I think it makes sense for government to invest up to the point of proving the technology, but I agree that the infrastructure isn't the government's job (except for things like rest stops). We're either going to be propping up something that isn't viable, or doing private industry's job for them.


I like that idea in theory, agree that we aren't going that way. I'm moderately well-informed on EVs but I haven't seen anything specific here - do you know what the timeframe/cost is on the battery changes? I'm guessing one possible reason is that charging is expected to get to a point where it's similar or better.

The Chinese company Nio does battery swaps and they claim it takes about 3 minutes.

Nio Is on a Battery Swap Station Building Spree

Thanks for the link. Based on that, I'd agree then that we're probably taking the wrong approach.

The issue is likely also that batteries are proprietary. So my ID.4 uses a different battery than a Tesla, so getting places to stock up on every possible model battery is likely not feasible.

I think Biden is going to have to propose Michelle Childs as his SCOTUS nominee regardless of what progressives want. He owes his miraculous comeback and win to Clyburn and SC, so this is a good payback for the loyalty.

Left splits over Supreme Court pick pushed by top Biden ally - POLITICO

Edit: Because I didn't read the full blurb and missed the Lindsay Graham part :)

I think the issue with electric vehicle infrastructure is who is paying for it. Right now, gasoline tax helps fund the infrastructure of our roads. It makes sense too as the more you drive, the more you should have to pay for the upkeep.

Now I think the current structure is fine and we should provide a financial benefit for electric vehicles who are not polluting the air. But this seems to be crossing a line into flat out building infrastructure for a particular business (or industry) that has benefited a great deal already from taxpayer subsidies.

Childs makes sense. Biden pays back Clyburn for his help. Clyburn pays back big business for all the contributions. Biden continues to torpedo his favorability.

Looking at Childs background, I will say I'd be happy to see someone come from outside the standard schools and paths to the SC. Wouldn't she be the first person in like 50 years to come from a public university?

Yup, Fri stock market was going along okay and then it went south. Oil predicted to go up $100+ per barrel if there is an invasion.

I don't know what Biden is doing. Why warn about a pending Russian invasion (seemingly) every day for the past week. If Russia wants to invade, she won't stop the invasion because its no longer a secret. Especially since Putin knows NATO won't put boots on the ground.

Biden, Macron etc. talking to Putin is the way to stop this. My guess is Putin won't invade right away. He has time and can wait it out. But Putin holds the cards (including gas pipeline for Germany) and wouldn't be surprised if he acted - maybe not a full invasion but a select area like he did with Crimea.

What a Russian invasion of Ukraine would mean for markets as Biden warns Putin of 'severe costs' - MarketWatch

just dropping the Tesla battery enclosure and replacing it with a fully charged replacement one would take a helluva lot longer than just turbo charging. There's a bunch of screws and cooling lines and power lines that would need to be swapped. It's a very heavy unit.

It is a difficult dance to do re: EV infrastructure.

On the one hand, EVs are good policy. And the government has given, is giving, and will continue to give fossil fuels subsidies, so I do think that there is a role for government in priming the EV pump to eventually let the market take over.

But when you are investing massive public money into an area, you are necessarily picking winners and losers. If we build a lot of a certain type of infrastructure, then we are choosing not to build others. And what if we are 18 months away from a total game changing technology that will never get invented b/c we've already decided to go with the mousetraps we have?

The market is almost always better at figuring these things out than the central planners.

I do agree with you in general but do think the market has already decided EV is the way to go (all car companies are moving in that direction).

However, which battery technology to standardized on (Tesla, Nio etc.) is still in question. I do think government has a role to help "incubate" and make and select e.g. create the charging stations infrastructure nationwide. The other stuff like replaceable batteries, let capitalism decide.

Why would the government invest in charging stations and not in replacement ones though? That just doesn't make sense to me. I just think we're past the point where governmental funding is useful, and into the stage where it'll do more harm than good. As said before, the market is already clearly shifting to EVs. It's time to let them take over.

I agree with the earlier point about replacing being problematic due to different batteries, that makes a lot of sense.

My brother’s got an i-Pace, and I’m pretty sure that has been pre-fitted with a removable tray that can house a battery in anticipation that recharging might be replaced with just swapping batteries.

I don't understand the desire for swapping batteries. It really doesn't take that long to charge up a battery. Tesla can charge you up for 200 miles in 15 minutes. That technology will only improve with time.

And how often are you in a situation where that becomes a concern? Most people do a long road trip a couple times a year. And you're looking at a 15 minutes stop at a charging station instead of a 5-10 minute stop at a gas station.

Just seems like an issue with minimal impact on a tiny portion of users.

A lot of people drive beyond the current range of EVs every day/multiple times per week as part of their jobs, myself included.

