513
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] GregoryTheGreat@programming.dev 87 points 1 year ago

15 billion to private companies to retool and whatever. But then they sell us what they make. None of that goes back to the tax payers.

If you work for someone else in this country you are a joke it seems.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago

While I agree with your sentiment, ~2/3rds of it according to the article isn't being given to them but being available in loans. So the article should say $5.5 given away, and $10 billion made avaliable to pay back.

[-] zephyreks@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago

Loans are costs too. It's tying up capital that could be used elsewhere

[-] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

It's more like investment, especially if it saves jobs. It can be a win-win. Companies have it easier time switching to EV manufacturing, which helps those companies and the environment. Manufacturing jobs are saved, both giving a living to a lot of people and helping communities and saving on benefit payments.

Could of course backfire or go to shit but investments like this from states seem like a very wise move imo.

Take loan

Spend it on stock buybacks

Buy a senator or 50

Profit

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

It’s tying up capital that could be used elsewhere

I'm not sure that's the case when you're the government and can and do print money. Not every rule of finance applies to the entity that gives credibility to the currency in the first place. This is also why the concept of governmental debt is much less meaningful than the concept of individual debt.

[-] zephyreks@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

The government is limited in monetary policy by inflation.

Of course, the Petrodollar doesn't really have this problem, but it ends up exporting inflation around the world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maximilious@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I really want to go electric, but the milage just isn't there yet for me, and add in the charging time and new maintenance routines of swapping out those batteries. I just haven't done enough research.

I don't think there's anything bad with giving the manufacturers money to switch their entire production facilities to electric, I just hope the government actually understands what those funds are being used for, unlike the money they gave our ISPs for infrastructure upgrades that went to waste.

The shells may be similar or the same but inside it would be like asking an apple orchard to change all their trees to oranges, and these funds will help expedite that.

[-] FirmRip@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I get 300 mile range and can recharge from 20-80% in under a half hour (a road trip lunch break).

It’s getting there quickly!

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

How often do you drive more than 100 miles away? People average 33 miles a day in the US and less than 1% of trips are over 100 miles. I would venture to guess almost never. Range is really not much of an issue for 99% of people. The only instances where charge time is an issue is those less than 1% of trips that are over 100 miles.

Maintenance is also not much of an issue. There is significantly less maintenance with an EV. For the battery, they generally hold their charge pretty damn well and most can go 300k miles before their full battery level degrades to 80% of the original range.

Not saying their are not issues because there absolutely are. But the issue with them is affordability and charging infrastructure reliability. At least in the US, we have a mediocre amount of fast charge stations but one of the main providers, Electrify America, has shit reliability. You would think VW, who was forced to build the Electrify America system, would actually want to make it profitable and also use it as PR showing that they have changed. But nope. They treat it like the red headed step child that they were forced to do and resent it. Fuck VW.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

They’re working on improving range, it just isn’t there yet. Recharge overnight at home if you have a garage and it will likely never be a problem, in the vent you don’t have a place to charge slowly overnight or need a charge up on a trip then super chargers are being added all over the place daily, with government investment helping that as well. The maintenance routine is nothing, you need a new battery after nearly a decade, most people are getting a new car on that schedule, even if you plan to keep a car for decades you’ll have major repairs/replacements on a ice vehicle just as much if not more than electric.

Swapping ice to electric isn’t that difficult, ford even sells a crate electric motor and the tools/instructions to replace a gas engine with it in nearly any vehicle.

I fully agree that the government needs to set guidelines, controls, and a series of deep audits over several decades to ensure this money is being spent appropriately. Too often they just hand out cash to corps with no follow up to make sure it didn’t get spent on bonuses

[-] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

My ice vehicle is nigh 2 decades old and besides wear parts my total investment on repairs is under $500. I'm still getting 30 mpg and although I'm not anti electric 15 years of no car payment is hard to beat.

[-] mars296@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

How is that possible? Tires alone will be that cost. Oil changes over 20 years? Even if you only changed oil annually for 20 years for $20 thats $400.

Not that you should ditch your car. I have a 12 year old with similar performance.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

We pay at least twice. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

(/S)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] roguetrick@kbin.social 67 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We will always give money to our industries to make up for the lack of long term planning in our system. I certainly do not understand what concept of fucking justice that is related to.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 27 points 1 year ago

I certainly do not understand what concept of fucking justice that is related to.

This concept of justice:

higher scores will be given to projects that are likely to retain collective bargaining agreements and/or those that have an existing high-quality, high-wage hourly production workforce, such as applicants that currently pay top quartile wages in their industry.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

And that's good. But what would be better for the planet would be building up a public transportation system so robust that cars are unnecessary outside of rural areas.

