• Federal EV charging stations are key to Biden's climate agenda, yet onl

    From Leroy N. Soetoro@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 5 00:52:03 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David LaRue@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 5 02:06:28 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    "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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 68hx.1805@21:1/5 to R Kym Horsell on Sat Apr 6 01:09:22 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics
    XPost: talk.politics.misc

    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 ??? :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to R Kym Horsell on Mon Apr 8 07:16:22 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    "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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Siri Cruise@21:1/5 to Scout on Mon Apr 8 05:56:09 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to R Kym Horsell on Mon Apr 8 14:29:53 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    "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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pothead@21:1/5 to Scout on Mon Apr 8 20:32:43 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NoBody@21:1/5 to me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nosp on Tue Apr 9 07:03:32 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NoBody@21:1/5 to governor.swill@gmail.com on Tue Apr 9 07:07:27 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NoBody@21:1/5 to chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com on Tue Apr 9 07:00:26 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to R Kym Horsell on Tue Apr 9 07:04:44 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    "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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to NoBody on Tue Apr 9 09:44:16 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    "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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to NoBody on Tue Apr 9 09:55:20 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    "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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to NoBody on Tue Apr 9 09:42:34 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    "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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NoBody@21:1/5 to NoBody on Wed Apr 10 07:12:20 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to R Kym Horsell on Tue Apr 9 14:03:40 2024
    XPost: alt.energy.automobile, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
    XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc

    "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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)