Replacing diesel trucks with electric semis led to charging time and load loss passed on to customers

[Anti-propaganda man]

Why did you make 2 posts? I simply didn't see it as I saw your last post. Will address it below

WHY NOT. Two separate topics, two posts. Don't waste my time (DWMT No.1).

If it isn't so bad, then you have no problem venting it into your cabin, correct?

Ok. I hate to be rude but really. You're absolutely begging to be called names. A 3 year old could see there's a difference between venting your exhaust into your cabin and into the atmosphere, which is considerably larger. No refutation that air pollution from modern exhausts is not harmful. YOU ARE A LYING TIMEWASTER. BUZZ OFF. DWMT 2.

And no, there isn't more air pollution from tires and brakes. The reason is because of how tires and brake pollution works, most of it is at high speed. Aka, highways. And most of it doesn't travel far. So in terms of actual real life exposure, the exhaust emits more pollution

Yes there is. Read the article I posted. Lying timewaster. DWMT 3.

There is no reason for there to be 50-100% more trucks on the road if converted to EVs

Yes there is. Listen to testimony from trucking association I posted earlier. Lying timewaster. DWMT 4.

And increase in manufacturing is minimal, 1 year break even and shrinking as EVs supply chain is optimized and platforms are optimized for EVs and not ICE cars converted to EVs

No it's not. I refuted that earlier. Lying timewaster. DWMT 5.

EVs make sense for both cars and trucks

Liar. DWMT 6.

I do own an EV, where do you get the idea that I don't? I clearly said what I care about is fresh air, if you reroute your car exhaust into your own ICE car, feel free to drive it all you want

You didn't answer when I asked you before. Since you lie about everything else, why should I believe you when you say you own one? I shouldn't. 10th time you've made a moronic point about breathing exhaust fumes. DWMT 6.

The CO2 break even on an EV like a Tesla is only 1 year vs an ICE car of the same class on the US grid. As for other kinds, even less

Source?

As for CO2, all things in moderation. Just like eating food, overeating isn't good for you

Ideal level for CO2 is 800-1500ppm for plants. If we burn all known fossil fuels it will go up to about 1600ppm. No good evidence it's causing global warming, which is mostly beneficial anyway. It's a non-issue. No-one on Earth should be concerned about it. 30 years of nonsense is hopefully soon coming to an end. DWMT 7.

It is beneficial for the environment as well. While there is not much difference in terms of manufacturing be it ICE or EV. For oil, you have to always keep getting more and more. Which means endless damage to the environment. Not to mention the air pollution. In comparison, EVs powered by renewables is sustainable and  recyclable, limiting the amount of extraction needed

Disproved already. DWMT 8.

Please find me any real environmentalist who was pro-diesel. Diesel doesn't get us off fossil fuels any faster than gasoline does. Stop trying to shift blame

It was UK government policy to favour diesel on environmental grounds (CO2 reduction). Boom, disproved. DWMT 9.

But what you are saying is that instead of banning ICE cars, local governments should ban gas stations and require mixture of gasoline that would destroy car engines in 2-3 years? Is that what you prefer so it would be like switch from horses?

What? No idea what you're rambling about here. DWMT 10.

The emissions from cars exhaust is toxic, and even worse, most of that emissions is airborne making it into people's lungs. This is even more so since ICE cars tend to be less efficient in urban driving.

Most tire emissions are at highways. And they don't travel far. Of course don't get me wrong, something should be done to address tires as well. I am not in disagreement there. But in terms of actual damage to people's health, exhaust posses a bigger threat.

But one doesn't stop the other

Disproved. Stop lying. DWMT 11.

They don't "require it", they simply use what is available from current infrastructure. None is required and is being transitioned as well with time

Yes it is. Mining and fabrication require carbon intensive technologies. Extreme wishful 'thinking' on your part. DWMT 12.

It isn't required for backing up wind at all. Wind can back itself up. But it keeps fossil fuels around longer

No it cannot. If a large area has no wind, wind power from other areas cannot be sent to it as it is way too far. Electricity needs to be produced close to its usage area. Look at Britain for a case study.

