Proposal: Electric cars are a pipe dream

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by Syzygys, May 20, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    I wish to educate the dreamers, that electric vehicles (EVs from now on) can replace combustion engine cars for mass transportation in the future. Just to make sure, we are NOT talking about hybrids, but fully battery powered cars.
    EVs have limited usage, mostly because of range and difficulty to charge. Their range hasn't really improved in 100 years! Oh yes, there is the price issue too, they are not cheap!!

    Sure, they can be used for small range city dwelling, but if green people are dreaming that in the future millions will be buzzing around in EVs, well, they have a rude awakenings coming.
    Not to mention that battery power will not drive heavy trucks or machinery. I will also mention that since the electricity does come from coal burning power stations, the enviromental footprint is also very high for EVs, so there is no overall saving for Mother Earth.

    One can dream that one drives into an eelectric charging station and charges in 5 minutes, then be able to drive 300+ miles, but it is just not happening...

    Maybe we should go to Mars instead... Don't get me wrong, I would love to speed down the highway by 100 MPH quietly in my cool electric car, but I also live in reality, and a reality check is long time due for dreamers....

    Any takers????
    Last edited: May 20, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    I would take the position in favor of the electric car, so long as there is a basic ground rule that we don't talk about where the electricity comes from. That expands the debate too far out in order to discuss it in a practical amount of time. It is also a wedge that is commonly used by anti-green energy proponents.

    If you talk about a solution that could solve the power grid (getting electricity to your home), a lot of anti-green people will immediately point out that you can't run cars off of it. If you go the other way, and talk about solutions to run cars, they shift it over and talk about where you'll get the electricity from. The 2 problems are two entirely separate problems, which demand two entirely separate solutions. Oil is an effective answer to both right now, but when we shift away from oil, we probably won't be able to find another "one size fits all" solution..... and why should we try? Why not employ multiple methods? For the power grid, the best solutions are things like solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear power --- all things you can't put in a car. But, if it's a battery powered car, then you can put solar, wind, tidal, or nuclear energy into your car.

    As for the rest of the topic, I'll wait until we're actually debating to discuss things like longevity, range, and potential for technological improvement. There's actually a very good chance I will lose, but this is definitely an important issue that is worthy of discussion.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: 18 off-topic posts have been deleted.

    Members are advised to read the posting rules of the Formal Debates forum before posting in it.

    Formal Debate Proposal threads are NOT for arguing the topic.*

    Since there was some interesting discussion, I have created a new thread in the [thread=101877]General Science & Technology[/thread] forum.

    [size=-2]* Why can't people get this simple point? The Formal Debates forum is the only subforum on sciforums that is strictly moderated. And yet, people insist on posting here as if it is no different from the usual informal forums. Is it that people are incapable of reading the rules? Or just lazy? Or what?[/size]
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    Should probably keep this part of Syzygys' post, too.

    I can let go of the concession I guess. But, if we do this full scale, then my position will be to argue for EV tech, used as part of a team with a few other techs, as a way to solve the energy problem.

    If EV is being expected to solve more than one problem, then EV has the right to bring friends (like nuclear, solar, wind....etc.)

    And this should probably not be edited out also, since it's an attempt to frame the debate before we begin it:

    Ok, but only those power plants that have to be set up specifically for the EV's, not nuclear plants that get set up to cover existing power grid requirements. I think in most cases, I think the only argument would be against the need to build a power plant bigger, knowing that we already need to build it.
    Last edited: May 24, 2010
  8. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    I would point out that the OP of this thread violates the distinction between proposal and debate threads as layed out in the rules thread. Its content has almost nothing to do with terms of debate, and is almost entirely direct argumentation of the proposed topic.
  9. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    Now do you see why the rules confuse people? Trying to set up a debate necessarily requires stating something about the OP's basic position. I mean, in order to propose a debate you have to say what you will be planning to discuss. So then people will chime in with counter points, also, because they don't get that they're supposed to wait and make those points in the debate thread. It takes a little while to figure out.

    I think I'm starting to understand how it works, though. We use this thread to set the ground rules, who makes statements, who rebutts them, when.... etc..... what is and is not allowed.
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    What's confusing about this:

    Proposal thread

    A "proposal" thread suggests a topic for debate, and also acts as an invitation for particular members to participate in the formal debate, which will take place in a separate thread.

    The proposal thread is also the place where members must agree to the rules of the particular debate before starting the actual debate.​


    Yes. You suggest the topic and invite other members to participate.

    The usual opener would be something like: "I invite/challenge X to debate me on the following topic: That electric cars are a pipe dream.

    I will argue that electric cars will never be a viable form of transport. I will argue that we will always need fossil fuel cars. etc. etc."

    You don't put your arguments; you try to give an idea of what the debate is supposed to be about.

    If there are detailed matters of definition of the topic, those can form part of the debate itself; that's very common in formal debates.

  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    I disagree, I believe the source of electricity and the need for electricity can be argued to electric cars benefit.
  12. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    I actually think the other ongoing thread is more useful (more people participate, no end in sight) so we might as well just scrap this, and continue there.

    Also, as I educated myself more on the subject, my title is kind of vogue. It meant to say that EVs are just not there yet, where their advocates would like them to be. And this is true, there is no point in arguing that. They could have and will have a future, but the near future is the hybrids'. Maybe in 10-15 years or whenever they can make the Li-ion batteries for cheap...

    So I guess we can close this thread...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page