OK, but those are all ancillary and not core. You implied core capability in your original phrasing: “ software does need to be updated because most EVs use connected car features and software for DC fast charging. Your EV may work fine in 15 years, but it may not support certain DC fast chargers“

Some (relatively minor) features may stop working, but you’ll still be able to charge 15 years from now.

"Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time"

Its called fingerprinting, and it has been going on a very long time, using techniques that go back decades. This just makes it more persistent and spans attempts to obfuscate fingerprinting in easier ways.

If you want to avoid this, work from a non-persistent VM that is created and destroyed every online session, using no identifiable information (no-logins ever).

Security isn't convenient.

I’ve never heard of this, and I’ve been driving EVs for 10 years. Maybe Tesla superchargers for their handshake so that plug’n’charge works, but that would only prevent plug n charge, not fail the whole handshake and stop the charging entirely. Which specific DC fast chargers and which cars and what specific requirements? We have plenty of 15 year old computer kit that can still connect to modern routers, and that kit is not expected to be anywhere near as long-lived as a car.

We *expect* calendar life to play a role for LFP and sodium chemistries, but the truth is we just don’t know how significant it’s going to be. For NMC, it’s clearly going to have an impact. Even given calendar life, I still think the dynamics of the used car market shift significantly, because that market has all the volume at 3 to 10 years, after which the value drops off a cliff. There’s no volume market for 20 year old ICE vehicles, but there will be for EVs.

But if fewer people performing this behaviour died of starvation (or were too low in nutritional status to raise offspring to maturity - same thing really) than died of Salmonella it would still be a net benefit.

Historically, cars decayed mechnically, which led to churn, which created the used car market volume. A car might come off finance after 3 or 4 years, then be sold once again after another five or six years for a lot less money, then have one or two cycles more before ending up as a beater or as scrap.

But in an EV world, cars may decay technologically, but they’re going to remain mechanically (ahd chemically) robust for much longer. That will cut failure-driven churn, and is likely to stabilise mid-tier pricing, cut transaction velocity and volumes, etc. The beater market may disappear. Here’s what I mean: an EV with a 300 mile LFP pack (or sodium, in 2027 or 2028) may have essentially the same range after 30 years, because that’s “only” 400,000 or so miles of driving, and the chemistry probably gets you to more like 900,000. The drivetrain is so much simpler that nothing on it is likely to have broken. So at what point do you *need* to sell it because it doesn’t do the original job?

Let me help. You didn’t get any of that straight: you got it all wrong. No, your car will not see battery SoH fall to 80% after five years if you use the advertised range etc. Just drive the fucking car, plug into a rapid when you need to, and don’t worry about it. The car will be fine.

The irony is that this is the exact same reason that households in sub-Saharan Africa are installing these little deployments of a solar panel and a small battery storage system that has a few outlets directly integrated into it — grid power is unreliable and diesel generators are too costly and stink.

Why are people so crap at reading comprehension?

Your #1 is *literally* a recapitulation of "using low carbon power to generate the electricity". Your #2 is, as well, just for capex rather than opex.

More fundamentally, you appear to be missing the point I was making to the OP, which was that HVAC, contrary to their beliefs, is (1) inherently low-carbon (using electricity to move heat) and (2) is extremely effective not merely despite this, but because of this.

Nope. That’s not on offer. Left-leaning people understand that AC works and is net zero, just like they know other basic things, such as how to spell broccoli. So they’re not going to fall for this kind of shite, just like they didn’t fall for the shite about vaccines being dangerous or covid not being dangerous or raw milk being safe or gun control being dangerous, etc etc. So you’ll have to do all the shuffling all by yourselves. Toodles!

I appreciate you're trying to make a joke, but it doesn't land well because of course there's no way that Florida Republicans are going to give out free snorkels, masks or fins. They're more likely to ban them, or slap a tax on them, or tell police to shoot people using them.

Given you and I are in basic agreement on this, I don't know why you commented the way you did, as if I hadn't written " It already has a COP of 3 or 4 and runs on electricity, the only thing that can make it less carbon intensive is using low carbon power to generate the electricity."

...persuading De Santis's political base that AC systems are net zero and should be switched off because they use heat pumps and electricity. It's not like the state will be counting excess deaths from heat anyway, and vast swathes of his voting base are elderly multi-morbid, so no-one would really count them or care if they start dropping like flies. Given their sourness, it's really a kindness to help them shuffle off the mortal coil a little earlier. At least it is for their families.

What the fuck is a "net zero" HVAC? Every vapour-compression air conditioner is just an air-to-air heat pump in cooling mode and always has been. What do you imagine is being done to make an HVAC "net zero"? It already has a COP of 3 or 4 and runs on electricity, the only thing that can make it less carbon intensive is using low carbon power to generate the electricity. The AC itself doesn't work more or less well for being an inherently net zero technology, you dumbass.