Electric Cars

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Just another reason, especially us southern states to never own one of these. Could you even imagine evacuating during a hurricane.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._a_precipitous_decline_of_ev_performance.html
August 7, 2023

New data show temperatures above 86F begin a precipitous decline of EV performance​

By Olivia Murray


Okay, so let me get this straight regarding the "quirks" of electric vehicles. If you're fleeing a natural disaster, like a hurricane, for instance, the nature of the design might impede efficient and safe evacuation, or they might simply explode, because exposure to salt water can link the positive and negative battery terminals, causing a short circuit. Well, if they're just sitting there, too, I guess, there's still a heightened risk of spontaneous explosion with a long-burning, extra-hot, inextinguishable fire. They don't really work in "cold" weather, and now, according to new data, "excessive heat can greatly diminish electric vehicle range," too?
Recurrent, an auto company based in Seattle, has a mission to "accelerate the overall adoption" of E.V.s and, to do so, strives to provide "transparency and confidence" in pre-owned E.V. purchases. This past Friday, the enterprise released a research report titled "Deep Dive: Lithium Ion Batteries and Heat," which included a hilariously absurd graphic (although undoubtedly it wasn't meant to be taken as such) that showed the "optimal temperature" range to avoid issues. That scope was limited to between 59 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit. Outside that limited field, there are either "slow reactions" or "accelerated side reactions," like those listed at the outset of this blog post. From the report itself:
Given the risks of excess heat in a battery, thermal management systems are essential to maintain safe operating temperatures. If the battery overheats, it can lead to safety hazards, reduced battery performance, and accelerated degradation of the battery components.
Also worth noting for context is that according to the unelected global bureaucracies, the political left and all its useful idiots, and many Western governments, the world is on the precipice of a cataclysmic environmental disaster thanks to petroleum-powered cars — a disaster that includes but is not limited to, warming, cooling, boiling, freezing, or any other kind of temperature change — and therefore, we must all adopt these E.V.s as quickly as possible to avoid the point of no return.
Are they for real? Yes, yes, they most certainly are.
Also from the report was this little gem:
Even when you're not driving your electric car, heat can have a significant impact on the battery. To decrease the negative effects of heat on EV batteries at rest, it is ideal to park in shaded areas or garages whenever it's especially hot or sunny.
In contrast to a gas-powered vehicle, which can be parked anywhere without the very real risk of spontaneous combustion, now you need to be careful where you park these hazards? What an absolute nightmare!
Now, I lived in Tucson, Arizona for around eight years, and let me clear up any myths regarding the "cool" months — they don't exist. You'll have cold nights, and some cold mornings, but they are few and far between. In fact, I remember loading my car up mid-December 2021 in preparation for the Christmas holiday, and the temperature in the mid-morning hours was already in the 90s. Where in the world do temperatures consistently fall in the "optimal" range? Nowhere, and the minds behind the E.V. push know that.
 
I see a Tesla Semi almost daily. Saw one on Friday broke down on the side of the road. It was odd because it wansn’t pulling the usual matching trailer.
Saw it on Monday bobtailing back towards its base. Must have spent some time at the factory over the weekend. Not many repair-shops for these.
 
Natures karma..
 

Attachments

  • IMG-20230816-WA0005.jpg
    IMG-20230816-WA0005.jpg
    153.1 KB · Views: 0
An article about the end game for EVs.
https://www.americanthinker.com/art...v_shortcomings_arent_shortcomings_at_all.html
It goes into detail about the shortcomings of everyone switching to EVs, but I'll just cut to the conclusion:
The elites who advocate the sole production of EVs have an answer for this: You just won’t be able to do these things anymore. That’s all.
They don’t believe you need to do these things. They want you to watch your entertainment on your smart TV or your laptop, on your streaming service, from the comfort of your apartment. If you want to attend a live performance, you can take public transportation to the nearest official venue, staffed by union members, ticketed by Ticketmaster.
You don’t need to go visit a river or lake, or travel to explore American heritage through Civil War or Revolutionary War sites. You don’t need fishing trips, hunting trips, road trips for baseball or football, college tours, family bonding drives.
Stay home. Stay safe. Stay still. Stay where we can watch you.
The conclusion is inescapable: In the final analysis, the EV pushers don’t see any gaps or contradictions. All the needs you have that EVs simply don’t meet, can’t meet, will never meet – well, these aren’t really needs at all.
You’re wrong to want to gather in groups of thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands. All those EV shortcomings aren’t really shortcomings at all. Freedom of assembly, as described in the obsolete First Amendment, is dangerous, don’t you see, from the perspective of your betters.
 
Let me break it down for you...

Tesla makes cars people want. The other companies make cars the government wants.
Doc, I agree. Wife went out and bought #2, a dealer demo at a 14k discount with 68 miles.
Contacted people to buy a 5 yr old car, with 53k and is looking real good to sell it at 27 within 2 hours. Tesla will buy take in trade for 20.
 
I did a little research on this.
The "Fact Checkers" have attacked this very meme. Of course, instead of talking to manufacturers about actual hardware that is on the market, they talked to University professors. 🤔

The ivory tower "experts" say charging a car with a diesel powered charging station is ridiculous and nobody would do it. And then they throw out a bunch of numbers without saying how they got those numbers.

I found this:
https://www.larsonelectronics.com/p...-3-charger-2-ports-150-gallon-tank-skid-mount
So apparently somebody does charge EVs with a diesel charging station, or Larson would be out of business.

I could not find one with a 350KW generator, those appear to be too honking big. The Larson diesel charging stations use a 120KW generator. Larson doesn't divulge how much diesel it uses per hour, so I looked up a 120KW towable diesel generator, which gives gallons per hour at various loads.
25% load: 3.94 Gallons/Hour
50% load: 5.42 Gallons/Hour
75% load: 7.21 Gallons/Hour
100% load: 8.90 Gallons/Hour

The government says EVs get about 77% efficiency (watts used for driving/watts required for charging)
The Nissan Leaf has a 100 mile range so we'll use that.
This site says the Leaf uses 300 WH per mile.
https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-1003-electric-vehicle-ev
So multiply 300 WH by 100 miles that's 30,000 WH
or 30 KWH. Divide by .77 to get how many KWH are needed to charge it = 38.86 KWH.
The Larson 120 KW charging station would be running at a minimum load to deliver that many KWH in 3 hours, so 3.94 gallons per hour * 3 hours = 11.82 gallons.
100 miles/11.82 gallons = 8.46 miles per gallon.

Now that was for a 120 KW diesel charging station, not a 350 KW, which would burn more fuel.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top