LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
No, he's right. I've heard there have been several Teslas on fire recently!
Reality check on electric cars
- Thread starter Stringfellow Hawk
- Start date
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
Sounds like you've already been whisked away on one of them!
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Electric cars will have more people flying.
Too bad we have such primitive rail compared to the rest of the world
because that would flourish too.
Electric cars will be great for local travel.
Plug them in right in your garage every night.
Don't try to drive from Boston to Miami, though, because on-road charging will be a nightmare.
ICE cars don't suck by the way.
Bentley, Rolls, and Ferrari still make some pretty decent stuff.
Most of us just can't afford it unless we were willing to live in it, though.
Too bad we have such primitive rail compared to the rest of the world
because that would flourish too.
Electric cars will be great for local travel.
Plug them in right in your garage every night.
Don't try to drive from Boston to Miami, though, because on-road charging will be a nightmare.
ICE cars don't suck by the way.
Bentley, Rolls, and Ferrari still make some pretty decent stuff.
Most of us just can't afford it unless we were willing to live in it, though.
Into the Night
Verified User
France's rail system is completely dead, along with their electrical system.
EV's suck for local travel too.
It's the taxes, insurance, and the limitations of local travel. Their extra weight means they are banned from some garages in the city.
Into the Night
Verified User
Not possible, Sybil.
The EV market is collapsing. People want to buy gasoline cars.
Daylight63
Verified User
Ahhh, here's where you are wrong: gasoline is affordable precisely because the TRUE COST of using it as a transportation fuel is not borne by those who are using it as a transportation fuel.
Many things are like this in the world but fossil fuels are top among them. The true cost in terms of public health and environmental damage PLUS the HUGE subsidies oil companies get make gasoline unnaturally cheap. It is not being sold at its true cost.
So the error in your meme rests in the assumptions at its heart.
Into the Night
Verified User
Yes it is, Dimlight. There are also hefty taxes on gasoline.
Fossils aren't use for fuel, Dimlight. Fossils don't burn.
What 'cost of public health'????
What 'cost of environmental damage'???
Void argument fallacy. Scripture right out of the Church of Green.
They don't get subsidies to make gasoline, Dimlight.
It's sold for higher, due to taxes.
Void conclusion. No valid predicate presented.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
It actually is, Dimlight.
I don't know of anybody who uses fossils for fuel; they burn worth a SHIT, dude.
What "public health cost"?
What "environmental damage"?
What "oil company subsidies"?
Correct, due to taxes that are imposed on it.
Wrong again, Dimlight.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Show us some sources that state the amount of subsidies oil companies get to manufacture gasoline, not some obtuse thing like accounting methods, or a subsidy to do research on something, but direct subsidies of gasoline and oil production.
Show you a subsidy but it can't be anything to do with accounting?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Accounting methods like using LIFO or FIFO are not "subsidies." They are often listed on Leftist sites as part of the so-called subsidies oil companies get.Show you a subsidy but it can't be anything to do with accounting?
Into the Night
Verified User
They don't burn at all. Ever hear of limelight? You spray flammable gases on a piece of limestone (like a fossil) and light it and it glows spectacularly bright, but doesn't burn the limestone. Today's camp lanterns with the mantle use a similar scheme using a wick impregnated with rare earths instead.
All of these are buzzword chants from the Church of Green. They are meaningless.
Into the Night
Verified User
This is just chanting from the Church of Green scripture. You have it exactly right. There is no subsidy for oil and gasoline.
Into the Night
Verified User
That is what he said, Sybil. Let's see you try.Show you a subsidy but it can't be anything to do with accounting?
Daylight63
Verified User
No. Because you are going to insist that all the earth's economists are wrong and you are right when you do some subtle parsing about what the word "subsidies" means.
I've seen it a billion times before. It's never fun to watch you folks play so ineptly with language.
Just go with what real economists say, not some anonymous rando on the forums.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
It should be simple to find and point to the exact subsidies the oil companies get from the US government to produce product. Using an irrelevant appeal to authority is just a logical fallacy and red herring on your part.
Here's one list by an environmental group. Note: Most of the ones listed are simply standard accounting practices and not subsidies.
Into the Night
Verified User
You don't get to speak for everyone, Dimlight. Omniscience fallacy.
Your word games won't work, Dimlight.
Daylight63
Verified User
It is. What isn't simple is quietly watching you mouthbreather tell me the majority of economists on the earth are wrong and you are right.
You are wrong but you will scream you are right and you'll demonstrate a profound lack of understanding about how business is done.
I just want to save the effort of watching you dance.