Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[grumbler]

You could also just finance proper winter service for your highways, but I guess that goes against rugged individualism that American conservatives love so much.

Or you could finance proper winter service for your highways and still get overwhelmed by an improper amount of snow.  But don't anyone let facts get in the way of a good "gotcha."

[grumbler]

To be fair, a gas can is still a hell of a lot simpler solution than a portable charging station of any kind.  That emergency vehicle with a charger could carry 100 jerry cans of gas, and get 100 cars running in the amount of time it takes to pour it in the tank (as long as they didn't run completely dry).  An internal combustion engine vehicle is surely more robust to infrastructure catastrophes, as it's hard to beat the simplicity, portability, and energy density of gasoline.  That doesn't mean that we should make our infrastructure decisions solely based on robustness to infrastructure failures, however.

Agreed, but would also note that the drain on a car's battery to just operate the heating is likely to be similar to the drain on a gas tank of running the engine to keep the heat going, so the "what if all the wheels fell off electric cars but not ICE cars'-type conjecture seems dumb to me.  Getting the ICE car started after running out of fuel is simpler, as you note, but the disaster being invented by the loonies on the right doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

[crazy canuck]

To be fair, a gas can is still a hell of a lot simpler solution than a portable charging station of any kind.  That emergency vehicle with a charger could carry 100 jerry cans of gas, and get 100 cars running in the amount of time it takes to pour it in the tank (as long as they didn't run completely dry).  An internal combustion engine vehicle is surely more robust to infrastructure catastrophes, as it's hard to beat the simplicity, portability, and energy density of gasoline.  That doesn't mean that we should make our infrastructure decisions solely based on robustness to infrastructure failures, however.

Agreed, but would also note that the drain on a car's battery to just operate the heating is likely to be similar to the drain on a gas tank of running the engine to keep the heat going, so the "what if all the wheels fell off electric cars but not ICE cars'-type conjecture seems dumb to me.  Getting the ICE car started after running out of fuel is simpler, as you note, but the disaster being invented by the loonies on the right doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

No, the heating system in an EV would drain the battery a lot faster than a heater on an internal combustion engine - it is the heat from the engine itself that runs the heater, the electricity is just to power the fans.  No such luck on an EV.  The scenario is that EV's run out of energy faster than an internal combustion engine.  And that is undeniably true.

[Valmy]

To be fair, a gas can is still a hell of a lot simpler solution than a portable charging station of any kind.  That emergency vehicle with a charger could carry 100 jerry cans of gas, and get 100 cars running in the amount of time it takes to pour it in the tank (as long as they didn't run completely dry).  An internal combustion engine vehicle is surely more robust to infrastructure catastrophes, as it's hard to beat the simplicity, portability, and energy density of gasoline.  That doesn't mean that we should make our infrastructure decisions solely based on robustness to infrastructure failures, however.

Agreed, but would also note that the drain on a car's battery to just operate the heating is likely to be similar to the drain on a gas tank of running the engine to keep the heat going, so the "what if all the wheels fell off electric cars but not ICE cars'-type conjecture seems dumb to me.  Getting the ICE car started after running out of fuel is simpler, as you note, but the disaster being invented by the loonies on the right doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

No, the heating system in an EV would drain the battery a lot faster than a heater on an internal combustion engine - it is the heat from the engine itself that runs the heater, the electricity is just to power the fans.  No such luck on an EV.  The scenario is that EV's run out of energy faster than an internal combustion engine.  And that is undeniably true.

Depends on how much gas you have. Besides in most disasters like this that I am aware of most of the cars end up running out of gas trying to stay warm. I guess the difference is how fast you can get the vehicles charged up enough to drive to a charger. I am not sure why hauling huge amounts of fuel to that area is easier but I don't know.

