https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-ev-charging-stations-key-
bidens-climate-agenda-108609962

LONDON, Ohio -- Within 24 hours of buying his red Ford Mustang Mach-E,
Liam Sawyer set off on a camping trip.

Sawyer, who bought the electric SUV �because I think the technology is
cool and the range is just long enough,� searched ahead of time for
convenient charging stations between his home in Indianapolis and
Allegheny National Forest in western Pennsylvania.

About 175 miles (282 kilometers) into his journey, he stopped at a new
public charging station at the Pilot Travel Center along Interstate 70
outside Columbus, Ohio. The station, which opened in London, Ohio, in
December with four chargers, can power an EV in about half an hour while
drivers buy food and drinks and use amenities.

That first charge cost Sawyer, a 32-year-old civil engineer, about $20.

The Ohio charging station was created from the $5 billion National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, part of the bipartisan
infrastructure bill President Joe Biden signed into law in November 2021.
More than two years later, only four states � Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania
and Hawaii � have opened stations funded by the program.

Biden, a Democrat, has set a goal of creating a national network of
500,000 publicly available chargers by 2030. Easily accessible charging
ports are a key part of his effort to encourage drivers to move away from
gasoline-powered cars and trucks that contribute to global warming.

That effort took on greater urgency this month as the Biden administration
announced new automobile emissions standards that officials called the
most ambitious plan ever to cut planet-warming pollution from passenger
vehicles. Meeting those standards would require a huge increase in sales
of EVs and plug-in hybrids.

EVs hit a record 1.19 million in sales in the U.S. last year and accounted
for 7.6% of the total U.S. vehicle market, up from 5.8% in 2022.

Transportation emissions are the nation�s largest source of greenhouse
gases.

The Biden administration says the federal charging program is on track.
Several states, including Maine, Vermont and Colorado, are expected to
open public charging stations later this year, while more than a dozen
others have awarded contracts for projects or broken ground.

�We are building this national framework from scratch, partnering with
states to set plans, and we want to make sure we are taking appropriate
care to set this program up correctly," Federal Highway Administrator
Shailen Bhatt said in an interview.

�The first two years were about getting the rules right, getting the plans
in place,� Bhatt said. �And now what you�re going to see is this year
being about the chargers coming online."

As part of the national charging station rollout, the Biden administration
awarded $623 million in grants to states, local governments and tribes in
January. The grants will fund 47 EV charging stations and related projects
in 22 states and Puerto Rico, including 7,500 charging ports.

Separately, Walmart and other private companies have pledged to build a
network of affordable fast-charging stations for EVs. The federal program
is also expected to serve as a catalyst for other projects.

�We�re committed to making sure that all Americans can charge (their EVs)
where they live, work, shop, play, pray," said Gabe Klein, director of the
Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, which runs the federal charging
program.

But even some of the government�s own experts say 500,000 public chargers
won�t be enough to meet Biden�s ambitious climate goals. The Department of
Energy�s National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated last year that the
U.S. will need 1.2 million public chargers by 2030, a huge jump from the
175,00 public charging ports now available, as measured by the Alternative
Fuels Data Center, a division of the Energy Department.

The availability of charging stations is key to persuading Americans to
buy EVs.

Driving range anxiety is still an impediment, along with cost. About 80%
of respondents cited concerns about a lack of charging stations as a
reason not to buy an electric vehicle, according to a 2023 survey from The
Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy
Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.

Seven in 10 said they would not buy an EV because it takes too long to
charge and the battery technology isn�t ready.

In some parts of the country � especially rural areas far from major
cities � �there are definitely corridors where you have worries about
range anxiety,'' Bhatt said. "It is going to take longer to get to them,
just like it took longer to get cellphone coverage in those places.''

But he said the administration's goal is to have chargers every 50 miles
(80 kilometers) along U.S. interstates. Other major charging networks
offered by Tesla, EVgo and Electrify America prioritize shopping centers,
gas stations and grocery stores, but long-distance travel is where many
Americans perceive the biggest gap.

As Biden doubles down on clean energy as part of his reelection campaign,
it�s notable that Ohio, a swing state led by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine,
was one of the first movers in the federal charging endeavor.

�Electric vehicles are the future of transportation, and we want drivers
in Ohio to have access to this technology today,� said DeWine, who
appeared at the Ohio station�s grand opening in December.

A state Department of Transportation program, DriveOhio, served as the
charging station's organizational structure. A public-private partnership
authority helped supply money needed for the project after the federal
program contributed 80% of the estimated $500,000 to $750,000 cost,
including buildout, operation and maintenance for five years.

