Texas will bill electric vehicle drivers an extra $200 a year

[Revoltingest]

LMGTFY?

LSMFT?

 

[icehorse]

LSMFT?

Funny, but wrong

 

[Revoltingest]

Funny, but wrong

Dueling arcane initialisms can be fun, but
do you have any support for your claims?

 

[icehorse]

Dueling arcane initialisms can be fun, but
do you have any support for your claims?

I debate in good faith, I don't have time to do otherwise. Requests for citations will usually be ignored.

The claims I make are easily google-able.

And LMGTFY is hardly arcane

 

[PureX]

Politicians LOVE a "sin tax" because hardly anyone ever objects to them. Tax the hell our of all tobacco products? ... Claim it pays for the cost of smokers getting cancer? Absolutely, we say! Tax the crap out of those "sinners"! Why should WE pay for illnesses they could have avoided! And cvan we tax the snot out of gambling winnings, too? You bet! Hey, it's free money". Why shouldn't everyone should get a big fat piece!

And in Texas it is clearly a "sin" to be some "woke, new-agey, hippie, environmentalist" type. And probably a liberal, too! A sinner of the WORST KIND, in fact! So who's going to object to punishing them for buying an electric car? $200 is not nearly enough! Let's make it more like @2,000! No 'real' Texan will object it!

 

[Revoltingest]

I debate in good faith, I don't have time to do otherwise. Requests for citations will usually be ignored.

The claims I make are easily google-able.

And LMGTFY is hardly arcane

IOW...
You make claims.
It's everyone else's jobs to support them.

I sense belief without evidence.

 

[icehorse]

IOW...
You make claims.
It's everyone else's jobs to support them.

I sense belief without evidence.

I don't care what you what you "sense".

If I've studied a topic more than you have, it's not my job to bring you up to speed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't care what you what you "sense".

If I've studied a topic more than you have, it's not my job to bring you up to speed.

That suggests a claim of having studied,
but without actually making the claim.
Are you an expert on the subject?

 

[Twilight Hue]

It depends. Locally, I would think that most people would have charged the car at home and don't need another charge. On long trips, a 20 minute break to stretch legs, have a coffee and let the dog pee might be welcome. That still leaves some that are inconvenienced of course.

The problem is people think metro too much.

They don't consider or regard rural areas where commutes tend to be significantly longer and people who drive their own vehicles all day to make a living.

 

[Heyo]

The problem is people think metro too much.

The problem is people think metro not much enough.
The vast majority of people live in urban areas where public transit can be fast, convenient and cost effective. And for where that isn't already so, EVs can be effective and convenient.

They don't consider or regard rural areas where commutes tend to be significantly longer and people who drive their own vehicles all day to make a living.

EVs don't have to be the only solution. That would be a black-and-white fallacy. Eliminating ICE from cities would reduce CO2 substantially and improve air quality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Taking myself as an example, most trips are local with the very occasional long interstate trip. So, an EV would be fine for 99+% of my travel. In fact I'd not need a high power charger. Overnight charging in my home would be OK. But, we have an SUV for those long trips and no second car. Of course, the actual mileage we do is very low, and that has to be taken into account. I suppose if I did a lot of short local trips, an EV plus renting something bigger for long trips would work and be equally inexpensive (we save a lot by having only one vehicle, but we're both retired, and that wouldn't work for everyone).

As far as EVs being "green" or not I think we should be discussing climate change only as that's the major threat. So I don't know how factors not related to carbonore emissions should be considered. The big question that is often overlooked is that the electricity you use to charge your EV has to be produced somehow and if that's a coal fired power station you're not doing much good. On the other hand, as electricity is produced at a central point, it can be addressed more easily.

Even if one uses energy from a coal fired plant an EV puts less CO2 into the air. EV'S are far more efficient than ICE's. So one does still get a net improvement. And we are creating more and more wind farms and solar plants out there constantly. One has to look at the trend, not the few exceptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is the extra weight of 1 small car significant in road damage?
I recall that damage is caused solely by weather & heavy trucks.

Consider an analogy with steel.
Lightly loaded (below 50% of ultimate tensile strength) cyclic
loading of steel results in infinite life. Above that threshold,
life becomes finite. Higher levels (not lower) break things.

I have seen both truck damage and car damage. We have a fair amount from cars in my state. Unfortunately, studded tires are still legal here. In places there are ruts the width of an average car. Not that of an average semi. They do surface damage to the asphalt or concrete. Police often catch violators of the season allowed for studs by lowering their windows. One can hear the studs as they drive by.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have seen both truck damage and car damage. We have a fair amount from cars in my state. Unfortunately, studded tires are still legal here. In places there are ruts the width of an average car. Not that of an average semi. They do surface damage to the asphalt or concrete. Police often catch violators of the season allowed for studs by lowering their windows. One can hear the studs as they drive by.

Studded tires were once a problem here too.
But regarding car weight, I find the argument
against EVs to be unsupported.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Studded tires were once a problem here too.
But when considering weight, I find the argument
against EVs to be bogus.

It could be. But it may not be when it comes to the damage from studded tires. Personally, I think that one should have to pay more for the tires. There should be a "road resurfacing surcharge" on them. Then we could charge just by mileage.

 

[Revoltingest]

It could be. But it may not be when it comes to the damage from studded tires.

Studded tires damage roads.
Where they're legal, ban them.
But this isn't an argument against EVs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Studded tires damage roads.
Where they're legal, ban them.
But this isn't an argument against EVs.

Why quote mine me when I was agreeing with you?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why quote mine me when I was agreeing with you?

I responded to your post, which was a response to my post.
The thread is about EVs.
I steered it back from studded tires to the dubious that
EV weight makes them a less green option than IC engines.

 

[icehorse]

That suggests a claim of having studied,
but without actually making the claim.
Are you an expert on the subject?

There is a continuum between novice and expert. I'm somewhere in the middle. I've had long conversations with people who actually ARE experts. As I said earlier, I debate in good faith. If I have an intuition, I say so. If I make a claim, it's based on more than intuition.

I think that that's how good faith debaters debate.

No doubt, some claims are more extraordinary than others. But if you consider what it takes to mine tons and tons of lithium, and then consider the power plants necessary to feed the electric grid, and then you consider how toxic spent lithium batteries are, I'm not making an extraordinary claim, I'm making a common sense claim.

I'm actually surprised that you, who I've come to know somewhat over the years, would trust the government when they tell you EVs are green??

 

[Brickjectivity]

Meh. The roads are expensive. Its either taxes or tolls and electronic tracking.

 

[We Never Know]

Evidence?

If you want more than Forbes, use google.

"As electric vehicles gain popularity on public roads, our infrastructure is met with new challenges—and not the problems you regularly hear about like creating new charging stations and energy grid enhancements. Rather, the mere weight of these vehicles will lead to rapid degradation of our roads.

"Electric cars weigh considerably more than gas-powered cars. For example, the Ford F-150 Lightning weighs 35% more than the gas-powered Ford F-150 truck. This overwhelming amount of added weight on our roads can directly cause more stress and may eventually result in the failure of our paved roads......."

"Electric vehicles aren’t going anywhere and will only gain popularity in the coming years as gas prices rise and making the switch to electric becomes more incentivized. This weight problem will only become a heavier burden on our roads. It’s also important to note that, as we continue to race toward an autonomous-driving future, we can’t afford further damage to the infrastructure that these cars require to drive on."

Council Post: Electric Vehicles And The Impact On Infrastructure

This overwhelming amount of added weight on our roads can directly cause more stress and may eventually result in the failure of our paved roads.

www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org