as he says, "the only 2 car companies out of the US that havent gone bankrupt are Ford, and Tesla".

You arent gonna tell me that Ford, who mass produced the first car, havent been pulling strings all along?

They had to have been, and they probably still are to some degree

You go electric and BILLIONS of dollars are lost for those corps

It's just a transfer of wealth from the gas companies into the electric companies. All of which, are owned by the same people. You're not forced to buy gas but you sure as hell are forced to be on the grid if you have a house, apartment, condo, etc. Sounds like a monopoly they may want. Think about it.

you are forced to buy gas and oil to power this car that you buy.

the power you would use to charge your electric car in no way will come out to the same dollar amount as the amount of money you would be paying for gasoline.

some money would transfer, yes, but there are loopholes (solar panels) so that u pay even less over time to charge an electric car.

i simply believe it is a business game, and once there are set gambits to make an even more lucrative business out of electric, then that will be when we see the end of gasoline powered cars. either that or we run out of oil/gas

you are forced to buy gas and oil to power this car that you buy.

Not true, because their are alternatives.

the power you would use to charge your electric car in no way will come out to the same dollar amount as the amount of money you would be paying for gasoline over time.

Electric companies have monopolies just like gas companies so yes, it would.

some money would transfer, yes, but there are loopholes (solar panels) so that u pay even less over time to charge an electric car.

Majority of people are forced to be on the grid and solar panel technology is expensive and "not there yet".

either that or we run out of oil/gas

Oil is not finite.

Oil is not finite.

Everything is finite.

Think just about solar system.

What is easier to find,oil or water?We are really underestimating the importance of oil here.

Everything is finite.

Nothing is finite.

Think just about solar system.

What do you actually know about our solar system?

What is easier to find,oil or water?

They are both the same.

Mhm,you think oil is ocuring without organic life...

Stop talking just now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

"Abiogenic petroleum origin is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. "

Reading,can you do it?

I can, can you? Do you have an argument? If not then we are both wasting time.

You dont have a case here by calling upon fucking hypoteses.

Its like linking me some flatearth shit and expecting people to get it as proof of just denying actuall state of things without giving a single evidince that backs your claim.

When was "fossil fuel" coined? Don't mix me up with FE'rs. Now your just trying to discredit. Known tactic.

You are doing exactly same thing as FE so its rather easy to mix you up.

See this thing you said :

When was "fossil fuel" coined?

Thats flatearther logic flow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov

"Chemist and geologist

In 1759, with his collaborator, academician Joseph Adam Braun, Lomonosov was the first person to record the freezing of mercury and to carry out initial experiments with it.[27] Believing that nature is subject to regular and continuous evolution, he demonstrated the organic origin of soil, peat, coal, petroleum and amber. In 1745, he published a catalogue of over 3,000 minerals, and in 1760, he explained the formation of icebergs.[13]

In 1763, he published On The Strata of the Earth - his most significant geological work."

250 years ago and now there is some lereddit kid who has more trust in "hypotheses".

Look into Rockefeller and the Geneva convention. btw, I'm not a FE'r. Try harder next time.

These are hypotheses without any convincing evidence. Read the article.

There is evidence though.

Nothing conclusive and most can be explained by biotic sources.

Funny. Others say the same thing. It's almost like no one has a real clue. Just guessing? Their guess is better than others. Why?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. How do you figure that no one has a real clue? The article you posted is pretty clear. A few researchers think there could maybe be abiotic sources of petroleum. Some have found indirect evidence that could suggest their hypothesis is correct but none of the evidence is substantial enough to be conclusive.

Wikipedia is bias as all fuck. I gave you a lead. Look into it or don't. There is plenty of material out there. From scientists, because you want that.

Wikipedia is bias as all fuck.

??? That was your source!

There is plenty of material out there.

If you're trying to make a point, the burden of proof is on you. It's not on me to try to find proof for your claims.

Wikipedia has some sources. Look into therm!

No, thank you. You made a point, it's not my responsibility to find proof for it.

Ok.

