The First Law of Thermodynamics, eh?
Methinks that you greatly misunderstand what I wrote. FWIW I have neither an EV nor a diesel powered vehicle. My daughter has a Tesla. One reason she got it is because they were spending over $600 per month for gasoline. For her to get a full charge at a Tesla station costs her about $15 and that includes profit for Tesla. A full charge gets her about 280 miles. that's about 5.4 cents per mile. My Cavalier all in city and highway gets about 30 mpg so to go that same 280 miles in my Cavalier would require 280/30 or 9.33 gallons of gasoline. At $5.00 per gallon that's almost $47 or 16.7 cents per mile. So tell me please where have I violated the First Law of Thermodynamics? How many gallons of diesel [if the thing even kicked in] would that Generac generator use in charging an EV? Maybe 1, if that.
IMO that "cartoon" is just a cheap shot at those who use EVs for whatever reason. As I said before most folks know or should know that there's no such thing as a free lunch and the irony that their EVs are still dependent on fossil fuels to generate the power needed to keep them going. That picture is blurry and I'd like to see the rest of the area around that charging setup. I'm reasonably certain that the poster didn't make that cartoon, but saw it somewhere and just used it like I often do.
Methinks YOU greatly misunderstand what you write
words
mean
things
And IDEAS mean things.
You stated baldly that you believe there's a net gain in dieseling up some electric, dumping into your EV and driving off. YOU said it. It's right there on the page right after you 'say' TANSTAAFL....... SAYING it doesn't mean UNDERSTANDING it.
If you disagree, simply rationally support your argument with a breakdown that doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics
NOBODY CARES "what you've got" in any sense of the word...... In simple fact nobody cares what you've got, Joe Shmoe's got nor what alinwa's got...... it ain't ABOUT what anybody's "got".
It's about ideas.
It's about facts.
It's about the simple truth of physical laws. And the fact that when folks like you make blatantly spurious claims headed by "likely to be quite less" as you did above it misleads people reading your words and "believing you" over mean ol' anilwa....."Orange Man BAD!!"........it's specifically why we're unable as a country to THINK and make rational decisions.
This sort of thinking is exactly why 50% of the people here on this and all the other shooting forums are seriously considering "yeahhh, maybe it's time for some more gun laws"
It's our biggest problem as a nation
and as shooters.
A very small contingent of our shooting population, a set of HEROES, is devoting their lives to deregulation whereas the typical shooting/foruming/discussing voter is hell-bent on "fixing" America with unicorn farts and rainbow stew.
I'm not being "mean" to you nor is this one of your "cheap shots"...... I just think your thinking is muddy, contradictory.
Set me straight
Show me wrong
Please