Not true, but EVs are way more than just being "green". Read up.
They're mostly about politics, yes.
Already solved. Learn about thermal and mechanical storage.
Mechanical storage, really? Like in a spring powered car? A toy car, maybe, but a real car? for miles?
"Thermal" storage sounds like taken out of a scyfi movie: you have plenty of "thermal" energy (basically "heat") stored in Sahara's air/ground during the day, how can you use it? Just by cracking that you could deploy a Trans-Sahara train that would run the whole day by itself (no refueling necessary), or you could create some generation facilities there and power part of the continent (or sell it to Europe). Are you talking "thermal" as in volcano heat? Same idea, how would you "use" that stored "thermal energy"? other than the old steam turbine, that is.
Energy storage is done in chemical bonds, because it's the best way that we know so far, but if you found a new one it could end up being the "new battery technology" that we all have been waiting for.
That has been covered here REPEATEDLY. And you still don't know.
You're not an engineer, right? Say you design a system to handle X load, and add a 2%-5% overprovisioning, over the estimates (just to give yourself some wiggle room): how would you reply to the new boss saying that the system now has to support 1.5X load (plus a new 2%-5% of 1.5X)? You could have done more overprovisioning at higher cost that might blow back on you (either the project gets rejected as very expensive or you get political blow back if that capacity sits idle for too long) or you could go really tight with the projections (and end up blaming the people doing that part, if it wasn't you) but at the end of the day for this to fly you must have had projected 50% overprovisioning (according to theinsanegamer's numbers), which is probably not the case for most scenarios. If there's a solution to this question that was already explained, could you please point to it?
Odd you would say that (not really). Horses were why cars took so long to catch on. Mechanical breakdowns were at maddening levels, and horses never broke down. Damn man.
horses never broke down? They just got sick, died, had to eat, sleep, drink water... You would have to care for your horses every day of this life, the car (broken or not) could be left forgotten for extended periods of time and still "work". Like every other product, once the replacement got rid of most of it pain points it took over the market. That's not something that you could say of EVs, and I would say that the main pain point is cost: no matter how much intervention we get from the governments, in the form of subventions (you're paying for "an EV somewhere" even if you don't own one, isn't that nice?) or red tape on internal combustion cars (banned from places, impossible efficiency numbers, etc.) they hadn't been able to bring the prices down.
Again. Bullshit. And I speak from experience here. WAY off.
You could say that EVs are simpler than internal combustion cars, even though they share a lot of things (brakes, lights, infotainment, etc). Some things would be different, like the A/C or the power steering, but the main issue would be: power train. Have you been able to work on the power train of an EV and assert that is "simple enough" or that you could re-use the tools and knowledge of your years of work in combustion engine cars?
I had to toss this one in again. How can you be so out of touch?
Right, there's no reply to it. You could store all the energy you like but you can't generate energy from solar during the night or "really cloudy" days. Same with wind: only works when the wind blows. Again, if you found the solution for solar generation at night or wind generation on calm, please do share (generation, not "supplying" energy that you stored somewhere before).
Don't worry. There will still be plenty of lithium left by the time we dont need it anymore. Remember? That's what this very article is about.
How does the EVs today benefit from a technology that's, at least, 6 years into the future? That 6 years time frame feels more "this might work, if we get the right scientists" than "we got this working, we only need to clear all the red tape and fix some issues in the assembly lines".
In fact, EVs will continue to drop in price. Like they are.
Not sure what market are you in, but no car that I know of is dropping in price, to the contrary. Is it that the EVs don't use as much "electronics" as the other cars or is that their chips have seen no shortage (or maybe they sell more expensive so they're prioritized)?
Even if true, ever heard of a ........Used car?
On EVs there's a different equation: you don't buy a car, you buy a battery (with a car around it). So, now do your math with "battery" instead of "car". Your used EV will be valued depending on the condition of its battery, and it will come to a moment that it will simply die (you've probably experienced this with a phone or a laptop already). Basically programmed obsolescence applied to the car industry, so green, so environmentalist: because when it comes to buying a new battery, you'll be better off buying a whole new car (same idea with replacing a TV screen VS buying a new TV).
Only by a few folks that don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Guess who that includes!?
Toyota, 8 years+ ago? It's the same idea as your EV, it just uses a "hydrogen combustion engine" (called "battery" for whatever reason) to generate electricity that is later used on an electric power train.
Natural gas is probably cheaper and more abundant than gasoline (and is said to be "cleaner") so it makes sense that you could adapt an existing internal combustion engine to burn this one instead. Those seem like "non-revolutionary" maybe useful ideas, time will tell.
A great way to conclude such a convoluted and fact free post. Complete confusion. And like it or not, facts are still everything, because without them, you know what we get? Right Wing CONServatism.
And now, if you don't mind, my throat hurts from the laughter. I need to get back into this century. And reality.
Don't you know that "today's facts" are basically opinions? That's what the courts said (about Facebook fact checks, for example) so that's not on me (I think differently fwiw).
I don't see a lot of knowledge in your comments, but maybe you're just using talking points over a very deeply knowledgeable life experience, that you skipped here for some reason (brevity, maybe?). Please use my questions to share it with the rest of the world, and thank you.