4 ms·
You are clearly ignorant to the technical capabilities & efficiencies of IC. Why argue a case when you have not informed yourself of the opposing view? There
by upsidesinclude 4y ago
You are clearly ignorant to the technical capabilities & efficiencies of IC.
Why argue a case when you have not informed yourself of the opposing view?
There is currently not enough copper or trace minerals (nor operational capability of mines) available for replacement of current vehicles in the US with EVs.
There is not adequate power infrastructure for charging EVs.
There is not adequate power generation for EVs.
What you are trading is the ability of most people to own and operate their own vehicle.
That's too much energy for the poors to have at their disposal.
Keep that in mind while you make uninformed arguments.
- gizmo686 4y agoCalifornia is mandating that all new cars be either EV or plug in hybrids by 2035; which is 12 years in the future. I am aware of no plans to outlaw existing vehicles. A typical consumer car lasts between 10-15 years, so we are talking about ~2045 until California starts finishing its EV transition (likely far longer to reach 100%, as some holdouts will keep gas cars alive longer). That is enough time to build up the capacity to support it. And if it turns out to not be enough time, we don't need to abandon EVs, we just need to push back the timeline.
- TheBigSalad 4y agoThat would be a problem if we instantly replaced all ICE cars with electric. But, that's not going to happen, and these are the least of the reasons.
- originalvichy 4y agoNone of that disqualifies the fact that it is short-sighted to burn all of our available petrochemicals for short length transport.