I went PHEV rather than full EV last autumn due to the current ranges, recharging issue & lack of infrastructure

If even one of these things had been better I would have gone full EV, but it’s a year or two too early here for an EV if you’re regularly doing 300+ miles a day

My rationale is chargers (and therefore stations) are fairly standardize. Tesla may need a different plug-in than another EV brand but fairly easy to create multiple plug-ins or adapters for the plug-ins to accommodate different EVs.

Batteries (and hence replacement batteries) are not as standard, heavy, and has logistical issue of keeping stocked in charging/swapping stations.

I'm thinking we still need to incubate EVs for now because this will increase acceptance and it'll happen quicker. There will likely be resistance from big oil companies to prevent or slow things down. We'll get there eventually but I want it sooner rather than later.

Build the nationwide charging stations or incent private enterprise to build them. Hey private Quick Trip-and-like owner to build X chargers and we'll give you a tax deduction/credit. Or a Walmart or fast food off an interstate exit etc.

We are talking $5B here. Chump change all things considered out of a $1.2T infrastructure bill.

Talking about charging stations ... if we get cars that can go 600 miles per charge, that prob means less interstate charging stations are needed. If true, a game changer IMO. And makes me ask how Tesla fell so far behind.

We were driving to see in-laws 1-2 times a year when kids were young. That was 400 miles one way. So this would certainly eliminate my range anxiety.

Tesla has a market cap of nearly $1 trillion. I feel like they can cover the cost for their own product.

Or we'll back the wrong horse so to speak and make it take longer. Which is why I support letting the market do it. If they need to take over eventually, they need to take over as soon as possible - I think continued government involvement delays that, which means an increased chance of greater 'growing pains' being required by the market switching directions.


The amount of money is not a concern to me.

I don't think it does any good to rush the building of infrastructure. Even if we had enough infrastructure tomorrow I don't think it moves the needle much. EV acceptance requires them trickling down through many years to used-car market, public attitudes changing over time, etc. I.e. the law of diffusion of innovation. There are some things you can rush. You can rush-build a skyscraper or a restaurant. For better or worse, you can't really do that very effectively with consumer behavior.

Sell them a ton of high-tech military equipment so they can slaughter innocent civilians and this is how they repay you. Biden might be worse than Trump at negotiating.

Saudi Arabia Rejects Biden Plea to Increase Oil Production as Midterms Loom

The government has a long, long history of picking winners and not letting the market do it, and they have done it to speed development. Letting the market dictate the progress isn't always the best outcome.

Looks like that Ukraine invasion is back on (maybe)


NY Times

Leaked on 2/3 (presumably to get Europe, especially Germany, onboard with sanctions):


Putin Claims 'Genocide' Happening in Donbas Region of Ukraine (props to the Business Insider photographer for catching Putin using air quotes around genocide)



I mean, why stop with the greatest hits. It worked in Georgia in 2008. And in Crimea in 2014.

What else does that page say about the invasion of Georgia? Usually cyber attacks precede the real attack. Well, there's this from the past 6 hours:
Ukrainian says government websites, banks were hit with denial of service attack : NPR
Cyberattack hits websites of Ukraine defense ministry and armed forces

A number of people have predicted this week or even February 16th as the date. And it looks like troops are ready to go.

Of course, it's still all a guess as to whether it's a bluff just to destabilize Ukraine or an actual invasion.

SI

I personally think the invasion would be disastrous for Russia. Like bad enough to cripple the country and make it an afterthought around the world. It makes me wonder if there is a powerplay going on behind the scenes in Russia as to whether to do this.

Taking over Ukraine is no easy task. It's the size of Texas and armed to the teeth. Not 3rd world weaponry either, state of the art stuff. Counting reservists, their military is almost a million deep. And if the citizenry provides additional resistance, it will be an incredibly bloody and prolonged fight.

And if you have a bloody fight playing out on smartphones for the world to see, it makes them an even bigger pariah. The sanctions will get considerably worse and at some point Europe will have to cut them off completely. That also means potentially stopping their money laundering operations that the United States and most of Europe allows. They would be heavily isolated.

And this assumes that they are even remotely successful. As we've seen from Afghanistan, it's not easy to conquer another country. Resistance could be big and there will be a lot of Western money flooding in to help them. Can Russia handle a bloody 20 year war where they are shut off from the world and are forced to spend in perpetuity? Does their population care enough to stand behind it for that long?

Maybe Putin is some genius and the plan goes off without a hitch. But I think it would be a complete and utter disaster for Russia and maybe the little despot is having some second thoughts. Ukraine is not Georgia.

I think the speculation is that it would just be a "quick" mission to bomb strategic targets and then use ops to take out their sitting government and install their own puppet government. Not sure how that plays out.