Everything has externalized cost, all powerplants need backup.

ERRRR... they don't need 100% backup!!! Wind does. Look at the testimonials of power company CEOs. There are days in Britain where there is NO wind power. This is not substituted with wind from other countries, it's substituted by gas. Wind is about 35% of elec. generation. Wind and solar externalised costs are hidden. Have you got evidence other sources of elec gen have hidden costs? Our electricity prices have doubled despite 35% renewables. CASE CLOSED. They are more expensive. DWMT 12.

Speaking of externalized costs, what about all our wars like spending trillions in Iraq for oil? We even help Saudi Arabia, despite them manipulating costs against us, and most of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. What about that cost?

WOW. Your first good argument. Fucking hell. It only took a few thousand words. Yes, that's true. But then all the materials required for 'renewables' and batteries come from China, countries with poor human rights, etc. Fossil fuel extraction in the west is stopped for 'environmental' or CO2 reasons. More extraction in the west would be one way to reduce dependency on the middle east.

The Great Irish Potato famine didn't happen because the Irish did not have enough potatoes, Britain simply paid more for those potatoes and the Irish starved. As long as something is a global commodity, the price of it will be set by the global market. This is why here in US despite us producing huge amount of coal, gas and oil were still at the mercy of the high prices

Using less of it means reliance on it went down. It isn't like gas must be used instantly. And with time it will be 0 unless the fossil fuel industry stops the transistion

The price of gas and coal went up, you wouldn't escape global prices unless you transition away from them. The is the problem of being reliant on consumables

Already disproved. The price of 'Renewables' and EVs are underpinned by global fossil fuel energy and the often rare consumable commodities that go into their manufacture and their short lifespans and high turnover rate. DWMT I lost count.

The list only looks at minerals used by EVs, and not by ICE cars. And only the ones that would need scaling. That is why platinum is not included, which despite needing just a few grams is also much rarer and needs far more mining due to the lower concentration. 42% of the world's platinum demand is automotive industry

Even common elements in both like Iron is also not on there.

It is like me asking you who the worst person in the universe is, but you are limited to only naming people in this thread and their name must start with "Anti". See anyone can pick and choose to create a narrative when you set restrictions of only counting certain things

There is most definitely more than enough minerals that are economically recoverable for the entire world to go EVs for a 1000 years even if you don't count recycling. Add recycling and its a moot point

LOL. Liar. Manufacturing giant batteries obviously uses an enormous amount more metals and minerals. No source from you showing any other metals or minerals that are not mentioned in that report. Completely baseless statements. DWMT again and again.

And that is why dinosaurs were so huge, the stocked up on carbs. Unfortunately, current wild life isn't made to sustain such large amounts of carbs.

Mammals existed 5 million years ago. They were fine. Baseless nonsense. DWMT one million.

The amount of resources transitioning to EVs and renewable energy and amount of extraction from the ground would actually be much much less as you aren't burning it. Mining would also go down with the transition

Liar, disproved.

Look, I get it, you are part of the fossil fuel cult and believe fossil fuels are your god and can never be replaced by science and technology. But you can only be in denial of reality for so long.

But it is quite sad that in modern day we have cultists like you who sacrifice your own family at the altar of fossil fuels without batting an eye

Still, like the dawn of the human race, we move on.

Almost everything you've said is a lie. Everything I've said is true. Liars have another motivation, so you're in the cult. You've wasted enough of my time with this absolute bone-headed idiocy. You've been shown up for what you are in front of whoever has been reading this tedious expose of the liar (you). I just can't imagine what it must be like to be such a dishonest, cut and paste tedious pusher of trendy nonsense and self-gratifying moral superiority. Congratulations on winning an award for most effort put into this crap. Now get off the internet, it's not for timewasters like you. Stop polluting it.

EDIT - Oh look, just off the press, here's some scientists and totally NOT cult members shouting down a politician today - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P61FEtgm-5U