[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

Why own anything then? Just rent 100% of the time.

Most accidents happen close to home or places we always go...

It all depends I guess.

I recently rented an x6 off Turo just to drive my friend to a corvette specialist. It was only a 2 or 2.5 hour drive each way. Could’ve used the m3 as it’s a lease and I’m already well under the mileage but didn’t want the wear and tear or god forbid a stone through the windshield, flat tire, or accident so I rented someone else’s car lol.

It was so cheap it was totally worth it. Car was nice too lol

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

It all depends I guess.

I recently rented an x6 off Turo just to drive my friend to a corvette specialist. It was only a 2 or 2.5 hour drive each way. Could’ve used the m3 as it’s a lease and I’m already well under the mileage but didn’t want the wear and tear or god forbid a stone through the windshield, flat tire, or accident so I rented someone else’s car lol.

It was so cheap it was totally worth it. Car was nice too lol

You are extremely paranoid & wasting that M3 =p

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by ga9213

Well...at 100+ dollars a day non corporate rate that really doesn't make a lot of economical sense, does it?

Kind of a silly argument to make there, IMO.

You're right, they do mostly happen close to home...but that doesn't mean that can't happen when you're far from home. And having to navigate those challenges from a distance are a royal pain in the ass.

My wife is in insurance and has had to coordinate with folks that have had this happen so I hear the horror stories. It's worth the money in the short term to avoid that for me.

But these are my own choices and my own prerogatives. It doesn't have to be yours. I'll share it though in the event someone has these concerns themselves and haven't considered it.

Buy for the 90% use case. Find a workaround for the rest. That's why I don't have a truck. When I need one, I can go rent one for 20 bucks at home depot.

My point clearly went right over your head... Enjoy the paranoia!

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

You are extremely paranoid & wasting that M3 =p

Trust me i beat the fuck out of it all nice for the 2nd owner.

I just didn't want that unnecessary drive with the M3 because the guy took his kids (yes 2 kids in a vette) with him lol.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by ga9213

Well...at 100+ dollars a day non corporate rate that really doesn't make a lot of economical sense, does it?

Kind of a silly argument to make there, IMO.

Making silly arguments and arguing against anything that doesn't have 700+ hp is pretty much all he does.

Originally Posted by ga9213

Buy for the 90% use case. Find a workaround for the rest. That's why I don't have a truck. When I need one, I can go rent one for 20 bucks at home depot.

The truck thing gets me as well. Unless you are towing all the time, racecar/camper or something, owning one on a daily basis makes less than zero sense.

Hell now, even the big box stores will deliver most things for free if you don't live in the boondocks. Loaded trucks and SUVs have just become the new luxury vehicle people.

[Michael9218]

Buy a vehicle for normal use, not exceptional use.

Wife picked up an Audi e-Tron last August. Loves it. We charge at home. Everyday she has a full charge. When she did a 7 hour road trip recently, we rented an ICE car from the local Avis office. No big deal, but haters gonna hate...

Oh, and it costs $5 to "fill it up" from empty. How much you spending to fill up that ICE SUV?

[UPSROD]

I have never wanted one and don't expect to!

[Ximian]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

We've had three major nuclear disasters in 43 years. That's not a great track record for a system that is supposed to be "safe", full of redundancies, and ran by high qualified personnel.

Nuclear power is an amazing technological advancement, but a sane person should question the risk vs reward factor when it comes to larger facilities like nuclear power plants.

There is far more risk in continued heavy use of fossil fuels that we ignore because it's normalized. We have daily oil spill or toxic chemical spill disasters due to power production by fossil fuels.

Relativeness is a keyword when dealing with anything nuclear. Safer compared to burning fossil fuels? It absolutely is, even with Chernobyl. It's easy to be scared of nuclear waste that's in a concrete casks in a area with tons of warning signs and planned to be buried somewhere for hundreds of years. But if coal power plants just spew shit in the atmosphere, there's nothing to be scared of there, especially downwind, because those "tree huggers" would have complained about it. Enjoy that 50 tons of mercury in the atmosphere every year. Oil tanker crashes and dumps thousands of barrels worth of oil or toxic chemicals? That's fine. Off-shore oil rig "full of redundancies, and ran by high qualified personnel" has a problem and dumps millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, poisoning the food for millions of people? That's sane.

