Read an article that claimed Henry Ford and Tesla were big into an EV before the Model T came about. The Model T won out for various reasons.
The point is, EV’s aren’t a new idea. I’m not sold.
Not Tesla. Way too early (and ironic) lol. Edison?
Edison and Ford. Ford’s wife drove an Edison EV.
2 Likes
[quote=“Scrapyard-John, post:20, topic:181656”]
But the marketing is so misleading
I have always believed that the people who do the advertising includes marketing have a good source for mind altering drugs and use them
I just think the majority of people don’t think about it at all. The ad says it doesn’t use gasoline. Wheee!
I don’t think that’s true for the majority here, though.
1 Like
Edison designed the first alkaline battery in 1900 and sold EVs with his name made by the same company that made Detroit Electric cars. Better that lead acid, longer range but more expensive.
EV sales peaked in 1912 at 30K sales in the US. The cars cost 40% more than a gas car, took less maintenance, had 80 to 100 mile range, went 25 mph when speeds averaged 20 on the open road and were easier to operate. But they did not have many charge stations outside major metro areas. Sound familiar?
2 Likes
Too familiar. Yet back then they were deciding which was best for them. We are deciding which is best for the environment, excluding us….on a grid that depends largely on fossil fuels.
I said I’d bow out. But…damn. I see things differently than most here. Someone is right. Someone is wrong.
1 Like
Agree the term SHEEPLE comes to mind. 
[quote="Scrapyard-John
I see things differently than most here.
I also see things differently than a lot of people do.
It does, but I do not want to offend the people here that care about the environment and are intelligent and mean well. I think we should be good stewards.
I may be biased. I used to cut down trees with a chainsaw while the protesters wiped their asses with forest product’s TP, lived in stick and brick homes, and never realized the correlation. Lol. They lost credibility pretty damn quick. Although I think the intentions were genuine.
1 Like
A lot of it comes from my part of the country.
And I don’t totally disagree with the complaints. Leave a buffer by the streams. Don’t disturb certain areas. Yes! But don’t rely on wood then cry about harvesting it.
And fer the love of Mike, understand the dynamics of what you’re proposing. Skip wood and make houses out of what? A steel structure? Ok…steel mills burn through magnitudes of electrical power. I don’t know a ton, but I’m privy to a steel mill’s power bill. Windmills and solar panels? Not a chance for those to keep up. Nuclear? Be careful what you ask for and understand those environmental impacts long term.
I said I’d bow out. OK, I’m going to…now! I’m relatively environmentally conscience. But you better count the cost and know what you’re getting into.
1 Like
I am not the smartest guy around but if you saw all the logging going on around here you would think they would run out of trees but they say that the trees are growing at 25% faster than they are being harvested.
It takes about 4000 kilowatt hours to charge and EV and drive it about 12,000 miles per year. The US produces about 4000 billion kWh each year. On a per EV basis, that’s a billion kWh. If there are 1 million EVs, then all the EVs would use 0.1% of all power generated. Charging off hours would almost certainly accommodate that and it will be a while until we have a million EVs.
While looking up the data use above, I came across some interesting information. Natural gas provides about 1700 billion kWh, renewables and nuclear provide 790 billion kWh each, coal provides billion 770 kWh and petroleum about 36 billion kWh. I’m surprised that renewables is so high. I’m sure hydroelectric is included, but renewables is the second largest source of electric power.
1700 lbs of what? Is there a shortage of manure in Ohio?
… and now, the latest move toward increased use of solar power in my state:
Smoke and mirrors. Do the hard analysis in all weather conditions. Consult what happened in the Texas storm.
Oh you mean where they had a complete systemic failure because they privatized their electrical system, removed it from 2 major national grids, and failed to winterize the entire system particularly their natural gas fired power stations? Texas’ problems were due to greed, not renewable energy sources
Yup!
In addition to their incomprehensible failure to winterize their systems, Texas is the ONLY state that is “independent” of any linkage to any other electrical grid, thus their completely avoidable plight. However, it wasn’t just greed, it was also their ignorance of the realities that every other state seems to be aware of.
I think any states that go fully to solar, wind, ect. should keep their original power plants as a backup. this way what happened in Texas will not happen again in any state.
1 Like
Because of the vagaries of weather, nobody–be it a homeowner or an entire state–should rely solely on things like wind power and solar power. Something tells me that the powers-that-be in the other 49 states would be aware of this reality… or at least we can hope so.
3 Likes