Solar tech is flawed for many reasons.

I work in intellectual property and I see technological advances in solar at least once a week. They're not giant breakthroughs though, they're tiny tweaks to chemistry, manufacturing processes, equipment, inverter technology and so on.

You can see the price per watt has dropped precipitously over the years here - https://i.imgur.com/H7tNThh.png

This too is in part due to technological advances.

Not to mention all the gas tax revenue they don't have a way to replace. They want to tax electric cars by the mile. :/

I don't understand the opposition for a mileage tax to keep the highways funded. That is exactly what gasoline and diesel taxes are, you pay tax on how much fuel used, mileage.

I don't think electric car drivers should expect fossil fueled vehicle owners to pay for the roads and highways.

For me it's the fear of being tracked by the mileage counter gizmo. I like the idea of being free to move about the country at my leisure, without a governmental body tracking my every move.

Of course I don't want to over pay on the mileage front either. Our current system, as flawed as it is, is totally anonymous. All that can be tracked via fuel tax is how much I pay and how often if it's on a credit card. Via cash, good luck with tracking that.

The not so well off commutr many hours to and from work just to have an ok wage. Rich seem to live closer to work often. Mileage rigs the system against the poor, people who already have diffucult times getting by.

I don't think that the people purchasing electric cars have a problem with difficult times and getting by...

Yes, and the lower paid workers are paying fuel tax for their older cars and the much better off owners of the more expensive electric cars are not.

Almost every economist agrees that the current gas tax is a joke, but no politician wants to touch the issue.

The attack ads write themselves

Gas taxes do not go to fix highways, it goes into the general revenue / tax fund. If it did we shouldn't have any potholes it would be so overfunded. Its just another tax scam.

I think you need to do some research on the subject.

When the government bailed GM and Chrysler, Ford sold off most of their other companies. Aston Martin, Landrover, Jaguar, much of Mazda. They also killed other branches like Mercury.

Electric cars are not viable for many reasons. You really should be asking, who killed ethanol engines.

what are these reasons exactly

Reasons for why it's not viable or why they should look into ethanol engines instead?

yes

Yes what lol? Why you so slippery snek.

ssssss

So, you're just ssssssliding my comment chain? Cool.

Oh sir, we are looking for a few of those reasons electric cars are not viable.

Top of my head? Fuel source, logistics and physics.

sooo bullshit, bullshit andddd bullshit

You think all of those things are bullshit?

How are any of those things bullshit?

Electricity from renewables is increasing dramatically; "logistics and physics," are too general and broad to consider as a reason.

Why are your answers so vague? You were being similarly vague in another thread in this post about oil not being finite. Is there a reason you don't provide detailed answers?

These are just broad categories that in no way explain what you think makes electric cars not viable. What about fuel source, logistics, and physics do you find unviable in regards to electric cars?

I'm also curious about your statements in the other thread about oil not being finite and oil being either the same as water or just as (in)finite or just as easy to find (your comment was a bit ambiguous).

This kind of seems like a rhetorical tactic used as a sort of 'war of attrition' where others give up before disproving or even adequately addressing your 'point,' while keeping the other in a position of asking you questions for more information, thereby putting you in a position of relative perceived power as you dole out small snippets of wise sounding information. I don't know if this is your intention or if there's some other reason for your vague and minimal responses, but this is the impression that I'm getting.

Why are your answers so vague?

I give people bread crumbs. I've learned when I interject, it takes away from the ultimate point. Look into or don't. Your choice.

I'm not talking about interjecting, I'm talking about giving detailed responses. Not completing your point takes away from the ultimate point a lot more. "Physics" is not a reason why electric cars are not viable.

"Physics" is not a reason why electric cars are not viable.

How many batteries can you fit in a car?

Is this a serious question? You think electric cars don't work because you can't fit enough batteries?

Can you answer the question. It's phsyics ;)

This isn't really a question of physics. Is it not a rhetorical question? Are you suggesting that you can't fit enough batteries in an electric car to make it run? There are electric cars that do indeed run and they don't need to be stuffed full of batteries, just one. Or are you genuinely asking me how many batteries will literally fit inside of a car? Because I don't see how that has anything to do with the physics of electric cars.