[crazy canuck]

To be fair, a gas can is still a hell of a lot simpler solution than a portable charging station of any kind.  That emergency vehicle with a charger could carry 100 jerry cans of gas, and get 100 cars running in the amount of time it takes to pour it in the tank (as long as they didn't run completely dry).  An internal combustion engine vehicle is surely more robust to infrastructure catastrophes, as it's hard to beat the simplicity, portability, and energy density of gasoline.  That doesn't mean that we should make our infrastructure decisions solely based on robustness to infrastructure failures, however.

Agreed, but would also note that the drain on a car's battery to just operate the heating is likely to be similar to the drain on a gas tank of running the engine to keep the heat going, so the "what if all the wheels fell off electric cars but not ICE cars'-type conjecture seems dumb to me.  Getting the ICE car started after running out of fuel is simpler, as you note, but the disaster being invented by the loonies on the right doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

No, the heating system in an EV would drain the battery a lot faster than a heater on an internal combustion engine - it is the heat from the engine itself that runs the heater, the electricity is just to power the fans.  No such luck on an EV.  The scenario is that EV's run out of energy faster than an internal combustion engine.  And that is undeniably true.

Depends on how much gas you have. Besides in most disasters like this that I am aware of most of the cars end up running out of gas trying to stay warm. I guess the difference is how fast you can get the vehicles charged up enough to drive to a charger. I am not sure why hauling huge amounts of fuel to that area is easier but I don't know.

Two separate things.  First, the EV cars are going to run out of energy with their heater on a lot faster than a internal combustion engine that is heating the car by just idling.  The draw on my EV for heating is quite an expenditure.  To retain range I bundle up and keep the heater off most of the time.  It is one of the big downsides of an EV - even in a warmish city like Vancouver.  It will be a lot better when they have longer ranges and so this will become less of a concern.

The second is DG is correct about the amount of time it would take to charge vs simply dumping fuel into an empty gas tank.   It would depend on how close the nearest high volume charging station is, but likely talking 20-30 minutes per car to charge to get them some minimum distance - the tow trucks are not carrying fast chargers...  Plus range is much lower in cold temperatures because of the battery chemistry.

[Berkut]

If we had just stuck with horses, we would be so much better off, since they don't require gas OR electricity!

[The Brain]

If we had just stuck with horses, we would be so much better off, since they don't require gas OR electricity!

I can see how a simpleton might think that, but in reality horses are very high maintenance.

[HVC]

Have you seen the prices of hay lately?!?

[The Minsky Moment]

If we had just stuck with horses, we would be so much better off, since they don't require gas OR electricity!

Can you imagine bringing all that fodder out to a frozen Viriginia highway? 

There is only one possible conclusion here - just use your legs and walk.  Heavy winter coats don't need fuel or electricity.  Problem solved!

[DGuller]

If we had just stuck with horses, we would be so much better off, since they don't require gas OR electricity!

I can see how a simpleton might think that, but in reality horses are very high maintenance.

[crazy canuck]

If we had just stuck with horses, we would be so much better off, since they don't require gas OR electricity!

Can you imagine bringing all that fodder out to a frozen Viriginia highway? 

There is only one possible conclusion here - just use your legs and walk.  Heavy winter coats don't need fuel or electricity.  Problem solved!

Not to mention the time it would take for the horses to eat, digest and become refueled.  It would make charging times on EVs look like dumping fuel into internal combustion cars.

[Zanza]

You could also just finance proper winter service for your highways, but I guess that goes against rugged individualism that American conservatives love so much.

Or you could finance proper winter service for your highways and still get overwhelmed by an improper amount of snow.  But don't anyone let facts get in the way of a good "gotcha."

Sure, that can happen.

But the only available information on the amount of snow I had was a single photo that accompanied the story. That photo does not show and inordinate amount of snow that would overwhelm proper winter service.

But based on Syt's relatives usual stances I guess they consider public winter service communist anyway.

[Syt]

My sister sees through the lies!

[crazy canuck]

with all the vaccines?  Would your sister prefer that there was only one vaccine by one manufacturer?

[Darth Wagtaros]

I doubt he ever said dewormer was a cure for SARS virii.