�I actually don�t think these are moving very slow. I think they�re going
really quickly given that they�re tiny construction projects that we�re
deploying at a pretty significant scale," said Preeti Choudhary,
DriveOhio's executive director. �Getting them in the ground quickly is
important because we do have this growing contingency of EV drivers out
there and they need to be supported when they're driving across our state
or across the country."

Meeting federal requirements and operating standards is a challenge for
states with little experience rolling out this type of infrastructure,
according to Loren McDonald, an independent analyst tracking the buildout.

�The states are moving at very different speeds," he said. "It might take
a good 18 months on average for a lot of these stations to come online.''

Projects can be held up for months to years by delays with permitting,
approvals, electrical upgrades and equipment. The latter can be costly. In
California, the state with the most electric cars, its Public Utilities
Commission could spend $50 billion through 2035 just to meet demand there.

Sawyer, who was charging his Mustang as semi-trucks lined up at rows of
gas pumps nearby, said he intends to mostly charge his car at home
overnight, but he appreciates the public stations for his occasional road
trips. He doesn't mind the half-hour charging time.

�Having the 20 minutes to 30 minutes to kind of rest your feet, get lunch
isn�t that bad if you�re not in a rush,'' he said. "If you have the luxury
of time, it�s worth it.�

�I definitely think the infrastructure needs to get up there more, right?"
he said. �And faster charging will come.�

___

Daly reported from Washington. St. John reported from Detroit.

____

The Associated Press� climate and environmental coverage receives
financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely
responsible for all content. Find AP�s standards for working with
philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

--
We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that
stupid people won't be offended.

Durham Report: The FBI has an integrity problem. It has none.

No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.

Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.

President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.

"Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote in
news:lnsB14AB5C1E25486F089P2473@0.0.0.2:

<snip>

It took years for gasoline stations to emerge that would enable long distance
travel. Why would the EV or BEV or whatever technology be buit up overnight
if there wasn't a demand for it? There is a reason that some intersections
have more than one, if not many, gasoline and diesel stations along critical
routes. It wiil take years to determine a reasonable balance for electric
and other technology vehicles to travel freely. The US Government is (IMHO)
a poor supplier of those stations in one fell swoop. Let the free market
address the needs and investors/companies foot the bill for such things. The
electricity must come from somewhere so that too may be part of the ramp up
time and investment.

The push to EVs should take time to grow responsively.

IMHO, it won't yield the alleged goals of saving the climate - as we continue
to use more energy for everything. The climate is mostly fine and certainly
not on an existential crisis of doom.

In sci.environment David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote in
> news:lnsB14AB5C1E25486F089P2473@0.0.0.2:
>
> <snip>
>
> It took years for gasoline stations to emerge that would enable long distance
> travel. Why would the EV or BEV or whatever technology be buit up overnight
....

You can imagine some of these charcaters as buggy whip salesmen in the 1890s
saying automobiles will never be a thing.
People have illogically argued that every new tech could never not be
successful because it was new.
Conservative thinking only predicts the past. ;)

--
[Cars will nebba be a thing!]
Horatio Nelson Jackson (March 25, 1872 - January 14, 1955) was an American
physician [b Toronto] and automobile pioneer. In 1903, he and driving
partner Sewall K. Crocker became the first people to drive an automobile
across the United States.
[The journey took around 63 days, used 800 gal of gas for their 2nd hand 2
cyl Winton, and cost around $210,000 in 2016 dollars].
-- wiki

[Railways will never be a thing!]
Top reasons why Mr Stephenson's "railway" will never work:
(1) The project will drain the King's treasury.
(2) The noise will scare the cows and sour their milk.
(3) At 37 mph air will be sucked out of the passengers' lungs.
(4) The vibration will injure passengers.
(5) The common people will be encouraged to come to London.
-- Arthur Wellesley Duke of Wellington, c1828

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:46:49 -0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote:

>Conservative thinking only predicts the past.

Oh.

Ohmigawd.

That's . . .

That's . . . PERFECT!

Let's have babies.

Swell
--
Conservative thinking only predicts the past. - R Kym Horsell

https://www.gocomics.com/mattdavies/2024/04/01

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On 4/5/24 4:46 AM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> In sci.environment David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>> news:lnsB14AB5C1E25486F089P2473@0.0.0.2:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> It took years for gasoline stations to emerge that would enable long distance
>> travel. Why would the EV or BEV or whatever technology be buit up overnight
> ...
>
> You can imagine some of these charcaters as buggy whip salesmen in the 1890s
> saying automobiles will never be a thing.