You can't just say the word "physics" or "logistics" as a reason why electric cars aren't viable. Please make your point.

How many batteries can you fit in a car without being a danger to the driver and others? Simple question.

Only one battery is needed to run the car. How many you can fit in total isn't relevant. Again, there are electric cars that work just fine. How many batteries you could hypothetically fit inside isn't an issue that stops them from working.

Only one battery is needed to run the car.

lol.

Fine, if we're being pedantic, one battery pack which contains thousands of battery cells. The point remains that electric cars work. People are driving them. Are you suggesting they don't? What point are you trying to make?

You can definitely fit 102.4kWh worth of batteries into a car. Is that not enough?

And hydrogen cars

Steam engines!

Fred Flintstone Dyno powered station wagons

The Koreans and Japanese are pushing hydrogen heavily. Japan is rolling out a major hydrogen fueling system and there's massive amounts of research being done into proton-exchange membrane fuel cells.

lol, no you can't. Make some moonshine and collect the head and try to run your car.

I think high costs, and the fact that ethanol is just as unsustainable as gasoline killed ethanol. It would require way to much farm land to produce enough ethanol to make it a viable option. Now assuming people still eat the same stuff, their would need to be a large increase in farm land, which would require the destruction of forests and natural prairie land. This would lead to ethanol fuel having a huge carbon footprint due to all the land that would be converted.

We also have a expanding world population, and we are going to need that farmland to feed people. The best chance is likely electric cars and increased use of public transportation.

If their are a lot of run on sentences and errors, sorry but in all fairness it is 5 AM my time.

Really? Electric cars were around and quite viable before Musk. GM had one in the 90’s and it mysteriously got shit canned.

Really? What was the range, cost, and charging time?

GM Bolt is ~$30k with a 200+ mile range

This was the EV1, it had a range of about 60 to 160 miles, and could not be bought ( it cost between $400 and 500 per month to lease it. )

The “fast charger” cost $2500 to install at your home and would charge your car between 3 and 8 hours ( as the battery size increased, and a few charging related fires cause them to slow down the charging in later revisions )

If you had to “slow charge” you were stuck with a 18 to 26 hour charge time to get a full battery,

The reason why it got shit canned was because at the time California was pushing GM and other manufacturers to have a certain percentage of their cars be emission free ( 5% I believe ) and GM for really scared that if their car got enough traction then they would get forced to ease back on production of gasoline cars and be unable to compete with manufacturers which didn’t have the restriction.

Since they were all lease vehicles ( and only available in California and arizona ) GM just stopped people from being able to renew their lease. Due to the rules in those states for maintaining stock of spare parts for over a decade after sale, GM never allowed anyone to ever “pay out” at the end of the lease.

There are still some which GM was not able to round up. Jay Leno was rumoured to have one in his garage, and some exist in museums around America.

It's funny how everything is so focused on the US while China is "quietly" building e-cars non-stop.

Exactly ! They are already WAY ahead and with a build quality that matches any high volume western manufacturers.

The Stonecutters

Literally my first thought when I read the title.

Literally my first thought when I read the title.

Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down? We do, we do! Who keeps Atlantis off the maps? Who keeps the Martians under wraps? We do, we do! Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star? We do, we do! Who robs cavefish of their sight? Who rigs every Oscar night? We do! We do!

Now that almost all the major auto makers are back on board with their own competitive electric cars it's time to take down Musk before he gets all his manufacturing ducks in a row.

The multinational corporations.

The multinational corporations.

Electric cars were common until the 1920's

Electric cars were common until the 1920's

The convenience of liquid fuel.

Killed you say? What's this??

Nothing at all like it. Every other inventor was murdered. Elon manages to build a worldwide charging network without a scratch. I wish it was legit but it looks more like TPTB are guiding this transition into autonomous cars.

Every other inventor was murdered.

You'd think odds like that would keep people from creating new things.

