4 ms·

And I directly refuted your argument and this is all you have to say. I didn't even get into the laughable aspect of how 1/7th of the planet's population still

And I directly refuted your argument and this is all you have to say. I didn't even get into the laughable aspect of how 1/7th of the planet's population still lives _without electricity_. There's countries that do have electricity where their energy infrastructure and access is unstable (e.g., Moldova). Most of those places can get some burnable fuel, but I'm sure they'd just love your argument that batteries will soon be the only game in town. The idea of ICE being a technological dead end is a spoiled person's fantasy.

perl4ever 7y ago
I look at it a different way, from a first world perspective, the power still occasionally goes out. As a comfortably middle class American, you wouldn't say "I have a $200K house and it's the latest tech and therefore it must run only on electricity". For the sake of argument, let's say you don't use natural gas or heating oil. You still are not going to say "oh, I won't buy a Honda generator because it's more important to maintain my electrical purity than to not freeze after a storm". Not everybody needs or buys a generator, but there's no trend to eliminate them, and in the big picture, using them is the exception, so it's not what we should be focusing on to cut CO2 emission. So, my opinion is that most people who have a comfortable first world lifestyle in the long run will end up with PHEVs. Not as a transition to all-electric, because it's just as dumb to have a battery that goes 400 miles to avoid range anxiety as it is to have an ICE that makes 400 hp to avoid "acceleration anxiety". All people need is a very small ICE, a very small battery, and a fairly large electric motor. All the arguments about why pure electric vehicles are the future are based on emotional feelings about purity, not logic, I think.
- busterarm 7y ago
  You are making a perfectly reasonable argument, yes. :)
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Except that maybe I'm wrong because big multibillion auto companies are betting on BEVs. Like, Ford and Chevy disagree with me. But Toyota seems to think differently, for now.
DagAgren 7y ago
> And I directly refuted your argument You did not at all understand what my argument was if you think that.

perl4ever 7y ago

I look at it a different way, from a first world perspective, the power still occasionally goes out. As a comfortably middle class American, you wouldn't say "I have a $200K house and it's the latest tech and therefore it must run only on electricity". For the sake of argument, let's say you don't use natural gas or heating oil. You still are not going to say "oh, I won't buy a Honda generator because it's more important to maintain my electrical purity than to not freeze after a storm". Not everybody needs or buys a generator, but there's no trend to eliminate them, and in the big picture, using them is the exception, so it's not what we should be focusing on to cut CO2 emission. So, my opinion is that most people who have a comfortable first world lifestyle in the long run will end up with PHEVs. Not as a transition to all-electric, because it's just as dumb to have a battery that goes 400 miles to avoid range anxiety as it is to have an ICE that makes 400 hp to avoid "acceleration anxiety". All people need is a very small ICE, a very small battery, and a fairly large electric motor. All the arguments about why pure electric vehicles are the future are based on emotional feelings about purity, not logic, I think.

busterarm 7y ago
You are making a perfectly reasonable argument, yes. :)
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Except that maybe I'm wrong because big multibillion auto companies are betting on BEVs. Like, Ford and Chevy disagree with me. But Toyota seems to think differently, for now.

DagAgren 7y ago

> And I directly refuted your argument You did not at all understand what my argument was if you think that.