Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

The reason they are pushing electric cars is because they will have full control. They can easily shut it off, lock the doors, drive the car if needed...all through a pc. Let's not forget, they want the masses to not travel far in their future dystopia

[–] • 1 pt

They can easily shut it off, lock the doors, drive the car if needed...all through a pc.

They can do that to your gas cars today, too.

[–] • 1 pt

Most gas cars don't have a remote internet connection unless you pay for it.

[–] • 3 pts

You mean you can't use the Internet connection built in to your car unless you pay for it. It's there whether you're using it or not.

[–] • 1 pt

tesla already has subscription heated seats. you pay yearly to have the button work to heat your seats.

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

Teslas are shit.

Firstly, you cant afford them. I dont want to spend 100k GBP on a car. I want to spend enough money, just to carry my ass around. Teslas are luxurious high end cars targeted at people who wish to spend a lot of money on a car. The majority of the people want to get from point A to point B. Yet, we are promoting Teslas as the future! As the revolution. That is like saying in the 50s that a Rolls Royce should be the norm for people to drive around. No. It wasnt. And it should not be Teslas todays.

Secondly, you cant afford them, even after the american tax payer subsidizing your purchase. Fake Space explorer Elon Musk made zero profit from the sales of Teslas. The economic model of the industry is NOT SUSTAINABLE. He did not turn a profit despite

1) All of the legislation that punishes his competitors and gas/ diesel cars 2) All of the legislation that promotes his own cars (electric cars get tax benefits, are allowed to park in certain streets, are allowed to drive in specific streets). 3) the cash injections that he regularly receives from the American taxpayer (I am not American by the way). 4) Look into it. Teslas rank the second worse in customer satisfaction. 5) The MASSIVE investment in infrastructure needed to allow the use of Teslas (charging chargers all around the world). 6) Teslas are not green. You know what is green? Small cars that carry your ass around with an engine that can do 0-60 in when the fuck ever and a top speed of 150km/h.

I am leaving out the logistics of convertint gasoline into horsepower vs converting coal into electricrity and then into horsepower.

I just want to drive to work 10 minutes every day and to the gym another 10 minutes.

I dont want to race. I dont want to get jewed by the banks. I dont want to show of. I dont want to listen to my music through some 3k carat loudspeakers or what the fuck ever.

I am at this age where I simply dont give a shit about new shit anymore and realise how I ve been jewed in the past out of my sweat and time (expensive cars, shoes, loudspeakers, tv monitors and stupid shit like that).

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Not to mention that if you take into account total energy it takes to build one and fuel one over its lifetime a diesels FAAAAAAAAAAR more efficient to begin with. Tesla owners still drive carbon fueled cars, they just move the carbon engine to the power plant far away. Now add the energy losses in transmitting all of that energy over thousands of miles of copper and electric cars are an absolute trasheap of waste and inefficiency, given current technology.

Add to that the electric grid will NEVER be able to be upgraded to handle all of the juice necessary to charge up all cars in a 100% electric car future and you quickly start to see how ridiculous all of this is.

There is an idiot this board that has a tesla and boy does he get fucking upset if you try to explain to him that the only reason that he can run and operate his iphone on wheels is because the slack in our energy grid can absorb his stupid latte drinking tastes but would be absolutely impossible if everyone got one.

However, that doesn't mean that electric cars aren't the future, they are because the first cars were all electric. It just isn't going to be using the current technology mix. Here is why I think that:

  • Tesla owners are driving carbon powered cars. They just moved their carbon engines 1000 miles away to a turbine powered electric generator.

  • Future electric cars will probably move those carbon powered turbine engines back to the car and instead of massive batteries simply have tiny supercapacitors that will be perpetually charged with tiny on board turbines.

We have had this technology since 1963: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2A5ijU3Ivs

The reason it didn't work was because like jay lenos jet car, they tried to mate the turbine to a transmission. If you use the onboard turbine the way they did in the 1963 chrysler but mate them to a generator + superacapacitors + electric motors, not only do you get super efficient energy productin (over 90% efficient), you can re-circulate the air like in the chrylser to extract the maximum amount of heat energy from the turbine air and keep the exhaust cool. You can also re-circulate the air so much to make an on board turbine almost silent if you want. Mate the trubine to a generator, keep the superpacpacitors charged appropriately, put 4 electric motors on the thing (or one for a commuter) and you have a car that is lighter than a gasoline engine car, more efficient than a diesel but can burn gas, diesel or anything that burns because turbines run on anything, and the power and torque of an electric car all without the problems of battery manufacturing and weight.

Also, because turbines iike to run at high and constant rpm, they are perfect as local electric generators, and you can use electric breaking systems that are available for heavy duty trucks to control over-rotation on a turbine if you are at idle and supercaps are full.

[–] • 0 pt

Add to that the electric grid will NEVER be able to be upgraded to handle all of the juice necessary to charge up all cars in a 100% electric car future and you quickly start to see how ridiculous all of this is.

Converting every single passenger car in the United States to 100% electric would only require about 3% more electrical output than we produce today. The good thing is that we're currently operating at about 40% of max capacity, so we'd need to operate at 44% of max capacity to handle it.