USEFUL EVs, with anything APPROACHING current technology,
are *NEVER* GOING TO BE A THING. Save yer carbon elsewhere.

Think about it ... do you even have a hint of how much
carbon is burned just HEATING-UP WATER and such low-tech
stupid stuff ??? Now THIS is where 'irregular' sources
of hydrogen COULD be very useful. You can cut 'natural
gas' with X-percent, depending on supplies, and get good
results for stupid low-tech uses domestic and industrial.
The CO2 savings would be immense - and at very little
infrastructure/conversion cost.

INTERESTING how the 'left' immediately went at practical
transportation ...... I guess commies want everyone TRAPPED,
unable to move without triple-stamped travel permits .....

> People have illogically argued that every new tech could never not be
> successful because it was new.
> Conservative thinking only predicts the past. ;)

Current EV "tech" cannot work for EMPIRICAL/CHEMICAL
reasons (and several pol/mil reasons). Lithium batteries
are just SUCK on a number of levels. Slave labor, do
not last long, are very expensive, slow-recharge,
mostly made by ENEMIES, hard to recycle - oh, and a
tendency to EXPLODE.

There IS a tech called "vanadium flow batteries", which
are currently for yer better off-grid solar apps. They
last almost forever, recharge FAST and do NOT explode.
No slavery involved either. The current tech is about 30%
below lithium in terms of capacity per $$$/kilo. However
this surely CAN be improved.

Why is slavery always OK with the 'left' so long as
the slaves aren't particularly "brown" ???

Anyway ... don't just spit and call me a "denier" - I
offered ALTERNATIVE TECH to lithium here AND a good
alternative path to saving on CO2. Alas a whole
infrastructure (and much-enlarged power grid) will have
to be made for EVs ... but, further down the line,
they at least CAN be viable. Not THIS decade though.
Not even close.

EVs *do* (potentially) have a number of advantages
which have nothing to do with "green-ishness". They
CAN be far more mechanically SIMPLE, lots fewer
parts to go wrong. Good light hub-motors CAN be
made now, completely eliminating "drive trains"
while minimizing suspension-related issues. So long
as you do not demand 0-100 in 3 milliseconds it's
all very do-able. "Corolla" performance is fine
by me, and MOST. That spec means lighter/cheaper
and longer battery life.

I need another car Real Soon Now. It will NOT be a
4500-class V-10 monstrosity. I was thinking of a
Kia Soul ... but the security, and now FIRE, issues
mean I'd never get one insured affordably. I'd
also considered yer basic Toyota Corolla ... but,
even after like a decade, they STILL have issues
with the frag-grenade air-bags. Maybe a Subaru
Forester or something ..... but those are a bit
"premium" unless they're already rusting-out.

Nope, NOT gonna buy new - though I have adequate $$$
I've only bought ONE brand-new car in my life. Tend
to think of "used" as "pre-tested" - if they're still
on the road then they've passed the test :-)

Hey, someone at my job bought a brand-new Jeep ...
and it spent over half of its first few months
IN THE SHOP because SO many large/small things
were going wrong. NOT encouraging !!!

DO kinda miss that early-60s Fury though ... 426 Hemi,
required a booster fuel-pump ... insanely strong.
Brownish NOx exhaust. "Push Button" tranny. The power
steering was shot so it was good upper-body exercise.
Oddly, if you were conservative, it got fairly
good mileage.

My great-grandfather started as a blacksmith. However
as the industrial age grew he moved over to that sort
of metal-working tech - including automobile parts.
There WERE 'migration' jobs for humans back then. NOW
though ... the "AI"s are gonna take a lot of those
jobs. Saw a vid of "Chat" given a BODY the other day.
Worrisome. What happens to all the obsolete humans ???

Just keep cutting back the Soylent Green rations eh ?
The "left" is as bad as the fascists when it comes to
mass-exterminations "For The Greater Good" .........

Got a shrine to Pol Pot in yer hall closet, right ??? :-)

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 01:09:22 -0400, "68hx.1805" <68hx.1804@g5t7x.net> wrote:

> INTERESTING how the 'left' immediately went at practical
> transportation

It's our biggest use of energy, tied with Industrial.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

Why go after light bulbs when the big energy hog is six thousand pound SUVs carrying
around 140 lb housewives and a fifty lb kid?

