for a tad bit more than a few seconds then I could see it as more of a current possibility. Pun intended

Elon is leading in embracing Mars colonization, but I'm not strapping my happy azz to a SpaceX rocket next week and hoping for the best

Sunoverbeach wrote:

Same f--kwit that wanted to "mandate" a shot that has proven very ineffective.

Recap: No shot... got covid... over it in 2 days... never got it again... don't wear a mask, social distance or give 2 fkn sheits.

MACS wrote:

You can "disagree" about the current technology, but that doesn't change the facts.
EV's are not able to drive long distances without very long recharge cycles.

Again, look no further than my real life scenario. Drive from Cape Cod to the White Mountains in New Hampshire. Conservatively, it's 200 miles. The average EV gets about 300 miles.
Is a ski resort in the middle of the great white north equipped with an electrical charging station to accommodate a few hundred vehicles?

I had an early mention of super conductivity that was quickly dismissed. But that's what is needed to quickly charge a battery or allow sufficient efficiencies from renewable sources like solar or wind.
Look at all the solar and wind projects across the country. Then look at all the fossil fuel plants that have been closed. Oh, wait. They haven't. Because they can't, lest we expose ourselves to dangerous gaps in supply versus demand hinging on the weather.

It's obvious that you're surprised I'm an engineer (by degree, not by predominant job function). You can't accept anything that opposes your own viewpoint, so you think any conflicting technical information must be false.

You think that what works for YOU should be mandated for ALL.

It's a character flaw that you try to hide by using examples of successful mandates of the past. Mandates that addressed the lone issue of costs. When technology was available and cost of conversion the only issue.
Baby steps work better than outright bans.
Tell car companies that a certain percent of their fleet must be EV or hybrid. Don't outlaw ICE.
America isn't supposed to be home to freedom of (government mandated) choice.

But that is very obviously what you want.

tailgater wrote:

From the Chevy EV site:

Three charging options:
1. Standard household outlet: 4 miles per hour of charging. (not a typo)
2. 240V with current amp service (appliance outlet): 26 miles per hour of charging.
3. 240V 80amp set up: 39 miles per hour of charging.

So with the optimum set up you would charge up for 60 minutes and then drive less than 40 miles before you need to recharge again. Assuming you find a high amp charge station on your route.

80 amps.
Most households have what? 200 amps?
80 is big chunk of that.

And what about businesses? 200 cars in the lot. Can the grid handle that kind of amperage?

EV's are a great option for homes with specific driving habits. Folks I know LOVE their EV's.
But they all have a gas car as well.

Brewha wants to take away that option. Eliminate the choice. By government force.
It's the woke thing to do.

tailgater wrote:

That is correct. Most homes have 200 amp service panels. Costs a couple thousand to upgrade. But, I don’t know of any power grid in the US that could accommodate a 50% increase in demand which is what it would take to power a household charging just one EV. If we mandate out all fossil fuel vehicles then we’re talking a demand increase of at least 100% or more considering most households regularly operate AT LEAST two vehicles.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Abrignac wrote:

No, they are not too successful - they do have a long way to go.

All I’m saying is they are trying.

Brewha wrote:

OK, so given this, and the number of people who've stated they believe this will eventually be the future, it seems to me the lack of demonstrable success is leading to opposition to mandates as opposed to it being generated by a fixation on fossil fuels.

Maybe they sort it out in 8yrs. Maybe they need more time than that. But if they don't figure it out and the switch is flipped nationwide, I'd guess we're in for a significant amount of chaos

Sunoverbeach wrote:

I don't disagree that business will take the most cost effective route without being forced to do otherwise. Hell, I have a job because of environmental regulations. However, I remain unassured the technology is there if it's only in theory at the moment. Show me the power and I'm in. Though I'll still be buying a flat plane crank V8 in the financially stable future

Sunoverbeach wrote:

Right now how does this work with apartments?

Not to throw another reality wrench in your one lane where this works butt…..you know your fellow travelers don’t believe in property rights so it seems like a reasonable question.

ZRX1200 wrote: