Don't know anything about it.
An answer why it will not is in order.
just tell them you don't give a shit about safety or the environment and you just like to go fast. you'd probably have a better chance of convincing them that way.I would like to discuss this list a bit more if we can to see how much truth there is to them, in context with the thread title.
Note I'm trying to do this impartially to gain perspective on each and where it might originate from, without political connotations, but this is what I see when I read it, from my perspective - the statements also seem to fairly typical, even though Cybergus has added some embellishments.
Hopefully this provides a bit of information, and a bit of depth to understanding other peoples concerns and perception.
- EV manufacturing causes more carbon emissions than it will save.
1. Without exception "ALL human activity" produces carbon emissions. The real question is how can we make human activity reduce "harmful emissions". Not all emissions are equal.- Your EV is made in China, why do you hate America
2. Most EV's are made in China, even Tesla makes lots of EV's in China. lots of ICE parts come from China, and are only assembled in the USA etc. "Hating" another country because of it's economic or productivity prowess, EV or not, is most likely the result of missing it themselves in the local domain and wishing it was better.- They're so quiet that all pedestrians will be killed.
3. The EU and a I believe the US have now mandated noise generators for this reason, to keep pedestrians and other road uses safe and aware of an approaching EV. This is an actual problem, but also has a solution already implemented.- Air pollution from EV tire wear is 1000 times worse than ICE tailpipe emissions.
4. There is a problem with tyre emissions, there many reports on this, and it makes logical sense, in that tyre wear produces them otherwise we would never have to buy a tyre again. The magnitude of the problem however is not yet reliably quantified, so comparisons are fairly meaningless at this stage. Except for the vehicle weight component and hard right pedal drivers, that increases tyre wear, it's no different to ICE tyre wear.- Our drinking water will be destroyed by all the poisons leeching out of discarded battery packs.
5. There is no doubt that concentrated chemicals, that are artificially made, have the potential to destroy aquifers and contaminate water. This is not a trivial matter, but it is also not specific to only batteries. Fossil fuels, steel manufacturing, plastics, even road construction and the like all have environmental impacts and need to be addressed accordingly. The primary method for controlling these impacts is to have a cyclic methodology for reuse, instead of waste.- There is not enough lithium in the world, which is mined by starving children.
6. There are limits on extractable lithium but we aren't there yet. Hopefully we can reduce our lithium demand overall by reducing consumption and also using alternative technologies for even better results. Cobalt is mined by children and used in batteries, including the mobiles in your hand right now reading this. There are class actions underway to make corporations responsible, which are also being politically quashed. Many people, and media alike, don't understand the different lithium battery chemistries. Neither are all manufactures acting morally responsible and doing the right thing. But neither are customers making the moral choices and supporting the products that don't cause harm. I could bring up fiat currency, quantitative easing and greed along with the resulting limited choices we have - but I won't say more than that.- The electric fields will give you cancer.
7. They can. We just have to have a look at where the operators are of MRI etc machines are located and how they are protected from the machinery they use. The question is how intensive the EM fields are and how those particular field properties react with biological tissue. For a bit of a energy comparison: MRI uses an average of 27kW per hour, an EV like the CT is about the same, with peaks in the 700kW range. A motor doesn't have the same peak tesla (unit) as a MRI, but your exposure times are significantly more whilst driving in a EV than in the few minutes doing an MRI. This will likely need more study, in particular because of the power levels, in comparison to say mobile phones that are 3 orders of magnitude less.- The U.N. is going to confiscate my classic ICE car.
8. Well, technically emissions controls will eventually limit ICE usage worldwide, if that's from the UN or other world organization or standardization, or of a national one. There are many technologies that have been replaced, but it's only in recent history that global powers, not national, have had the reach to impose changes to private consumption and use. International mandates are yet another step further away from the democratic influence of voters, and as such can be considered a risk to national sovereignty. There's a fine line between coming to international accord and maintaining enough fidelity for autonomous control.- It takes 8 hours to charge, long trips are impossible.
9. This is true for many "EV under developed" countries, even Australia. But nothing an ICE generator can't do to replicate ICE range.- You'll die of starvation in a traffic jam.
10. Not sure how an ICE would be better in that scenario and would somehow feed you? Maybe freeze to death instead? If I was a lawyer I'd ask "relevance".- They will randomly drive you into a tree and kill you.
10. Well that would be a self driving function, which ICE cars have just as much as EV's. Tesla FSD might be the most advanced, but is not by far the only one that allows traveling with minimal input. So nothing really directly relevant to EV's except that EV's tend to be more modern and therefore include more such options that could be more prone to electronic and software interference, in particular if they have electric power steering and drive by wire throttle and brakes. So unlike a purely mechanical setup that would require a component failure to veer you off the road, a highly electrified and software dependent system would by definition have more vectors of failure, and attack. There are obviously pros and cons to these systems, and safeguard can be implemented to mitigate the risks.- Charging in the rain will electrocute you.
11. Well this is probably a remnant of the valid cautionary tales of not using power appliances in the the bathroom like using an hairdryer in a full bathtub. The primary reason why this is not an issue with most EV charging, is that unlike a normal cord and plug, the plug and connector negotiate the connection and do a system check before enabling the power to flow. Now although this is the case for the EV side of the charging equipment, the household side of the charger does not have the same precautions and acts as a high power appliance, and relies on the household safety, fault and overload protection, like earth leakage detection. There are quite a few houses without these safety devices, and if charging your EV in such a location there would actually be more risk. Although I doubt most people who say this, also know how it works, there would still be a residual risk in this scenario. This reminds me of how Edison used to hold public electric "chair" executions of animals to discredit AC power developed by Nikola Tesla.- Driving in the rain will electrocute you.
12. Similar to the above I think people are ill informed as to how these systems work and rely on previous experience to guide them, somewhat blindly. Some education would go a long way to ease these fears.- The grid can't handle EV charging.
13. Well according to EM himself we need 3 to 4 times the network capacity that we have for 100% EV's on the roads. So that is actually correct, and we need to double and then treble the power networks that we have taken 100years of so to make. That is no small feat despite the perceived optimism of EVoltigists around the world. It's possible, but hopefully we can figure out ways to do it without so much network as well, like V2X.- There is nowhere to charge.
14. Well come to Western Australia and see for yourself! Reality is that you can charge anywhere there is a network, but not necessarily at a fast rate, so there are long trips that are much more difficult to do, and in most areas of the world still only possible with a ICE or a generator range extender. But it's a fairly poor excuse for places with existing EV infrastructure.- There are plenty of places to charge, but you'll be murdered.
15. I believe the "Now you know" guys actually had a competition for a solution to this, to enable a way to disengage the charging cable without getting out of vehicle, and then being able to driveaway from a risky situation. South Africa for example is well known for carjackings, so once again it really depends on where you live, and opportunists being what they are,, will continue to seek out opportunities and soft targets to take advantage of. I think charging stations could benefit from robocharger and security enhancements around unattended charging locations.- They can be hacked, and you'll be murdered.
16. Well unlike many old style ICE vehicles that don't have a computer to be hacked in the first place, the first part of that statement is actually true. In fact the mere ability of Teslas to be updated over the air is something that opens even more attack vectors, and is also the primary reason many manufactures have been cautious about adopting it large scale. But now they are being dragged into it simply because without it many features cease to work at all, let alone reliably. It should not be underestimated how much effort Tesla puts into security to make this work. As for the other bit, I think we have Cybergus to thank for that.- The chargers can be hacked, and explode your car, or take out the grid.
17. Admittedly, I haven't heard this one before, the hacking could happen, that would only really lead to your car exploding if the car was hacked too. As for taking out the grid, this is most definitely a risk if there was a malicious hack attack on the network. The SCADA network , that underlies the network system control, is known to have serious and highly exposed vulnerabilities. It could potentially, have an access pathway through charging stations...I'd have to give that more thought.- EVs are too slow. (lolwhut)
18. Many are:- EVs are too fast to be safe. (ok maybe lool)
19. I think people have misconceptions about the difference between velocity and acceleration. EV's on average, aren't that fast at all, and if they are, not for very long either. While I was in Germany last year we drove many times for 1000's km on the autobahns at 110-130MPH, never once did a Tesla or EV keep up with us at those speeds even though we passed lots of them. EV's are just not capable of high speed long range cruising due to the nature of drag being the square of velocity, and their comparatively low energy density battery packs. This is a big topic on German auto forums where high speed automobile travel is more normalised.
And guys, if you think the appropriate response is to shoot me down for wasting my time writing this, then consider who exactly just read it all...
It's suboptimal, and what caused the disaster at Chernobyl. It's easier to take other sources offline.
This scenario suggests man-in-the-middle attack able to wrest control and inflict violence with a Tesla. Teslas have two computers and one OTA port of entry doubling a hackers level of work. The security scheme may be redundant meaning that capturing one computer is not success and hacking requires both - importantly acquired simultaneously. un-SWAG
The scary thing is that this stuff remains online without any markings of how false it is.
Is Elon’s voice and quote ”fair use”?
I wouldn't worry about it at all. Pretty much every EV made has a buyer waiting for it. Demand will likely outstrip supply for at least several more years. The antiEV faction will slowly dwindle as more are on the road.