Swill
--
Conservative thinking only predicts the past. - R Kym Horsell

https://www.gocomics.com/mattdavies/2024/04/01

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

"R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uuodpp$p5t$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
> In sci.environment David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>> news:lnsB14AB5C1E25486F089P2473@0.0.0.2:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> It took years for gasoline stations to emerge that would enable long
>> distance
>> travel. Why would the EV or BEV or whatever technology be buit up
>> overnight
> ...
>
> You can imagine some of these charcaters as buggy whip salesmen in the
> 1890s
> saying automobiles will never be a thing.
> People have illogically argued that every new tech could never not be
> successful because it was new.
> Conservative thinking only predicts the past. ;)

No, it would be as if governments were to seek banning horses before they
could be replaced, and fueling for those machines was virtually
non-existent.

He's saying to let the free market work as it should.. like it did with the
automobile. I've yet to see any government run program work as well or as
cheaply as normal free market forces. Instead, government programs tend to
cost way to much, deliver way to little and result in no end of problems

Scout wrote:
> He's saying to let the free market work as it should.

We tired of waiting for the free market to stop killing our
children. You enjoy killing children.

> with the automobile. I've yet to see any government run program
> work as well or as cheaply as normal free market forces. Instead,

Government provides goods and service that are vital but unprofitable.

> government programs tend to cost way to much, deliver way to
> little and result in no end of problems

Late last year they had the temerity to close the street because
they claimed the government built street continues to degrade and
needs resurfacing every few decades.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
> "R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uuodpp$p5t$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>> In sci.environment David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>>> news:lnsB14AB5C1E25486F089P2473@0.0.0.2:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> It took years for gasoline stations to emerge that would enable long
>>> distance
>>> travel. Why would the EV or BEV or whatever technology be buit up
>>> overnight
>> ...
>>
>> You can imagine some of these charcaters as buggy whip salesmen in the
>> 1890s
>> saying automobiles will never be a thing.
>> People have illogically argued that every new tech could never not be
>> successful because it was new.
>> Conservative thinking only predicts the past. ;)
>
> No, it would be as if governments were to seek banning horses before they
> could be replaced, and fueling for those machines was virtually
> non-existent.
....

It would be as if the US govt built all those roads that were missing
from 1900s America and pour trillions into supporting gas automobiles.
Fortunately, that kind of thing never happens because the free market
does it all in Dreamland.

--
On June 29, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation
funding the construction of the U.S. Interstate Highway
System (IHS)--something Americans had dreamed of since Detroit
starting building cars.

Highway and Road Expenditures
How much do state and local governments spend on highways and roads?
.... In 2020, state and local governments spent $204 billion, or
6 percent of direct general ...
-- urabn.org

"R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uv115s$1n1d$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
> In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uuodpp$p5t$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>>> In sci.environment David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>>>> news:lnsB14AB5C1E25486F089P2473@0.0.0.2:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> It took years for gasoline stations to emerge that would enable long
>>>> distance
>>>> travel. Why would the EV or BEV or whatever technology be buit up
>>>> overnight
>>> ...
>>>
>>> You can imagine some of these charcaters as buggy whip salesmen in the
>>> 1890s
>>> saying automobiles will never be a thing.
>>> People have illogically argued that every new tech could never not be
>>> successful because it was new.
>>> Conservative thinking only predicts the past. ;)
>>
>> No, it would be as if governments were to seek banning horses before they
>> could be replaced, and fueling for those machines was virtually
>> non-existent.
> ...
>
> It would be as if the US govt built all those roads that were missing
> from 1900s America and pour trillions into supporting gas automobiles.
> Fortunately, that kind of thing never happens because the free market
> does it all in Dreamland.

Yep, as cars were adopted people demanded better roads. What was suitable
for horse and wagon was no longer good enough.

> On June 29, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation
> funding the construction of the U.S. Interstate Highway
> System (IHS)--something Americans had dreamed of since Detroit
> starting building cars.

Which was a natural extension given how much cars and trucking had been
adopted by then.

As it is 95% of the people see no use for cars, but government is spending
trillions and demanding people must buy these expensive replacements that
don't even offer any significant advantage over current technology other
than some mistaken belief of cutting CO2.. despite the fact we don't have
the means to really produce a lot of electricity without carbon or nuclear,
but we are certainly willing to export that pollution to China to make it
appear we're being 'green'..

Did you know that China's expansion of their dirty coal power plant's is
increasing CO2 emissions more than all reductions in such emissions being
made by the rest of the world?

Why should government be mandating this technology. When it's ready,
actually ready, people will be more than willing to make the switch. The
problem is, the tech isn't ready and what have is either too expensive or
too problematic for most people to accept.

