You know what else pisses people off: the fact that speeding kills 33 Americans every day and permanently disables dozens more.[1]
You know what else pisses people off: the fact that speeding kills 33 Americans every day and permanently disables dozens more.[1]
The downvotes on this comment are a testament to the privilege of drivers. It’s crazy how good people, who would otherwise not break the law, believe it’s their right to speed. And before someone tells me it’s a victimless crime I’ll remind everyone that speeding kills both those inside and outside of your car.
Two facts:
Followed by a hyperlink to the page for cunt
Ellipses… definitely.
Sentences ending a full stop. Somewhat.
Very context dependent though
i.e. as “in effect” is even easier
I as pro-EV as the best of them. A cradle to grave emissions drop of 40% is a great step forward on reducing transport emissions (public transport and active transportation are a whole other aspect of this we’ll avoid here). However, characterizing the energy gap for EV charging as a non-issue is disingenuous.
You’ve correctly pointed out that peak hours are when the grid is most strained and vulnerable. Well, if most everyone who drives to work starts charging their EV when they get home from work, that is at the highest peak of the day: around 5-7pm. It’s the addition to the peak curve that’s the real concern. In most places, that means triggering on fossil fuel burning facilities to meet that peak demand. It also means increased peak loads on the transmission infrastructure that could overwhelm it.
That being said, there are some simple solutions: e.g. charge EVs on off-peak hours, smoothing out the demand on the grid. Where I live there is already an incentive to charge overnight in the form of ultra low overnight rates. I’m sure we’ll find the solutions, but please don’t pretend it’s not a problem.
The answer to why is billions of dollars of subsidies to the animal meat industry.
Survivorship bias?