SI

Russia has been systematically attacking Ukraine's infrastructure for the better part of a decade. It's been a war already...the Russians have gleaned everything about the country, have taken the power grid and internet offline on their own schedule. Playing the long game, they've already destabilized it in advance of whatever they have planned ahead.

Yep. And they often get it wrong.

And frequently it's lead to great leaps in economic progress.

Yeah, I don't think that's actually the case.

Good for you?

Texas Lt Gov clarifying that the Liberty Institute is in charge of banning speech.

I will not stand by and let looney Marxist UT professors poison the minds of young students with Critical Race Theory. We banned it in publicly funded K-12 and we will ban it in publicly funded higher ed. That’s why we created the Liberty Institute at UT. https://t.co/2W7mb3RVuN

— Dan Patrick (@DanPatrick) February 15, 2022

dola

"Jesus guns babies" is a hell of a campaign slogan. pic.twitter.com/cS6UzO3UgR

— Arieh Kovler (@ariehkovler) February 17, 2022

Can't complain about the Democrats doing nothing anymore. They're stripping some free speech protections.

Key Senators Have Voted For The Anti-Encryption EARN IT Act | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Agreed. Anything that weakens encryption on the internet is a horrible move in the wrong direction. People need privacy. Sure, some will use encryption to cover up doing bad things, but that is no reason to get rid of or weaken encryption.

Been reading that quantum computing will overwhelm current encryption standards. Somewhat scary to think in 20-30 years time, my Dell XPS desktop with the latest i7-quantum cpu can break all old encryption.

Well this ain't good

East Ukraine sees its worst shelling in years | Reuters

Russian is very adept at moving the goalposts to get the "excuse" they want. I am pretty sure Putin, regardless of his ultimate intentions, has no issue keeping this cat and mouse game going because it is getting him the attention he craves.

Another nifty poll tracking various concerns from 2020-2021-2022. Some are about the same, many are worse. Only saw one better.


https://news.gallup.com/poll/389309/...on-report.aspx

I would love to know what assets we have in Russia. It's pretty clear we have at least one in the Kremlin and close to Putin.

Kamala in the news reiterating Biden's threats to Russia. After 2+ weeks of Biden/Blinken leading the charge, Kamala is now "allowed" to chime in. A little too late to be taken seriously IMO.

I had higher hopes for Kamala but it does seem she has been regulated to the traditional role of VP. I've read there was negative talk from Biden's staff vs Kamala last year and hope they have worked it out.

I'm thinking Joe does want to run again in 2024 and hence not propping up Kamala as much as he should for her to run in 2024. Honestly, I would be hard pressed to vote for Joe again unless somehow Trump was the GOP nominee.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/19/polit...ech/index.html

It's just amazing that Dems can't make political hay out of this.

All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception.

You read that right.

Terrifying.

— Dana Nessel (@dananessel) February 19, 2022

(Brought over from the covid thread)


Trump support is still strong but McConnell has made moves to distance himself, so there's some hope there. But yeah, considering how Biden presidency has been sucking so far, I can see Trump supporters winning in 2022 and Trump winning in 2024.

It is the economy stupid. If election was now, goodbye Biden. Thankfully he has another 2 years to right the ship. And Trump's outrageous response to the pandemic will be blunted. Pandemic will be old news, we'll be in a new normal. Ivermectin, bleach, Fauci etc. will all passé by then. And because Biden has had more deaths (and climbing) in 13 months than in Trump's 11-12 months even with vaccines & improved therapeutics.

I would vote Biden if it was against Trump. But I'm not happy with Biden right now and would very seriously consider all comers other than Trump & Ted Cruz, Bernie and like.

Hillary sitting at 12-1 to win the democratic nomination. Really thinking about dropping 1K on it. Only problem is that money would be tied up for a long time.

I don't see how that would be good money at all. What's the scenario where she ends up the nominee? Biden doesn't run again so the party has to find someone else. They have to bypass Harris. If those both happen, it's because things are going badly. If that's the case, why would they go to someone who already lost in 2016, yet another aging boomer. I would think they'd try to go in a different direction and get younger.

SI

Yep. I wouldn't take that at 120-1.

I've just heard a lot of speculation about her lately.

I think the only way Hilary comes back to politics is if Trump et al are convicted of something connected to trying to overturn the election-then she may feel energized to run again-see I was right! but otherwise I think she's tired of it all and will stay away. She is enemy #1 over any Dem I can think of (just look at Fox coverage of the whole Eastman report), and I'm not sure she wants to go through all that again, nor do enough Dems want to go through all that again.

If Biden isn't the nominee then the Democrats should go with someone younger to bring more energy into the campaign. They need to stop trotting out dinosaurs.

That was the plan for Kamala but that may not work out well ...

The problem is that voters keep choosing the 'dinosaurs'. That's not really the fault of the parties. It seems life experience/recognition is valued more than youth by the average American these days.