If it weren’t for government intervention, we all would not have the “choice” to buy a Lucid. Tesla would never have survived without massive assistance from government loans, both federal and Californian. Without Tesla surviving, no traditional automaker would have moved toward making EVs. And Lucid would not exist.
I also believe in choice and don’t necessarily want to start an ideological argument. I also don’t think I am saving the planet, however, there are clear arguments, and there is good data, to support the notion that electric vehicles are less polluting, and will be more beneficial in the fight against climate change, especially as we transition to cleaner energy supplies. The main issue I see in the current social and political climate is the steady stream of misinformation. I get kind of tired of the well your electric car is powered by coal when my grid doesn’t even have a coal fire plant, etc. Government mandates aren’t necessarily as effective as reasonable incentives, especially in this country. The current state of our charging infrastructure is pretty pathetic, especially in places like Idaho, where I live; I hope in the near future, I have the choice to drive an electric vehicle wherever I want.
I generally agree with what you said. However, wouldn't it be nice to go downtown and not inhale the car fumes that permeate the city. There is a safety factor here irregardless whether you believe it has an effect on climate change or not. Inhaling car fumes is unhealthy and EV's make it a healthier alternative, whether downtown or in your local neighborhood out for a walk.
Back to the Future: Ford Nucleon 1957
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
Goes 250,000 years on a "charge" ( must provide your own plutonium )
If I recall correctly didn’t that same study show after 2-3 years of ownership the pollution was offset and a net negative footprint resulted, the one caveat being if the grid was coal powered it took longer to offset? Just want to make sure the whole story is being told and not the impression given that there’s no pollution/CO2 difference between EV/ICE, which is not true and the more studies that are done seem to land even more in EVs favor. Also efficiency matters, a car getting 4.0 mi/kWh is going to have much less footprint than a Rivian doing 2.1 mi/kWh.
If I recall correctly didn’t that same study show after 2-3 years of ownership the pollution was offset and a net negative footprint resulted, the one caveat being if the grid was coal powered it took longer to offset? Just want to make sure the whole story is being told and not the impression given that there’s no pollution/CO2 difference between EV/ICE, which is not true and the more studies that are done seem to land even more in EVs favor. Also efficiency matters, a car getting 4.0 mi/kWh is going to have much less footprint than a Rivian doing 2.1 mi/kWh.
E.V.s Start With a Bigger Carbon Footprint. But That Doesn’t Last. (Published 2022)
The manufacturing and disposal of electric vehicles result in more greenhouse gases than nonelectric models, but that difference will eventually disappear altogether.www.nytimes.com
That is why Florida Power and Light offers unlimited off-peak EV charging for $31/mo. They supply the charger, but require a 10 year contract.
Washington DC?
Yeah stupidity is not constrained by borders on a map. Like yeah let’s bias the federal EV tax credit towards less efficient more carbon costly SUVs and trucks.
Not clear what "topless" is referring to here - you or the car? Either way, fine with me.