On 2024-04-08, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
> "R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uv115s$1n1d$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>> In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uuodpp$p5t$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>>>> In sci.environment David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>>>>> news:lnsB14AB5C1E25486F089P2473@0.0.0.2:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> It took years for gasoline stations to emerge that would enable long
>>>>> distance
>>>>> travel. Why would the EV or BEV or whatever technology be buit up
>>>>> overnight
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> You can imagine some of these charcaters as buggy whip salesmen in the
>>>> 1890s
>>>> saying automobiles will never be a thing.
>>>> People have illogically argued that every new tech could never not be
>>>> successful because it was new.
>>>> Conservative thinking only predicts the past. ;)
>>>
>>> No, it would be as if governments were to seek banning horses before they
>>> could be replaced, and fueling for those machines was virtually
>>> non-existent.
>> ...
>>
>> It would be as if the US govt built all those roads that were missing
>> from 1900s America and pour trillions into supporting gas automobiles.
>> Fortunately, that kind of thing never happens because the free market
>> does it all in Dreamland.
>
> Yep, as cars were adopted people demanded better roads. What was suitable
> for horse and wagon was no longer good enough.
>
>> On June 29, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation
>> funding the construction of the U.S. Interstate Highway
>> System (IHS)--something Americans had dreamed of since Detroit
>> starting building cars.
>
> Which was a natural extension given how much cars and trucking had been
> adopted by then.
>
> As it is 95% of the people see no use for cars, but government is spending
> trillions and demanding people must buy these expensive replacements that
> don't even offer any significant advantage over current technology other
> than some mistaken belief of cutting CO2.. despite the fact we don't have
> the means to really produce a lot of electricity without carbon or nuclear,
> but we are certainly willing to export that pollution to China to make it
> appear we're being 'green'..
>
> Did you know that China's expansion of their dirty coal power plant's is
> increasing CO2 emissions more than all reductions in such emissions being
> made by the rest of the world?
>
> Why should government be mandating this technology. When it's ready,
> actually ready, people will be more than willing to make the switch. The
> problem is, the tech isn't ready and what have is either too expensive or
> too problematic for most people to accept.
>

Exactly !
I have no problem with EVs but when the government does everything to attack the ICE industry thus
forcing the manufacturers and the consumer into these overpriced inconvenient EV cars then I take
issue with that.

And Joe Biden's administration are a bunch of inept idiots.
I've said from the start of this green energy push that they are putting the horse ahead of the
cart.
The infrastructure is simply not there.
CommiFornia can barely keep the A/C's going during the summer and have rolling blackouts to prevent
the grid from frying itself.
NYC infrastructure is ancient with some homes still having a good portion of cloth insulated wire !

There are so many trade offs one must deal with when driving an EV.
They suck in the cold.
They suck in the heat.
So do you want range or do you want to keep warm/cool ?

Like taking long trips, better plan on a lot of charging time.

And when all is considered, raw materials, manufacturing, where the electricityfor the charges is
generated and how, EV make zero sense. Except to nut greenies who feel an obligation to save the
planet, which they are not doing.

Hybrids do make sense with the current technology.
The best of both technologies.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>[whatabouttroll v2.0 boots up]

--
Whataboutism
encyclopedia.pub, 18 Nov 2022
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu
quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position
by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or
disproving their argument.

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 14:29:53 -0400, "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:

>
>
>"R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:uv115s$1n1d$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>> In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uuodpp$p5t$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>>>> In sci.environment David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>>>>> news:lnsB14AB5C1E25486F089P2473@0.0.0.2:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> It took years for gasoline stations to emerge that would enable long
>>>>> distance
>>>>> travel. Why would the EV or BEV or whatever technology be buit up
>>>>> overnight
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> You can imagine some of these charcaters as buggy whip salesmen in the
>>>> 1890s
>>>> saying automobiles will never be a thing.
>>>> People have illogically argued that every new tech could never not be
>>>> successful because it was new.
>>>> Conservative thinking only predicts the past. ;)
>>>
>>> No, it would be as if governments were to seek banning horses before they
>>> could be replaced, and fueling for those machines was virtually
>>> non-existent.
>> ...
>>
>> It would be as if the US govt built all those roads that were missing
>> from 1900s America and pour trillions into supporting gas automobiles.
>> Fortunately, that kind of thing never happens because the free market
>> does it all in Dreamland.
>
>Yep, as cars were adopted people demanded better roads. What was suitable
>for horse and wagon was no longer good enough.
>
>> On June 29, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation
>> funding the construction of the U.S. Interstate Highway
>> System (IHS)--something Americans had dreamed of since Detroit
>> starting building cars.
>
>Which was a natural extension given how much cars and trucking had been
>adopted by then.
>
>As it is 95% of the people see no use for cars,

Uh, dude! Cars out number PEOPLE in this country.

