• 0 Posts
  • 64 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2024

help-circle

  • First, you’re moving goalposts. That already makes you seem like you’re arguing in bad faith. You can’t start with “an EV would have me wait for an hour just to be charged” and when people call you out on your bs be like “oh yeah, which EV charges in 10 minutes??” That’s not what you said first. And when you’re told that there are models that do charge in about 10 minutes, you’re just like “well about is not enough”. Just charge 10 minutes and leave the charger at 75 % then, if that 10-minute-mark is so important to you.

    Second, charging embeds well into everyday tasks. Groceries? Car charges. Movies? Car charges. Restaurant? Car charges. Etc etc. Sure, 11 kW won’t fully charge your car while you’re shopping, but they don’t have to. Just add some km while you’re at it. I have friends and colleagues that don’t own houses and still drive EVs and they say that there are more charging opportunities than they need, so they don’t even always charge their car. If your commute requires you to charge more often, just charge before your first break and maybe ask your employer if there’s a plug somewhere that you could use.

    Only if none of that works and you’re talking about a really long commute, you need to take detours to fast charge your car. Tbf, I never met anyone who had this issue, but yes, if you’re that person, you’ll have to adapt that convenient EV charging scheme I described above to… behave just like you did with your old combustion car. Yes, it’ll take slightly longer to charge your car than to fill it. Just grab a coffee while you look for a supermarket that provides L2 charging so you can avoid it next time. I’ve certainly had my wait times at gas stations during rush hour or holidays, but that’s seemingly not an issue.

    Asking these things to be at parity with gas (as in, can I fill my electric car with power with the same speed as a gas car) is not a lofty goal. It is the baseline goal for any other technology.

    That’s just nonsense. EVs are so much better than ICEs in so many regards, worst case charge times and front up prices are the only things left for people to complain about. They’re cheaper over their lifetime, their acceleration values (that car enthusiasts were comparing for decades to determine the awesomeness of a car) are beyond anything combustion engines can provide, they are quiet, etc etc. This weird idea that none of this counts if you have to spend half an hour to charge because you seemingly can’t be arsed to charge it while you’re doing something else is just ridiculous.

    The EV asks its buyers to change their habits. It asks you to take the hit for the climate

    You know what, so far it doesn’t. So far, it’s an offer you may or may not take. But eventually, yes, people will have to change their habits. As they did before. When the ozone layer started falling apart in the 70s, the world sat together and prohibited the usage of CFCs in the 80s, with some countries taking more or less time to turn this into their local laws. But yes, people then had to change their habits as CFC alternatives sometimes worked differently. Look at who complained the loudest then and maybe still complains about it today and ask yourself if you really want to be perceived like one of those folks.

    using technologies like modern batteries which are straight up bad for the climate.

    I’ll just assume that you actually don’t know what’s worse for the climate. I mean, yes, we should reduce car dependency as a whole and use more bikes and public transport, but an EV is so much better for the climate than an ICE, it’s not even close. Even if you charge it with electricity straight from a coal plant, it’s just so much more efficient that eventually, it’ll have been the better option for the planet, but assuming you just take the energy mix that’s available where you live, it’ll be fast to offset the worse climate footprint from battery production.

    For a comparison that also mentions battery production: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tc-6GHdCmgI





  • “This waste shouldn’t be overly dangerous and the fact that it isn’t doesn’t say how dangerous it is”. Wow. How did you do this?

    Here I thought you’re just slow and didn’t read what I wrote so I was already preparing to just explain what I said.

    What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the dangers of radioactive waste?

    Did you read what I write?

    I will rephrase you:

    What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the amount of radioactive waste?

    This is where I realised you’re just trolling.


  • What nonsense is this?

    Compare gloves that were used once to turn valve on pipe in reactor room to shit from coal in your lungs.

    No shit, Sherlock… The reactor room is shielded by the water. Something you had in there once shouldn’t be overly radioactive and the fact that it isn’t doesn’t say anything about the dangers of radioactive waste.

    Even most active kind of waste everyone thinks of - spent fuel - consists from about 90% of useful material.

    What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the dangers of radioactive waste?

    Actually not.

    Actually yes.

    new nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh […]. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated […].




  • That was my point, pretty much. The issue is that money that’s kept is useless for society, but if its value increases it gains potential usefulness for its owner. I’m not saying that ordinary people will stop buying food and I’m not saying that corporations are doing community work right now, but the world in which the rich get even richer without even spending their money on something will be problematic at best. The economy will crash while everybody will hold on to whatever moves they have.











  • The system, no matter how good its education, will never be able to turn everybody into “decent philosophers”. Some people just aren’t smart, no matter how good education might get. Some just are gullible. That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be as well-educated as they can possibly be, but people and their capabilities just are a spectrum and always will be. And even if today’s dumbest people will be as smart as today’s “decent philosophers” by tomorrow, today’s “decent philosophers” will still outsmart them, which is an issue if there are manipulative people with hidden agendas among them. Which they will be.

    This isn’t an education issue, it’s an information and misinformation issue. Giving anybody, including malicious actors, their own, personal channel to spread whatever information they want, regardless of its quality or truth, has turned out to be a terrible idea. The Internet kind of comes with the idea to give everyone access to all of humanity’s information without taking into account that there should be a certain responsibility attached to the question of the creation of that information or that there should be a separation of concerns between people who spread information and people who have other interests than just informing people in the best way possible.