Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Hostility to the transition to EVs?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
But this part is wrong. There is no debate on this if people are willing to actually look at the facts. However I do agree that not bringing up the green argument is the best strategy given the audience.

There is plenty of debate on this, my friend. But I’m not going to bother hashing it out here. Anyone can point to one study or another. Enjoy your EV.
 
Gearhead here who misses the noise. Other than that, no regrets and very happy with my Tesla Model 3.

I really didn’t buy it because it was green, although I did like the idea of not buying gas. Mostly I brought it because I though it was cool. My Tesla store is right next to an Apple store.

Before this I had a Vette which just guzzled premium gas.
When kids stare at your car that means you’re doing something right. 😏
Here you go.

 
  • Like
Reactions: designrs
By the way, it is entirely possible, already invented, but currently too expensive. The process first creates hydrogen, then turns it into a synthetic, liquid fuel by adding CO2 taken from the atmosphere. Such fuel can be used in existing piston engine cars like petrol or Diesel oil without adding CO2 to the atmosphere, because it was first taken from the atmosphere.

We may ultimately have to go that way anyway.

... unless physics changes it's always going be too expensive... or at least >5x (probably closer to 10x) the cost of just using the same amount of energy to move a BEV instead of splitting water and using the H2 to make liquid fuel to drive a piston to move a car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mark95476
Comparing people who don't agree with you on EVs, or politics, etc. as "flat earthers" is the height of pretension.
You make a lot of good points I agree with. The advice about focusing on the good points about EVs is helpful, but you’ve misunderstood some of what I was saying.

I wasn’t making a value judgement about the merits of flat-earther’s arguments. It was an observation about the manner in which they and others make their arguments and the way they use verifiable evidence to support these views.

I’ve spotted some similarities in the way these different arguments are being made and this has surprised me as a new EV owner.

I thought I would check in here to see what some of you have experienced.
 
Okay. Got it. I was hoping that we wouldn't have to burn anything in the future anymore.
without looking to ignite an argument but petroleum is used in almost every product that you could think of. life as we've become accustomed to living would not be possible without petroleum products.
thinking that we could just stop using petroleum products is very naive
 
without looking to ignite an argument but petroleum is used in almost every product that you could think of. life as we've become accustomed to living would not be possible without petroleum products.
thinking that we could just stop using petroleum products is very naive
Yes oil will continue to be used and needed for a very long time for producing materials. But burning it for fuel should be reduced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: house9 and gavine
feeding the world would not be possible without petroleum products.
Myopics used to tell me the same thing about transportation back in the 1990s and even into the 2000s too.
Just because today's fertilizer uses natural gas as the base for Ammonium doesn't mean it always has to be that way. The nitrogen is the key and that comes from the air, not the natural gas. The same goes with most other petroleum-based agricultural products.
There is nothing that requires petroleum. It might be the cheapest way today but it does not have to be the only way and, in the long run, it may not even be the cheapest way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: house9 and gavine
Myopics used to tell me the same thing about transportation back in the 1990s and even into the 2000s too.
Just because today's fertilizer uses natural gas as the base for Ammonium doesn't mean it always has to be that way. The nitrogen is the key and that comes from the air, not the natural gas. The same goes with most other petroleum-based agricultural products.
There is nothing that requires petroleum. It might be the cheapest way today but it does not have to be the only way and, in the long run, it may not even be the cheapest way.
so how exactly will that nitrogen get from the air into the ground?
myopic maybe but it is a long ways from chasing unicorns that jump over rainbows.
 
so how exactly will that nitrogen get from the air into the ground?
Nitrogen fixation has been a big part of farming, almost since we stopped hunting and gathering. Unfortunately, being naturally a gas, it is hard to introduce into the soil.
Allowing a field to go fallow was an approach but that reduced your yield since your fields were empty much of the time.
George Washington Carver found that planting peanuts did the same thing but allowed some cash to be made in the off-years. Alfalfa and soybeans work too, however, like peanuts, they aren't as profitable ("if there's no profit, its not a farm, its a garden" -a farmer) as the main crop.
Today, nitrogen is introduced mostly in liquid form as Ammonium Nitrate NH4NO3 and similar compounds that can be introduced into the soil by spraying. Making the Ammonium Nitrate is a very heat and hydrogen intensive process and, of course, both are prevalent in natural gas, hence the reason Koch is so interested in this business.
Does it have to be that way? No. Nitrogen comes from the air and Hydrogen and Oxygen are prevalent in water. All of these are plentiful on earth but not in the right form.
Are there ways to economically combine these using renewable energy?
I don't know. Maybe we need the water and light that forms the rainbows but I don't see a need for the unicorns.
 
when do you expect humans to develop similar capabilities?
Haven't you finished yet? Have you just been goofing off since my last post? :)
Seriously, though, with Koch fighting it in order to preserve their goose that is laying golden eggs, and skeptics like you poo-pooing it, there is clearly more work to do. We (the human race) has now solved the basic transportation problem but must keep on going.
 
Haven't you finished yet? Have you just been goofing off since my last post? :)
Seriously, though, with Koch fighting it in order to preserve their goose that is laying golden eggs, and skeptics like you poo-pooing it, there is clearly more work to do. We (the human race) has now solved the basic transportation problem but must keep on going.
who is po-poing anything?
I am just pointing out that the technology does not exist.