>but government is spending trillions

On what? On what is government spending trillions (wrt EVs)

>and demanding people must buy these expensive replacements that

Nobody is demanding anybody buy anything.
>don't even offer any significant advantage over current technology other

Stop lying. Why can't you discuss new things without lying?

>than some mistaken belief of cutting CO2.. despite the fact we don't have
>the means to really produce a lot of electricity without carbon or nuclear,

Yet less carbon is produced powering EVs than powering ICEs. Electric motors are far more
efficient than liquid fueled. In an ICE, the downward inertia of the rod and piston has
to be arrested and reversed and again at the top of every stroke. It takes a lot of
energy to yank that piston/rod up and down thousands of times a minute.

An electric motor just twists. It's all torque, no wasted motion.

>but we are certainly willing to export that pollution to China to make it
>appear we're being 'green'..

China is not only the number one producer of EVs, they're also the number one consumer of
them. And, btw, MOST lithium comes from Australia and South America. China is a distant
fifth in global production. Why aren't you worried about *their* pollution?

Is it because you're too invested in believing the distortions and half truths being fed
to you by Faux and the rest of the right? You realize they're still lying to you, don't
you?

>Did you know that China's expansion of their dirty coal power plant's is
>increasing CO2 emissions more than all reductions in such emissions being
>made by the rest of the world?

I don't know it and I won't unless you can provide some credible evidence. That doesn't
include Faux, any other right wing mouthpieces or discredited pseudo scientific journals.

>Why should government be mandating this technology.

Government isn't mandating it.

>When it's ready,
>actually ready, people will be more than willing to make the switch.

They switched from horses long before cars were perfected though, didn't they?

> The
>problem is, the tech isn't ready and what have is either too expensive or
>too problematic for most people to accept.
>

The tech is well advanced. Your problem is you're terrified of change.

Swill
--
Conservative thinking only predicts the past. - R Kym Horsell

https://www.gocomics.com/mattdavies/2024/04/01

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 20:32:43 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:

>
>Exactly !

.. . . wrong. Everything he said was wrong.

Swill
--
Conservative thinking only predicts the past. - R Kym Horsell

https://www.gocomics.com/mattdavies/2024/04/01

https://www.forwardparty.com/ . .

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:56:09 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>Scout wrote:
>> He's saying to let the free market work as it should.
>
>We tired of waiting for the free market to stop killing our
>children. You enjoy killing children.
>

Look at you ignoring the child labor being used to produce batteries
for these worthless vehicles.

>> with the automobile. I've yet to see any government run program
>> work as well or as cheaply as normal free market forces. Instead,
>
>Government provides goods and service that are vital but unprofitable.

Government "provides" nothing. They take from the taxpayers and pour
money down a hole. They do nothing in an efficient manner.

>
>> government programs tend to cost way to much, deliver way to
>> little and result in no end of problems
>
>Late last year they had the temerity to close the street because
>they claimed the government built street continues to degrade and
>needs resurfacing every few decades.

And in true government fashion, the roadwork fails prematurely because
they hired incompetent people to do the job.

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 14:29:53 -0400, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:uv115s$1n1d$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>> In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uuodpp$p5t$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>>>> In sci.environment David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>>>>> news:lnsB14AB5C1E25486F089P2473@0.0.0.2:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> It took years for gasoline stations to emerge that would enable long
>>>>> distance
>>>>> travel. Why would the EV or BEV or whatever technology be buit up
>>>>> overnight
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> You can imagine some of these charcaters as buggy whip salesmen in the
>>>> 1890s
>>>> saying automobiles will never be a thing.
>>>> People have illogically argued that every new tech could never not be
>>>> successful because it was new.
>>>> Conservative thinking only predicts the past. ;)
>>>
>>> No, it would be as if governments were to seek banning horses before they
>>> could be replaced, and fueling for those machines was virtually
>>> non-existent.
>> ...
>>
>> It would be as if the US govt built all those roads that were missing
>> from 1900s America and pour trillions into supporting gas automobiles.
>> Fortunately, that kind of thing never happens because the free market
>> does it all in Dreamland.
>
>Yep, as cars were adopted people demanded better roads. What was suitable
>for horse and wagon was no longer good enough.
>
>> On June 29, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation
>> funding the construction of the U.S. Interstate Highway
>> System (IHS)--something Americans had dreamed of since Detroit
>> starting building cars.
>
>Which was a natural extension given how much cars and trucking had been
>adopted by then.
>
>As it is 95% of the people see no use for cars, but government is spending
>trillions and demanding people must buy these expensive replacements that
>don't even offer any significant advantage over current technology other
>than some mistaken belief of cutting CO2.. despite the fact we don't have
>the means to really produce a lot of electricity without carbon or nuclear,
>but we are certainly willing to export that pollution to China to make it
>appear we're being 'green'..
>
>Did you know that China's expansion of their dirty coal power plant's is
>increasing CO2 emissions more than all reductions in such emissions being
>made by the rest of the world?
>
>Why should government be mandating this technology. When it's ready,
>actually ready, people will be more than willing to make the switch. The
>problem is, the tech isn't ready and what have is either too expensive or
>too problematic for most people to accept.
>

