5 ms·

Whatever, man. That's a lot of strawman arguments for why you can't drive an EV. You can plug things into ABetterRoutePlanner.com yourself, and see that a comm

Whatever, man. That's a lot of strawman arguments for why you can't drive an EV. You can plug things into ABetterRoutePlanner.com yourself, and see that a common Tesla Model 3 could drive from Milwaukee to Seattle in 35 hours and 19 minutes. That includes only 5 hours and 3 minutes of charging, all at Superchargers along the highway. If you upgraded to the Model 3 Long Range, which it sounds like you ought to, that shaves the total travel time to 33 hours even. The price of gas alone for that trip is more than half the cost of a direct flight. If you don't mind flying Spirit, it's less than a hundred dollars more. Since you care so much about the environment, you might appreciate that flying would also likely emit less CO2 than driving anyway.

all2 3y ago
> Whatever, man. My guy, I have a perspective on life. There's stuff that I know, stuff that I've thought about, and stuff I don't know. The last of which outweighs the others. > You can plug things into ABetterRoutePlanner.com yourself, and see that a common Tesla Model 3 could drive from Milwaukee to Seattle in 35 hours and 19 minutes. That includes only 5 hours and 3 minutes of charging, all at Superchargers along the highway. I didn't know this! That's encouraging to know that we have the appropriate infrastructure to make this happen. I will actually consider a Tesla (or similar) as a possible vehicle just for this reason. I am still concerned about battery cell replacement costs as well as environmental impacts of lithium and other rare earth metals mining. There are other high capacity battery chemistries coming online -- I saw a sodium based battery article on HN just in the last two weeks -- that may make my environmental concerns less of an issue. > you might appreciate that flying would also likely emit less CO2 than driving anyway. Trees eat CO2. It's a common misconception that CO2 is somehow bad for the environment. When I say environmental impact, I'm not talking about climate change or CO2. Both of those take a back seat to the direct and immediate impacts of mining [0]. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/24/nickel-mining-hidden-environmental-cost-electric-cars-batteries https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/24...

all2 3y ago

> Whatever, man. My guy, I have a perspective on life. There's stuff that I know, stuff that I've thought about, and stuff I don't know. The last of which outweighs the others. > You can plug things into ABetterRoutePlanner.com yourself, and see that a common Tesla Model 3 could drive from Milwaukee to Seattle in 35 hours and 19 minutes. That includes only 5 hours and 3 minutes of charging, all at Superchargers along the highway. I didn't know this! That's encouraging to know that we have the appropriate infrastructure to make this happen. I will actually consider a Tesla (or similar) as a possible vehicle just for this reason. I am still concerned about battery cell replacement costs as well as environmental impacts of lithium and other rare earth metals mining. There are other high capacity battery chemistries coming online -- I saw a sodium based battery article on HN just in the last two weeks -- that may make my environmental concerns less of an issue. > you might appreciate that flying would also likely emit less CO2 than driving anyway. Trees eat CO2. It's a common misconception that CO2 is somehow bad for the environment. When I say environmental impact, I'm not talking about climate change or CO2. Both of those take a back seat to the direct and immediate impacts of mining [0]. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/24/nickel-mining-hidden-environmental-cost-electric-cars-batteries https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/24...