[kyp275]

Wow, I don't believe this, this is amazing!

Originally Posted by Kaijo

The longest journey begins with a single step. You want me to accept that you aren't against EVs? Then start by admitting that the process is already underway, and that it is fully feasible to do in 10-15 years. [That infrastructure you talk about? It's happening, as you note with Tesla doing. And they aren't the only ones; many businesses are beginning to add them, as are parking garages. Sure, you won't have them in Wisconsin for awhile. But eventually the network will expand there.

I have to "prove" to you that I'm not anti-EV by believing in your scenario which have no basis in reality? Go ask Vexx, or any engineer that didn't flunk out of college algebra what they think about the idea of the US switching over to EV within 10-15 years. Is it technically physically possible? sure, if you go at it with zero regard to cost or economic impact, aka treating it as a sim city simulation. In the real world? you have a better chance of Assad kissing and making up with the opposition forces over an afternoon tea party.

BTW, still waiting for your proof that I'm anti-EV.

California also deregulated it's energy industry, which led to those blackouts. up in Washington, we have energy hungry industries like Amazon.com and Microsoft, and yet we don't have blackouts. We also have been adding a lot of electric vehicles and charging systems. We have electric buses that take energy off lines above them, and a light rail system installed in the last few years. Our electric grid is working just fine, supplying all that power.

More like WA have a paltry population of 6.8 million, while CA has over 38 million, which also have a much harsher summer weather which causes severe strain on the grid.

Ignoring the fact that quick charging stations means you won't be charging a vehicle for hours, this is a matter of changing your point of view. You'd only even quick charge for longer trips, like every 100-200 miles or so.

Which would require you to ignore the fact that quick charging (or turbocharging as Tesla calls it) is harmful to the battery (according again to Tesla), or the fun fact that the only commercial EV atm even capable of a range of "200 miles" is the top end Model S, starting at a cool $72,400.

The battery pack lasts longer than the car. Interesting fun fact I heard awhile ago, so it might not be entirely true now, but... not one prius or civic hybrid needed to come into the shop to have it's battery pack replaced. I've had my 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid since I bought it in 2005. Never had a problem with my battery pack. Battery technology has come far. The only work I needed to do was an oil change and an air filter change since I got it, and I was easily able to wait years before doing that, with no harmful effects. Just recently, 8 years after buying it, I finally had a major expense to get the tires replaced, but that was it.

Unless it's car with crap built quality, the car will almost certainly last longer than the battery pack. Batteries loses capacities over time, it's a rather commonly known fact. The EV would start losing range long before the battery packs becomes non-functional. And no, your hybrid is not an EV. And if you're claiming that you've done only one oil change since 2005... I'm sorry, I'm raising the giant BS flag, unless your car has been in storage the whole time.

Only a little bit more than a regular new car at the time, which has more than paid for itself given that I only give my car 12 gallons of gas or so once every 3-4 weeks.

Then you don't drive very far at all. It doesn't matter how long it is between your fill ups, what matters is the distance you traveled. A guy with a Hummer H2 can also give his car 12 gallons or so once every 3-4 weeks, but that doesn't mean shit.

Those with Chevy Volts report going to the gas station maybe once or twice a year. Maybe once every 2 months at most.

Only possible if their daily commute is less than 38 miles round trip, and that charging is always available.

And five years is standard on a car loan repayment cycle, and people, if they are trying to save money, keep the same car longer than 5 years. So I don't see why that is an issue. The care breaks even after 5 years, but then it starts to pay you back. I notice a lot of Americans tend to have trouble imagining the long-term benefits over the short-term gain. They'll take $10 today, instead of waiting to get $100 next week.

Now you're presuming to know why my sister went with the Mazda instead of the Volt? you're a real piece of work you know that?

Regardless of what kind of scale you want to use, those are the actual IRS numbers. The top 1% of tax returns consist of 1.4 million tax returns. Full stop. Averaging the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of those 1.4 million tax returns, gives a $380,000 figure. Those are the only numbers I took off that. This is simple math, dude. 1,400,000 times 380,000. There are no tricks involved in those figures. Everyone here can do the math themselves, even if you want to argue that somehow 2+2=3. This isn't my math, though, this is the IRS. So you're essentially arguing against the IRS itself. I suggest you take your math wizardy to them, since they will obviously see how wrong they are, and how right you are. I'm sure the government, too, will recognize your incredible insight that they are using different scales when calculating their financial system. Dude, you can save the entire US government overnight!

This, this is the crown jewel, you're so ingrained in your ideals that you can't see the math slapping you in the face. The only one doing the 2+2=3 here is you Kaijo. Nobody is disputing the IRS figure of 380,000, or the 1.4 million people, what we're trying to tell you is that YOU FK'D UP WHEN YOU'RE MULTIPLYING 380,000 BY 1,400,000!!!

Holy F-Balls man, this is ELEMENTARY LEVEL MATH! 1.4 million times 380 thousand equals 518 billion, NOT trillion. Seriously, if my math is off as you claimed, please point out where I got my calculation wrong.

1,400,000 x 380,000 = 518,000,000,000

I'm revoking your "scientist" card until you can get simple multiplication right.

Look, dude, your argument was that even if we taxed the rich at 100%, we couldn't cover the deficit. Even if took your $518 billion from the 1%, if we expanded that out to the top 10% (which would still be considered rich), we could still easily cover the deficit with a 100% tax rate. Your next argument should logically be: "but we won't tax them at 100%!" which is true. Instead of trying to argue that 2+2=3.

At this point my argument is that you should go back and learn basic math.