You make too much sense. Don't expect to find too much in the way of
intelligent responses because libs aren't capable of actual thought.

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 23:34:00 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 20:32:43 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Exactly !
>
>. . . wrong. Everything he said was wrong.
>
>Swill

Of course Swilly had nothing to offer to counter except denial.

"R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uv1mns$1kbs$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
> In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>>[whatabouttroll v2.0 boots up]
>
> --
> Whataboutism
> encyclopedia.pub, 18 Nov 2022
> Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu
> quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position
> by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or
> disproving their argument.

^^^^^^^^

this being a perfect example of Whatabotism.

Makes an implied rebuttal, but doesn't actually make any attempt to show
that my position was wrong.

"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ko7a1j98j3jg8nnhpkllsdl60nqg1h56sv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:56:09 -0700, Siri Cruise
> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Scout wrote:
>>> He's saying to let the free market work as it should.
>>
>>We tired of waiting for the free market to stop killing our
>>children. You enjoy killing children.
>>
>
> Look at you ignoring the child labor being used to produce batteries
> for these worthless vehicles.

Yea, children are being exploited to mine cobalt in Africa and the toxic
wastes from those operations are contaminating the land and water over a
vast area, and it DOES NOT GO AWAY.

>>> with the automobile. I've yet to see any government run program
>>> work as well or as cheaply as normal free market forces. Instead,
>>
>>Government provides goods and service that are vital but unprofitable.
>
> Government "provides" nothing. They take from the taxpayers and pour
> money down a hole. They do nothing in an efficient manner.

Yep.

>
>>
>>> government programs tend to cost way to much, deliver way to
>>> little and result in no end of problems
>>
>>Late last year they had the temerity to close the street because
>>they claimed the government built street continues to degrade and
>>needs resurfacing every few decades.
>
> And in true government fashion, the roadwork fails prematurely because
> they hired incompetent people to do the job.

Because for the most part they don't care about the long term. just good
enough for today.. tomorrow is the next administration's problem.

"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:818a1j9eq47ja15s23vhmi92jnrpv0lc4c@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 14:29:53 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:uv115s$1n1d$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>>> In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:uuodpp$p5t$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>>>>> In sci.environment David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-criminals@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>>>>>> news:lnsB14AB5C1E25486F089P2473@0.0.0.2:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It took years for gasoline stations to emerge that would enable long
>>>>>> distance
>>>>>> travel. Why would the EV or BEV or whatever technology be buit up
>>>>>> overnight
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> You can imagine some of these charcaters as buggy whip salesmen in the
>>>>> 1890s
>>>>> saying automobiles will never be a thing.
>>>>> People have illogically argued that every new tech could never not be
>>>>> successful because it was new.
>>>>> Conservative thinking only predicts the past. ;)
>>>>
>>>> No, it would be as if governments were to seek banning horses before
>>>> they
>>>> could be replaced, and fueling for those machines was virtually
>>>> non-existent.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> It would be as if the US govt built all those roads that were missing
>>> from 1900s America and pour trillions into supporting gas automobiles.
>>> Fortunately, that kind of thing never happens because the free market
>>> does it all in Dreamland.
>>
>>Yep, as cars were adopted people demanded better roads. What was suitable
>>for horse and wagon was no longer good enough.
>>
>>> On June 29, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation
>>> funding the construction of the U.S. Interstate Highway
>>> System (IHS)--something Americans had dreamed of since Detroit
>>> starting building cars.
>>
>>Which was a natural extension given how much cars and trucking had been
>>adopted by then.
>>
>>As it is 95% of the people see no use for cars, but government is spending
>>trillions and demanding people must buy these expensive replacements that
>>don't even offer any significant advantage over current technology other
>>than some mistaken belief of cutting CO2.. despite the fact we don't have
>>the means to really produce a lot of electricity without carbon or
>>nuclear,
>>but we are certainly willing to export that pollution to China to make it
>>appear we're being 'green'..
>>
>>Did you know that China's expansion of their dirty coal power plant's is
>>increasing CO2 emissions more than all reductions in such emissions being
>>made by the rest of the world?
>>
>>Why should government be mandating this technology. When it's ready,
>>actually ready, people will be more than willing to make the switch. The
>>problem is, the tech isn't ready and what have is either too expensive or
>>too problematic for most people to accept.
>>
>
> You make too much sense. Don't expect to find too much in the way of
> intelligent responses because libs aren't capable of actual thought.

