Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
2020+ Shelby GT500 Mustang
Anyone else frustrated with Ford over the next GT500?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tt335ci03cobra" data-source="post: 15794043" data-attributes="member: 68944"><p>Here’s the problem with electric vehicles. They only “work” in limited circulation right now.</p><p></p><p>There were 2,000,000 ev’s sold world wide last year. At $.12/kWh, and an average consumption of 50kwh per 100 miles (34 is the claim but nobody gets that in a city), the actual cost is $6 to drive 100 miles. A 30mpg ice vehicle costs $6.75-7.25 driver dependant to do the same task.</p><p></p><p>Thing is we have an economic and functioning system to supply a half billion cars with fuel every few days.</p><p></p><p>We do not have a power grid now or we’ll into the future that is even remotely close to offering this level of freedom to drive and travel.</p><p></p><p>The only way electric cars could work as the replacement for the current car population is if actually annual travel dropped to about 750 miles, and was so superfluous and uninhibited that nearly optimum speed was always maintained.</p><p></p><p>That’s not realistic. It makes more sense from a consumption perspective to put a nuclear reactor in every car, or get the engine to work off of blood. Blood is literally more readily available for this type of scenario than electricity.</p><p></p><p>Large cities have minor brown outs on a bi weekly basis sometimes 5 times a day. Tell me how an already over worked grid is supposed to charge up all these cars.</p><p></p><p>We have a shortage of blood in this country as well but at least there is a literal supply of it currently. Switching cars from a fuel source that works, is relatively cheap, and abundant for one that has a larger footprint due to its lesser equivalent energy per measurable usage is as moronic as claiming the vehicle itself is suddenly better for the environment when it literally will leave behind radioactive isotopes, and a horribly inefficient battery cell.</p><p></p><p>A 1957 Chevy driven 300,000 miles has a smaller carbon footprint than a 50,000 mile Toyota Prius.</p><p></p><p>The electric car is a way to make electricity so expensive it has no viable way to be purchased, so that it is only attainable via rations. Play the chess game. It’s designed to drive scarcity of an essential resource.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tt335ci03cobra, post: 15794043, member: 68944"] Here’s the problem with electric vehicles. They only “work” in limited circulation right now. There were 2,000,000 ev’s sold world wide last year. At $.12/kWh, and an average consumption of 50kwh per 100 miles (34 is the claim but nobody gets that in a city), the actual cost is $6 to drive 100 miles. A 30mpg ice vehicle costs $6.75-7.25 driver dependant to do the same task. Thing is we have an economic and functioning system to supply a half billion cars with fuel every few days. We do not have a power grid now or we’ll into the future that is even remotely close to offering this level of freedom to drive and travel. The only way electric cars could work as the replacement for the current car population is if actually annual travel dropped to about 750 miles, and was so superfluous and uninhibited that nearly optimum speed was always maintained. That’s not realistic. It makes more sense from a consumption perspective to put a nuclear reactor in every car, or get the engine to work off of blood. Blood is literally more readily available for this type of scenario than electricity. Large cities have minor brown outs on a bi weekly basis sometimes 5 times a day. Tell me how an already over worked grid is supposed to charge up all these cars. We have a shortage of blood in this country as well but at least there is a literal supply of it currently. Switching cars from a fuel source that works, is relatively cheap, and abundant for one that has a larger footprint due to its lesser equivalent energy per measurable usage is as moronic as claiming the vehicle itself is suddenly better for the environment when it literally will leave behind radioactive isotopes, and a horribly inefficient battery cell. A 1957 Chevy driven 300,000 miles has a smaller carbon footprint than a 50,000 mile Toyota Prius. The electric car is a way to make electricity so expensive it has no viable way to be purchased, so that it is only attainable via rations. Play the chess game. It’s designed to drive scarcity of an essential resource. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
2020+ Shelby GT500 Mustang
Anyone else frustrated with Ford over the next GT500?
Top