Same people who made Gutenberg a star

Musk recently said some remarks about who owns the media. (((They))) don't like that.

The electric car was killed by its price tag..

Lockheed could probably make a car.

Bet they could compete w/ both of those industries with some of the tech they have

Early electric vehicles could not compete on range because of the battery technology of the time. When the electric starter made hand cranking of gasoline cars obsolete, there was no advantage left to owning an electric.

How big oil conquered the world

From farm to pharmaceutical, diesel truck to dinner plate, pipeline to plastic product, it is impossible to think of an area of our modern-day lives that is not affected by the oil industry. The story of oil is the story of the modern world. And this is the story of those who helped shape that world, and how the oil-igarchy they created is on the verge of monopolizing life itself.

Public transportation systems were electric cars 100 years ago. Until big oil stepped in and changed everything.

There's a documentary by almost the same name on Prime. About the killing of the awesome EV that GM made back in the 90's. I actually got to drive one once when my GM worker neighbor brought one home for a week to try out.

Shitty battery technology killed the electric car.

I'm an Elon fan and even I think he stepped over the line several times in the last year.

That said, if I could afford a tesla I sure as fuck would own one.

FWIW I think Musk has gone off the deep end, but I still want a Tesla. They look sweet as hell.

George B Selden and GM killed the electric car in the early 1900's. Electric cars were equally viable as gasoline cars during the infancy of the automobile with the Riker Electric Vehicle company winning the first auto race in the US in 1896. There were several manufacturers operating electric taxi fleets with a battery swapping station infrastructure in Boston and New York, and the Columbia Runabout was both the best selling auto in 1900 and the first auto to exceed 1000 sales.

Unfortunately most of these companies were destroyed by litigation over a meaningless patent but by that time gasoline auto manufacturers had already bankrupted the competition and set the automobile back for generations.

You're too tightly coupling the concept of electric cars with a single person.

I have a Tesla and I still think Elon says a lot of stupid shit and I wouldn't blame the board if they wanted him to step down.

Tesla and other EVs will continue to exist without Elon.

I'm not sure that's railroading so much as it's accurate reporting. Tesla continually over promise and under deliver, and that's largely caused by Elon.

Also, Elon started the "going private" bullshit so that's 100% on him. Another good reason to remove him IMO.

What's wrong with a business going private?

The guy said articles about going private are "hit pieces". Foremost it's just accurate reporting, so complaining about it is dumb. Second, even if you don't care about the whole thing it's still a controversy that can't be blamed on anyone but Elon.

Why don't you ask yourself what kind of exclusive value Tesla actually has? The only potential value there is is in the battery which comes from Panasonic.

The battery, electrical infrastructure and costs make Tesla in my eyes an image product for state agenda reasons or just to blow up the stock price to con investors.

Research why the experienced car companies didn't really push alternative cars while they have been working on concepts for decades.

In the case of electrical batteries, the global lithium resources/production will always make them a luxury product for a limited group of customers. The other car companies actually employee engineers which look at these things globally as their existence depends on making profits.

Maybe if Elon didn't accuse people of being pedophiles. And maybe if he actually delivered on this crazy stream out outrageous promises. Tesla is on the way to financial destruction.

I think the "invisible hand of the market" is what is killing the electric car.

I, for one would love a Tesla, irrespective of Musk's antics, I think it is a nifty car.

That being said, the upfront cost is hefty, and I have range anxiety. I cannot drive for 4 hours, and refill in 3 minutes like I can with my gas powered car.

Until faster charging options are perfected and range is extended, Americans are going to hesitate to buy a car that can die on them if they are not near a powersource.

How come nobody ever talks about this guy(Stan Meyer? Video clip from the 80s. Talks about how there was all this interest from the Pentagon for the “Star Wars“ projects.

https://youtu.be/Ir5XgMiXlzM

There is evidence though.

I don't think that the people purchasing electric cars have a problem with difficult times and getting by...

Yes, and the lower paid workers are paying fuel tax for their older cars and the much better off owners of the more expensive electric cars are not.