Interesting fact that many people didn't know (not that many people know anything substantive about it to begin with) - after Chernobyl's reactor 4 accident destroyed much of the building, reactor 3, which shared a wall in the building with reactor 4, was only powered down for the last time in the year 2000. Turns out even a dangerous nuclear reactor design can be safely used if you don't disable all of the safeguards on it.

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

Trust me i beat the fuck out of it all nice for the 2nd owner.

I just didn't want that unnecessary drive with the M3 because the guy took his kids (yes 2 kids in a vette) with him lol.

Why would you leave that part out? lol

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by Michael9218

Buy a vehicle for normal use, not exceptional use.

Wife picked up an Audi e-Tron last August. Loves it. We charge at home. Everyday she has a full charge. When she did a 7 hour road trip recently, we rented an ICE car from the local Avis office. No big deal, but haters gonna hate...

Oh, and it costs $5 to "fill it up" from empty. How much you spending to fill up that ICE SUV?

This post is a great advertisement for why ICE should go away & be replaced by EV, right world? lol ICE FTW

[Z K]

Originally Posted by Ximian

There is far more risk in continued heavy use of fossil fuels that we ignore because it's normalized. We have daily oil spill or toxic chemical spill disasters due to power production by fossil fuels.

Relativeness is a keyword when dealing with anything nuclear. Safer compared to burning fossil fuels? It absolutely is, even with Chernobyl. It's easy to be scared of nuclear waste that's in a concrete casks in a area with tons of warning signs and planned to be buried somewhere for hundreds of years. But if coal power plants just spew shit in the atmosphere, there's nothing to be scared of there, especially downwind, because those "tree huggers" would have complained about it. Enjoy that 50 tons of mercury in the atmosphere every year. Oil tanker crashes and dumps thousands of barrels worth of oil or toxic chemicals? That's fine. Off-shore oil rig "full of redundancies, and ran by high qualified personnel" has a problem and dumps millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, poisoning the food for millions of people? That's sane.

Interesting fact that many people didn't know (not that many people know anything substantive about it to begin with) - after Chernobyl's reactor 4 accident destroyed much of the building, reactor 3, which shared a wall in the building with reactor 4, was only powered down for the last time in the year 2000. Turns out even a dangerous nuclear reactor design can be safely used if you don't disable all of the safeguards on it.

I have no problem with new Generation 3 and upcoming newer designs but the older nuclear plants produce a ton of nuclear waste - toxic and will last thousands of years.

Yes, they are stored pretty securely today... but over time, that storage is meaningless. The cost to store and maintain increasing amounts of waste over centuries adds up. We already have nuclear waste leaks at some older storage sites - problems that are very hard to fix. The only solution is newer reactors but people aren't building them in the USA due to protests etc. Most existing plants are being decommissioned as well - at least on the west coast. (solar and wind power is big here)

So no to nuclear unless they are new designs that produce less waste and and recycle some older waste. But its a catch 22 in that in order to have better nuclear plants, you need to spend to renovate existing plants - that's money no one wants to spend. Natural gas prices are cheap and will not go up significantly in the future. That makes every nuclear plant a money losing proposition. And the waste problem adds up quickly as all the old waste just sits.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

Why would you leave that part out? lol

Which part? The part where i beat the fuck out of M3?

I thought that was a given with leases lol.

But hey when i give it back it will have no problem being sold since it'll have the ID7 people want so bad

[Ximian]

Originally Posted by Z K

but the older nuclear plants produce a ton of nuclear waste - toxic and will last thousands of years.

Yes, a literal ton of waste from nuclear reactors that's contained while fossil fuels produce thousands of tons of waste daily that does not decay with no steps to capture or contain it from spreading everywhere.

Think of how many tanker ships and journeys can be eliminated by reducing our fossil fuel use by 50%.

but over time, that storage is meaningless. The cost to store and maintain increasing amounts of waste over centuries adds up.

Again, the cost of fossil fuels is far greater. You can eat many cheeseburgers from the dollar menu for every meal or spend the same amount on a salad which isn't nearly as bad for you.

Like the military, nuclear power plants should be funded by the public to control cost and operate safely (e.g. no push to unsafely increase power production by management to meet quarterly revenue projections).

[ZL9M2]

I'm guessing that the waste from an appropriate number of efficient nuclear plants would be significantly less than the battery waste from fleets of EV's.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by ZL9M2

I'm guessing that the waste from an appropriate number of efficient nuclear plants would be significantly less than the battery waste from fleets of EV's.