Well, to do that would require they actually have facts to work with.. and
if they had the facts they probably wouldn't be so liberal.

"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pa8a1jd0f8gb3vsfc7vq766ue6nkeo7tvu@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 23:34:00 -0400, Governor Swill
> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 20:32:43 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Exactly !
>>
>>. . . wrong. Everything he said was wrong.
>>
>>Swill
>
> Of course Swilly had nothing to offer to counter except denial.

Of course, because denial is all he has. If the facts were on his side then
he would be using them. Of course, if he knew the facts, he probably
wouldn't be nearly as much of a liberal as he is.

We could also discuss law enforcement.. which seems a natural government
function... then look at how poorly government is currently doing it.. and
what do we see? Violent crime is rising drastically in areas because the
government is doing a poor job of enforcing the law and punishing those who
violate it.

Any private security force doing this would be fired and you would hire
someone who would actually do a good job...
However, how do you do that with a government?

In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
> "R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uv1mns$1kbs$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>> In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>> wrote:
>>>[whatabouttroll v2.0 boots up]
>>
>> --
>> Whataboutism
>> encyclopedia.pub, 18 Nov 2022
>> Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu
>> quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position
>> by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or
>> disproving their argument.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> this being a perfect example of Whatabotism.
....

And that being a perfect example of "attempts to discredit an opponent's
position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or
disproving their argument"

It was an obvious trap for an over-confident nitwit.

--
Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
they can be trained to substantially improve [their own performance].
Dunning later drew an analogy with anosognosia in which a person who
suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of
or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic
impairments such as blindness or paralysis.
Dunning & Kruger & others concluded that the root cause is that, in
contrast to high performers, "poor performers do not learn from
feedback suggesting a need to improve".
Ehrlinger, Joyce; Johnson, Kerri; Banner, Matthew; Dunning, David;
Kruger, Justin (2008). "Why the unskilled are unaware: Further
explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent".
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (105): 98-121.

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 07:00:26 -0400, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:56:09 -0700, Siri Cruise
><chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Scout wrote:
>>> He's saying to let the free market work as it should.
>>
>>We tired of waiting for the free market to stop killing our
>>children. You enjoy killing children.
>>
>
>Look at you ignoring the child labor being used to produce batteries
>for these worthless vehicles.
>
>>> with the automobile. I've yet to see any government run program
>>> work as well or as cheaply as normal free market forces. Instead,
>>
>>Government provides goods and service that are vital but unprofitable.
>
>Government "provides" nothing. They take from the taxpayers and pour
>money down a hole. They do nothing in an efficient manner.
>
>>
>>> government programs tend to cost way to much, deliver way to
>>> little and result in no end of problems
>>
>>Late last year they had the temerity to close the street because
>>they claimed the government built street continues to degrade and
>>needs resurfacing every few decades.
>
>And in true government fashion, the roadwork fails prematurely because
>they hired incompetent people to do the job.

And the drunk has passed out once again.

"R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uv3uj0$1292$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
> In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "R Kym Horsell" <kymhorsell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uv1mns$1kbs$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
>>> In sci.environment Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>[whatabouttroll v2.0 boots up]
>>>
>>> --
>>> Whataboutism
>>> encyclopedia.pub, 18 Nov 2022
>>> Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu
>>> quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position
>>> by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or
>>> disproving their argument.
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>
>> this being a perfect example of Whatabotism.
> ...
>
> And that being a perfect example of "attempts to discredit an opponent's
> position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or
> disproving their argument"

On the contrary, no argument was made to refute or disprove.

I just point out your actions matched those indicated within the definition.