Electric Vechicles Are Here - The world is rapidly going to S#@!

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
I’ll bet there was the same discussion on a horse website 100+ years ago….
LOL! Funny you should say that!
My grandfather and Henry Ford were friends.
Henry wanted grandpa to invest in his car company.
My grandpa's 'famous last words on that topic were: "Henry, the car will never replace the horse."
'True story.
 
I remember tearing the air pump off my 69 435hp corvette In 1970.. 435 hp(maybe) 8/10 mpg in the city. What did that air pump lead to? 500/600 real hp cars that can get 25 mpg or better.
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
I remember tearing the air pump off my 69 435hp corvette In 1970.. 435 hp(maybe) 8/10 mpg in the city. What did that air pump lead to? 500/600 real hp cars that can get 25 mpg or better.
Not sure how the air pump story is relative other than the apparent reduction of CO2 emissions from those engines.
I say “apparent”, because any first year college student would have agreed that the introduction of air into the exhaust did little of nothing to actually clean up the emissions - instead it was merely diluting the emissions by the introduction of air that never went through the combustion process.
I also removed those pumps or at least the belt that drove them and I don’t feel the least bit of remorse..
 
Im saying the air pump led to modern computerized fuel injection and all the other technology to used reduce emmissions. It was a start foolish as it may have been.
I felt no guilt removing the air pump.I only have one regret. I didnt keep it! One with the right stampings can be worth thousands today.
 
Ah, science. It's a shame that in the modern world, "science" is not "science" in the historical sense.
I work in a very scientific field, medicine. There is a big elephant in the room. What requires a scientist to report TRUTHFULLY about what he or she finds scientifically? The basic answer is that nothing external to the scientist requires this. Unfortunately, modern science has become politicized. As soon as it is politicized, it is no longer science, as science is, according to Webster, "knowledge about the natural world that is based on facts learned through experiments and observation ". As we know, politics distorts facts.
Unfortunately, modern scientific centers are the Universities. On the other side of the drywall of the laboratories, students (ie the future scientists) are being indoctrinated with the worldview that "there is no truth". The future of science is bleak, at best.

Found this editorial from 2009, my bold added to the body of the text:

Editorial, Med Hypotheses. 2009 Nov;73(5):633-5.
doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.05.009. Epub 2009 Jun 5.
Are you an honest scientist? Truthfulness in science should be an iron law, not a vague aspiration
Bruce G Charlton
Abstract
Anyone who has been a scientist for more than a couple of decades will realize that there has been a progressive and pervasive decline in the honesty of scientific communications. Yet real science simply must be an arena where truth is the rule; or else the activity simply stops being science and becomes something else: Zombie science. Although all humans ought to be truthful at all times; science is the one area of social functioning in which truth is the primary value, and truthfulness the core evaluation. Truth-telling and truth-seeking should not, therefore, be regarded as unattainable aspirations for scientists, but as iron laws, continually and universally operative. Yet such is the endemic state of corruption that an insistence on truthfulness in science seems perverse, aggressive, dangerous, or simply utopian. Not so: truthfulness in science is not utopian and was indeed taken for granted (albeit subject to normal human imperfections) just a few decades ago. Furthermore, as Jacob Bronowski argued, humans cannot be honest only in important matters while being expedient in minor matters: truth is all of a piece. There are always so many incentives to lie that truthfulness is either a habit or else it declines. This means that in order to be truthful in the face of opposition, scientists need to find a philosophical basis which will sustain a life of habitual truth and support them through the pressure to be expedient (or agreeable) rather than honest. The best hope of saving science from a progressive descent into Zombiedom seems to be a moral Great Awakening: an ethical revolution focused on re-establishing the primary purpose of science: which is the pursuit of truth. Such an Awakening would necessarily begin with individual commitment, but to have any impact it would need to progress rapidly to institutional forms. The most realistic prospect is that some sub-specialties of science might self-identify as being engaged primarily in the pursuit of truth, might form invisible colleges, and (supported by strong ethical systems to which their participants subscribe) impose on their members a stricter and more honest standard of behaviour. From such seeds of truth, real science might again re-grow. However, at present, I can detect no sign of any such thing as a principled adherence to perfect truthfulness among our complacent, arrogant and ever-more-powerful scientific leadership - and that is the group of which a Great Awakening would need to take-hold even if the movement were originated elsewhere.
 
Making a choice for one's self is one thing but making a choice for everyone else is something else. I support a philosophy of "Do what you want but let others alone."

"It's for your own good" is how tyranny begins.
That also applies to carbon output.

“Because I don’t wanna change I’m willing to let the world burn.” is a tyranny of another kind.

One is an inconvenience at best, an economic difficulty at worst. The other is catastrophic. Changing to electric transportation is not tyranny or a slippery slope. That’s straight up hyperbole.
 

Howard Jones

Supporter
Oil companies are privately owned here in the US. Electric utilities are not quite private and are heavily regulated by the government and include fixed profit margins. Huge difference. Kinda like the difference between Obama care and private insurance plans. There's a place for both but not only one.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
^^^ This is hands down my biggest concern when it comes to E.V.s ...especially if it happens when the car is sitting in one's garage at 2 A.M.
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
I think if you go through fire department records, you will find a surprisingly high occurrence number regarding garage fires caused by hot lawnmowers, weedeaters and fuel leaks from gasoline powered cars too.
But we don’t sensationalize those because it doesn’t fit the “click stream” agenda of most “news” agencies...
Why fly on an airliner? Man, they seem to crash all the time, killing all passengers on board!!!!
See what I mean?

There are many safety protocols in place on the home charging stations and with the rare failure, they will be perfectly safe when installed properly.
Still - I would want mine to charge outside.
 
As a friend of a person whose son and two others were burned alive when their conventional petroleum fuelled vehicle caught alight while simply driving along a highway I’d like to point out that horses don’t spontaneously combust often so the solution is obvious.
Indeed there are archives of letters from the early 1900 s bemoaning the future of transport and making exactly this point…

Fwiw I also remember an lpg fuelled taxi exploding not far from where I lived.

Tim.
 
Lithium ion batteries for standby/backup power should be in a above ground concrete building outside of a home.

On the Gulfstream biz jets I maintain we have two fire containment bags stored forward and aft in the cabin in case a laptop or phone battery decides to go thermal. That would be a bad day over the ocean!
 
Top