What battery waste? ALL EV batteries are going to be recycled (by law)

[ZL9M2]

Originally Posted by ga9213

What battery waste? ALL EV batteries are going to be recycled (by law)

Yeah.... right. And what is the greater environmental impact of EV production? They're just built from fairy dust and unicorn farts apparently.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by ZL9M2

Yeah.... right. And what is the greater environmental impact of EV production? They're just built from fairy dust and unicorn farts apparently.

Considering the price of raw materials, it would be absolutely foolish as well as illegal to make waste of the batteries.

Denial of this reality is either out of ignorance or bias. Only two options.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So you speak of the legal requirement to recycle EV batteries. This article from May '21 in Science gives a pretty good synopsis of EV battery recycling. It's not yet well figured out and very complex, which means costly. Costly means humans are going to cheap out and act illegally. One note in the article indicates extracting the used battery raw materials is more expensive than getting new raw materials. When processes get expensive people avoid the process.

There is no bias in asking the question. Thinking EV battery recycling is not going to have illegal environmentally toxic activity is denial.

https://www.science.org/content/arti...dead-batteries

Not YET. Which is why the law is currently needed.

Go look on ebay for used tesla batteries that are EOL and tell me why someone would waste these batteries while recycling is not yet cost effective when they are worth many thousands of dollars on the secondary market?

Recycling doesn't just mean tearing down and recycling raw materials. It also means repurposing EOL batteries in other applications when they are no longer suitable for EV use.

The batteries will ALWAYS retain value, either in material or secondary market value. They won't be wasted.

[G30M]

i am not buying an EV to save the planet. in fact love the smell of burning petrol and get withdrawals if i don't hear the sound of V10s (and V8s). but over the last few years EV has grown on me so much that I might pass on the M3 Touring to get an EV. reasons -

- dinosaur juice is so expensive
- when i turn on the EV i have instant heating when it's 0 outside
- when i press the pedal it gives me instant power (i live on hilly terrain, it's so good)
- no engine and transmission to blow up, or even to maintain. at all. yet the powertrain in 2 years of R&D is superior to 200 years of R&D already.

cons
- no "sound" - sometimes it is a good thing but sometimes i want to hear a V10
- heavy - but interestingly doesn't affect driving dynamics much unless you're at the limit then ICE will give more Gs
- slow to "fill up"

[ZL9M2]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Now you are changing definitions and changing the topic. You originally addressed the extraction of the battery raw materials as a function of recycling the battery in lieu of mining new raw materials. Now you are defining the term recycling as a reuse of a partially depleted-charge-capacity battery for its initial-manufactured purpose (to store electrical energy), as in a Tesla Energy (SolarCity) Power Wall.

Eventually the battery will have no use as an electrical storage device and reach its true end-of-life state. The extraction of the raw materials that allow the battery to hold electrical charge will be depleted and useless. Being environmentally toxic if released (i.e. not contained in storage) means there is no economical reason to recycle the battery, which gets back to the point of it being akin to long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel.

Yes. And this discussion should also include the environmental impact of the production of all these batteries, not just the eventual waste.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Now you are changing definitions and changing the topic. You originally addressed the extraction of the battery raw materials as a function of recycling the battery in lieu of mining new raw materials. Now you are defining the term recycling as a reuse of a partially depleted-charge-capacity battery for its initial-manufactured purpose (to store electrical energy), as in a Tesla Energy (SolarCity) Power Wall.

Eventually the battery will have no use as an electrical storage device and reach its true end-of-life state. The extraction of the raw materials that allow the battery to hold electrical charge will be depleted and useless. Being environmentally toxic if released (i.e. not contained in storage) means there is no economical reason to recycle the battery, which gets back to the point of it being akin to long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel.

No, waste is the topic. Whether it be direct recycling or secondary recycling, they don't end up as waste. I didn't address it as extraction. I said based on the price of raw materials. You read what you wanted to out of my statement.

They are valuable commodities and there are many years left to identify optimal ways of direct recycling.

[Ximian]

Originally Posted by ZL9M2

Yes. And this discussion should also include the environmental impact of the production of all these batteries, not just the eventual waste.

Yes, let's have a completely disingenuous talk about the relatively minuscule impact of mining minerals and metals used to make batteries compared to the devastating effects of drilling for oil and mining coal.

Repeating the point again and again - the impact of mining, capturing, refining, transporting, and consumption of fossil fuels is ridiculously higher. A gallon of oil or a pound of coal can only be used once. A battery can be recharged many times, the rare earth metals used in wind turbines as well as materials used on solar panels can be reused for years and eventually recycled.