  • Most electric cars drive about 4 miles on 1 kWh
  • 1,050,000,000,000 / 4 = 262,500,000,000 kWh = 262,500,000 MWh needed to power all that driving
  • 1,117,475 * 24 * 365 = 9,789,081,000 MWh annual capacity
  • That means we generate 4,009,000,000 / 9,789,081,000 = 41% of our total capacity
  • Running every car on electricity requires an additional 262,500,000 / 9,789,081,000 = 2.7% output from the grid
  • Total capacity of current generation capacity used if all cars and light trucks are electric: 43.7%
[–] • 2 pts

I think you forgot to factor in the loss of energy in transferring electricity to the cars, charging the cars, and then using the charged batteries. Only 1/3 of energy created at the power plant actually makes it to the wheels to power the car. In Europe the efficiency of the system is even worse.

That's not to mention the energy used to mine all the Lithium, copper, etc. and the time wasted waiting for chargers, etc., etc. There was a report out recently that took all this into account and shined a very inefficient light on electric cars.

[–] • 0 pt

You are confusing power with energy. Power is instantaneous, the 1st derivative of energy with respect to time. Energy is found with time.

Just because we "only" use a portion of the grids total energy, doesn't mean we don't have power problems.

The grid is designed not only to provide the total energy needed, but also supply just above total peak power consumption.

Right now in the summer we have problems when everyone turns on their ACs, when everyone is plugging in their cars at stations looking for a quick charge, we will have problems.

The grid will have to be upgraded, not just power production, but distribution. This will absolutely raise the cost of electricity.

Also this administration is moving to a smart grid, that only means more control. Most likely the ability to shutdown stations at their will or have charging stations that will only charge if they are in ok status from the power company to provide a charge.

When the next virus hits, they will likely prevent those fast charging stations from allowing cars to be charged.

[–] • 0 pt

Firstly, you cant afford them. I dont want to spend 100k GBP on a car

The Model S/X are luxury cars, boomer.

[–] • 0 pt

Tesla has actively been doing basically nothing else but bringing down the cost of those vehicles. Man, I'm not their usual defender, but even I know this. It's not trivial. Other car companies are also trying, so it's not like you have to rely on Tesla.

[–] • 2 pts

Not only russia....

Wait until electric cars reach 10% of cars and watch the collapse of the electric grid

Switch brain on: we have been pestered to "save electricity", buy energy efficient lamps and so on and now

plug into the SAME electric grid something that is 100 times the usage tha tyou used to have

ohhhh, wait, I se what you are going to say !!!

I keep my tesla parked in garage, no electricity used.

then WHY are you having a car ?

[–] • 0 pt

plug into the SAME electric grid something that is 100 times the usage tha tyou used to have

Powering every passenger car and light truck in the United States with electricity would take 2.7% more power than we use today.

.

[–] • 1 pt

Not in a real world

1) your data is ONLY for cars, not light truck, powering a truck is hugely different 2) Efficiency is around 2miles / kWh not 4 3) Nothing is computed for harsh climate (heating/cooling required) 4) Maximum generated capacity is interesting but irrelevant, what matters is current generated capacity

all in all, withouth 3) we are at 6% more, globally, withouth trucks the main issue is distribution, take a group of 10 houses than now drain basically nothing at night They will be drawing at least 50kWh, seems little but it is a huge difference from current baseline

is the power grid up to task, not at all

[–] • 0 pt

It includes light duty trucks

Efficiency is around 2miles / kWh not 4

Not for passenger cars it isn't. Not even close.

Nothing is computed for harsh climate (heating/cooling required)

Because it's relatively small impact. Running the heat for an hour takes about 1% of a 60 kWh battery's charge. Same for cooling.

take a group of 10 houses than now drain basically nothing at night. is the power grid up to task, not at all

Why can the grid handle it during the day but not at night?

[–] • 1 pt

Who cares, electric cars are gay and are pushed solely so that the jew can have control of your ability to travel long distances.

[–] • 0 pt

How do you propose an electric car can be prevented from traveling long distances where a liquid fueled car could not?

[–] • 1 pt

battery tech is still shit.

[–] • 1 pt

This will not age well.

[–] • 0 pt

Fun fact. Lead acid batteries are better than lithium in extreme colds

[–] • 0 pt

Average temperature is about minus 25-30 Celsius in Russia when the real winter starts. It's already a hassle to start a car when it's that cold. Now imagine this piece of shit. I hope you like walking.

[–] • 0 pt

In other news, water is wet.

[–] • 0 pt

Is there anything a Russian winter DOESN’T fuck up?

[–] • 1 pt

Russi...no, pretty sure it fucks up Russians too.

[–] • 0 pt

It'll be interesting to see if Elon Musk responds to this story. In the past he's caught reporters driving around in circles until the battery runs down and then claiming the car ran out of power unexpectedly. The article doesn't mention how much charge the dude had when he parked his car.

[–] • -1 pt

This is my only real concern with Telsas. I'll still get one though. Lots of petrophiles here though.