If you could take a second to move away from your smugness and unintelligence to let me get a word in...
I actually understand your line of thought that things should be questioned. Science should absolutely be questioned. That's how valid conclusions are made to hypotheses. I think the problem comes from both ends, though. Some people may blindly follow conclusions without questioning them, and that's a problem. On the other hand, some people may blindly rail against conclusions without knowing what they're talking about. Those groups are often the loudest in the room.
As far as EV's go, I think there seems to be enough science out there from what Lyuok has discussed and what the EPA has listed which demonstrates that so far it looks to be a step in the right direction. Does that mean it's perfect? No. Does that mean that we shouldn't also explore other alternative energy sources? Of course not. I think we need to keep the gas pedal on improving what will eventually become dire straits, if it isn't already. Some people on this board have said "gas forever!" (direct quote), but that's just the problem. It can't be. Add into that the environmental concerns and sustainability is a problem. We've tried to go the fuel cell route already with hydrogen, but that didn't take and obviously had its own problems. EVs, for better or worse, seem to be obtaining considerable and sustainable momentum into being the alternative, or at least the most viable one currently. Not just here, but the world over. Do we have a lot of concerns with that route? Oh flip yeah, we do. But I think there are a lot of opportunities to improve those, from replacing lithium, to improving infrastructure, to moving energy production down to the consumer level (whereas with gas, we can't just drill out in our own back yards).
I think the fact that they represent a significant step, while also preserving room for improvement should galvanize our efforts as the most innovative country in the world. The problem is we spend too much time making every GD thing political to where it comes down to "This is the only way and everyone must accept it no matter what" vs "We cannot go this route no matter what" that we get to the point where we start treading water. Then others swoop in and leap frog us. That's a point that Swish made, which I agree with. We could 100% innovate and improve much better than China, because we allow improvement through independent, individual thoughts and innovation, or at least we used to. Now, we're too focused on figuring out why we can't do something.
QFT
Great post. I agree with it 100%
EVs are the only path to the future. They don't need to reach some far-fetched, short term critical mass to blaze that path. Trying to push for that in the short term definitely has it's own set of problems. And imo, is a little foolish. There is a whole lot of "fleshing out" that needs to take place within the infrastructure and the tech. I'm in favor of moving forward in a sensible manner without demonizing or cancelling other parts of the menu mix.
My whole entry into this conversation is based on the all too common chant of "science!" which usually, conveniently, ignores part of the actual science. Also, when a "plan" calls for impossible benchmarks, I can't help but question the plan. Unfortunately, to most people reading, the assumption would be that I'm against change, innovation, and electric cars. I'm surprised someone hasn't posted something like "so, you think doing nothing at all is a better option?", or a question equally as silly.
The middle of your post paints a perfect, common sense approach to the future. We've accelerated that path, and that's a good thing. Competition among EV companies is also helping make it a win for consumers, at least those in position to participate.
I can't help but think there is some valuable content missing from the conversation if we're all just going to scream "electric" though. The ICE will not be extinct for at least a few decades, and I really don't think there is anything wrong with that timetable. If I were czar, and I were running this like a business, I'd throw the industry a serious curve ball and require that starting in 2025, all new ICE vehicles must be dual-fuel and capable of running on CNG, while also giving all consumers 100% tax credit on installing a fueling station in their garage. We hedge our bet against petroleum while taking an axe to our dependence... with a cleaner, cheaper resource that is abundant on our own turf. We flatten the curve of "electric by necessity" by riding out both resources on the other end. That also helps keep competition as the consumer's best friend along the way.
Next steps: Figure out how to maximize efficiency and minimize dependance on
the other 60% of a barrel of oil.
Figure out where all this electric will come from. Your electric car runs on coal, so there is still a very large part of the "issue" that needs to be addressed.
I'm hoping Musk can figure out a way to beam down endless supplies of electricity from outer space. In the meantime, rest assured -- when I see you stranded by the road after a pulse bomb -- I'll pick you up in my gas-guzzling '72 Nova.