[-] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was just listening to a Parenti lecture where he talked about an interaction he had with someone who had been in high up in East Germany. He basically asked, “why did you put out those crappy little two cylinder engine cars?” And the ex-officials response was essentially, “we didn’t want to put them into cars at all, we thought if we provided an adequate public transportation system, that people would be satisfied, but they weren’t so we had to do what we could.”

I agree with you fully, that public transport would be the ideal solution, far and away above electric vehicles, which just providing one for every household in the US would require such s massive amount of material extraction that it by itself will cause significant climate outcomes, but, we must find a way around the impulse for private personal transportation that exists within people, and I don’t know how to do so. Moving without the mass of people could lead to rejection and reactionary movements. Moving with the mass will lead to climate destruction. How do we work with the masses to come to a compromise that allows the support of the masses, while reducing the number of private vehicles to nearly zero?

[-] wagoner@infosec.pub 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe as a miniscule offset to the ungodly sums still being spent to prop up the fossil fuel industry.

[-] zephyreks@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago

neoliberalism in a nutshell

[-] Eeyore_Syndrome@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 year ago

I was hoping for a cash for clunkers 2.0

[-] zbare@lemmy.blue 14 points 1 year ago

First the charging infrastructure needs to be better

[-] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

It’s well on its way. And most people charge at home day to day.

[-] bobbo@midwest.social 12 points 1 year ago

That’s a great way to do it, but that solution excludes a lot of people renting or in condo HOAs that don’t have easy access to overnight charge points in their complex’s or city’s lots. Hopefully those missing pieces are addressed soon so EVs feel like an option to everyone driving an ICE car, not just homeowners with garages.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MicroWave@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Jessvj93@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Hell I'll take a clunker to e-clunker conversion kit plan.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

"Strong and just"? You're not going to win over fascists by using their keywords. Maybe tone it down a little for those of us who still recall "Operation Shock and Awe" and the "War on drugs" and "The PATRIOT Act" and all the associated "collateral damage".

It just makes me think there's something hidden in there of which we should all be very suspicious, even if there might not be.

Note: I welcome less environmental damage and reskilling workers into sustainable energy industries and products. I hope this bill isn't the result of industry lobbying by EV manufacturers, but I note the lack of environmental goals contrasts with the large amounts of money being put into industry grants and loans.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Imajustlayhere@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I really don't want an electric car.

Edit: I really didn't expect such a response to my comment or I would have elaborated. Primary factor is cost, cost of replaceing the battery and initial cost of the vehicle purchase.

I do not have money to buy a new vehicle and there is no way I'm going to buy a used electric vehicle. A used electric vehicle will probably Also need a need battery. Until longevity can be proven I'm going to take that gamble.

Also repairability is another very big factor in not getting an electric vehicle for me. I am going to be buying a used car I don't think I will ever buy a new car even if I had the money and a used electric vehicle is not in the cards until they can prove longevity and you can't do that with a lithium ion battery.

In addition the electronic parts including the battery use rare, precious metals that are becoming increasingly rare. We don't even have a way to recycle those batteries as far as I am aware. I'm not saying we don't need a better alternative, but, I don't think that's it.

[-] EditsHisComments@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

And that's okay! There are plenty of ways to use climate-friendly means of transportation if your area has the infrastructure for it. If it doesn't, buying/utilizing used cars with good gas mileage and adjusting how much you drive, supporting climate-friendly legislation, and raising awareness are the best things you can do until biking/walking/etc. is more accessible for you - or until you can move to a high-density area with those options, if that's the goal.

Electric cars are a great step forward, but currently lack the efficiency and affordability of ICE vehicles. Plus, they ultimately serve as a means to maintain the stability of the Auto industry in an increasingly environmentally-conscious society.

[-] paradiso@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

I just don't understand what's so green about electric cars? Lithium mining plus everything else associated with the manufacturing process doesn't seem too green to me.

[-] Egg_In_Question@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 1 year ago

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth2

While I agree with the sentiment that EVs aren't the most efficient alternative in terms of lowering carbon footprint, they are definitely better than ICE vehicles for consumer use. They are even more so when you have an electrical grid running off of solar, wind, and water.

[-] Uprise42@artemis.camp 9 points 1 year ago

I always tell people the greenest solution when it comes to cars is to just not buy a new one. Use whatever you have until it can’t be used. Then buy a EV, preferably used but sometimes you need new due to availability or mileage.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

We get the majority of our lithium from an area that has zero life and has had no recorded rainfall. Their lifetime CO2 emissions compared to an ICE vehicle is significantly lower even using the most polluting power source. There is just no comparison.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Uranium3006@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Could Intrest you in an Ebike?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Imajustlayhere@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I really don't want an electric car.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Welcome to the wonderful world of buses!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
513 points (100.0% liked)

News

24550 readers
3371 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS