Still want an EV? (NO POLITICS)

[Dégoûté]

Unsafe at any speed:

https://nantucketcurrent.com/news/ca...rash-into-tree

[dfox]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Right.

I like to have adult conversations about the impact of the hoped-for dramatic drop in reliance on carbon fuels and how that will impact society and the economy as a whole. The petrochemical industry just can't stop making gasoline, diesel, and heating oil while at the same time not reducing the volume of jet fuel, plastics, and industrial chemicals made from the oil refining process. None of this is as easy as buyers just deciding to buy an electric vehicle next time they go car shopping. And the second and third tier (used car) market is not capable of adopting EV for numerous reasons.

But when someone comes in the thread thinking it's just an EV haters group echo chamber circle jerk, they are not willing to change non-EV advocates minds. Perhaps they aren't prepared to have the in-depth conversation required counter what people like me see as significant societal shift that forced mass adoption will bring. Trying to equate this to 1900 and transition from flesh-powered vehicles and machinery to ICE power and saying it will all turn out alright as it did last time is immature and ignorant of the modern situation.

Asking difficult questions material to the issue of mass EV adoption is not hate, but rather it is responsible concern.

First, changing someone's mind is not the point of debates like this, imo. Very view people are changing their mind, they're just here looking for their daily confirmation bias.

Unfortunately the bulk of the "conversations" in this thread are anti-ev clickbait that centers on fires and a lack of chargers. I tried to join in this thread a few times to discuss reasonable topics like what you posted above, but instead just get constantly bombarded with bullshit clickbait and half facts. It's really just not worth the stress.

Nobody has the time to have in-depth conversations like this on a forum, so yes, it just ends up being a circle jerk for the majority of posters.

[M5Rick]

From what I have seen and heard up to now EV to me is still and will be: Eventually Vanquished.

[eugenebmw]

So much drama to be an EV owner. ICE is simple life. How come ppl doesn't get it

Here’s Why Most Other EVs Still Can’t Use Tesla Superchargers https://jalopnik.com/here-s-why-most...rch-1851633863

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by dfox

First, changing someone's mind is not the point of debates like this, imo. Very view people are changing their mind, they're just here looking for their daily confirmation bias.

Unfortunately the bulk of the "conversations" in this thread are anti-ev clickbait that centers on fires and a lack of chargers. I tried to join in this thread a few times to discuss reasonable topics like what you posted above, but instead just get constantly bombarded with bullshit clickbait and half facts. It's really just not worth the stress.

Nobody has the time to have in-depth conversations like this on a forum, so yes, it just ends up being a circle jerk for the majority of posters.

"Confirmation bias" is just an copout internet term for not having good counter arguments.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

"Confirmation bias" is just an copout internet term for not having good counter arguments.

Not really what confirmation bias means, it means focusing on the things that you already believe and ignoring the rest. The vast majority of people that seem to come into this thread and post on it are anti EV and looking for more fodder to support their position.

I'm a very middle of the road person on EV's, but you'd never know it on this thread, I might as well be Elon Musk. I'm in full support, I own one because it works very well for my situation. But I also love ICE performance cars and don't want to see them go away. Hell, I'm a save the manuals guy too. Also think the mandates are crazy, but not against the tax credits. blah blah. We just don't have days and days to type walls of text to explain every little nuance, so things get boiled down to black and white and it just enhances divisiveness.

If a bunch of us sat down and had beers together, we'd find that we all have a lot more in common than posts on this thread would lead anyone to believe...

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by dfox

Not really what confirmation bias means, it means focusing on the things that you already believe and ignoring the rest. The vast majority of people that seem to come into this thread and post on it are anti EV and looking for more fodder to support their position.

I'm a very middle of the road person on EV's, but you'd never know it on this thread, I might as well be Elon Musk. I'm in full support, I own one because it works very well for my situation. But I also love ICE performance cars and don't want to see them go away. Hell, I'm a save the manuals guy too. Also think the mandates are crazy, but not against the tax credits. blah blah. We just don't have days and days to type walls of text to explain every little nuance, so things get boiled down to black and white and it just enhances divisiveness.

If a bunch of us sat down and had beers together, we'd find that we all have a lot more in common than posts on this thread would lead anyone to believe...

I know where you're coming from but 'having a beer and talking about it' won't do much good to tackle the general EV questions which is why threads like this are essential.

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by dfox

Not really what confirmation bias means, it means focusing on the things that you already believe and ignoring the rest. The vast majority of people that seem to come into this thread and post on it are anti EV and looking for more fodder to support their position.

I'm a very middle of the road person on EV's, but you'd never know it on this thread, I might as well be Elon Musk. I'm in full support, I own one because it works very well for my situation. But I also love ICE performance cars and don't want to see them go away. Hell, I'm a save the manuals guy too. Also think the mandates are crazy, but not against the tax credits. blah blah. We just don't have days and days to type walls of text to explain every little nuance, so things get boiled down to black and white and it just enhances divisiveness.

If a bunch of us sat down and had beers together, we'd find that we all have a lot more in common than posts on this thread would lead anyone to believe...

I have certainly noticed those black and white people here. You probably won't change them because their minds are already made up. Spend your time on those with open minds.

[eugenebmw]

How about someone from Tesla talking shit about his own products

Tesla investor Ross Gerber says he can't get rid of his used Tesla. Here's why Musk's cars aren't retaining value like they used to.

https://www.businessinsider.com/used...v-sales-2024-8

[BlkGS]

People with open minds are also willing to see the drawbacks, limitations, and areas of ineffectiveness for new technology. It's a two way street, not every new technology makes sense at a larger scale, not every new technology even works.

The real issue with EVs is the idea that they must get 100% market share. They absolutely have a niche application, and it could be a large segment even. But there's roles they suck at. It's the same as saying "coupes are on average more efficient so by 2030 all new cars must be coupes".

[dfox]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

I know where you're coming from but 'having a beer and talking about it' won't do much good to tackle the general EV questions which is why threads like this are essential.

Not like this thread is solving anything either, just a bunch of car nuts on a random website. no key decision makers are following this thread or anything...

[dfox]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

People with open minds are also willing to see the drawbacks, limitations, and areas of ineffectiveness for new technology. It's a two way street, not every new technology makes sense at a larger scale, not every new technology even works.

The real issue with EVs is the idea that they must get 100% market share. They absolutely have a niche application, and it could be a large segment even. But there's roles they suck at. It's the same as saying "coupes are on average more efficient so by 2030 all new cars must be coupes".

agreed 100%.

EV works for the vast majority of my families' driving, so I do it. We fill up with hydro electricity, not coal. We commute in stop and go traffic, where EV's thrive. I can fill up for free at work, meaning we've paid about $50 in fuel for the past 2K miles driven. I can park in my driveway and charge outside, so there is a lot less concern about the extremely low chance of a fire. We have the luxury of having multiple vehicles so we have a road trip ICE, a fun to drive ICE, and then our EV. The list goes on about my specific circumstances and why it works well.

But it will not work for a lot of people, and the mandates need to drop. Manufacturers need to make ICE, Hybrid, and EV... I'd like to see a situation where 50% of cars are hybrid, 25% are ICE, 25% are EV.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by dfox

agreed 100%.

EV works for the vast majority of my families' driving, so I do it. We fill up with hydro electricity, not coal. We commute in stop and go traffic, where EV's thrive. I can fill up for free at work, meaning we've paid about $50 in fuel for the past 2K miles driven. I can park in my driveway and charge outside, so there is a lot less concern about the extremely low chance of a fire. We have the luxury of having multiple vehicles so we have a road trip ICE, a fun to drive ICE, and then our EV. The list goes on about my specific circumstances and why it works well.

But it will not work for a lot of people, and the mandates need to drop. Manufacturers need to make ICE, Hybrid, and EV... I'd like to see a situation where 50% of cars are hybrid, 25% are ICE, 25% are EV.

Agree.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by dfox

Not like this thread is solving anything either, just a bunch of car nuts on a random website. no key decision makers are following this thread or anything...

4M plus hits so must be doing something and probably better than your over a beer discussion

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by dfox

Not really what confirmation bias means, it means focusing on the things that you already believe and ignoring the rest. The vast majority of people that seem to come into this thread and post on it are anti EV and looking for more fodder to support their position.

I'm a very middle of the road person on EV's, but you'd never know it on this thread, I might as well be Elon Musk. I'm in full support, I own one because it works very well for my situation. But I also love ICE performance cars and don't want to see them go away. Hell, I'm a save the manuals guy too. Also think the mandates are crazy, but not against the tax credits. blah blah. We just don't have days and days to type walls of text to explain every little nuance, so things get boiled down to black and white and it just enhances divisiveness.

If a bunch of us sat down and had beers together, we'd find that we all have a lot more in common than posts on this thread would lead anyone to believe...

"Strawman", "confirmation bias", "ad homnien", blah blah blah, are all just a bunch of psychobabble copouts to avoid engaging in discussion. I'm sure you think I'm anti-EV because I don't write favorable posts about EV. I'm anti-battery as a energy storage architecture. I think gasoline and diesel are better portable energy storage fuels vs. electrons stuck in an electrolyte inside a metal hydroxide battery.

I think electric motors are far better at converting stored energy to kenetic motion than a traditional ICE/transmission architecture. I've always thought this even when my father bought his GE E-15 Electrak in 1973 when I was 11 years old. But like EV today, the Electrak had a limited use case (maintaining our 2-acre yard). It was fantastic at that function, but not much more. It's battery capacity and slow recharge speed were its limitations. IMO ICEV cover a much broader use case for anyone regardless of their socio-economic status and domicile arrangements.

Let the market develop an EV that uses something different than a battery for fuel and is convenient to use in the broad use case ICEV can fulfill and you'll see my praises written here in this thread.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by dfox

agreed 100%.

EV works for the vast majority of my families' driving, so I do it. We fill up with hydro electricity, not coal. We commute in stop and go traffic, where EV's thrive. I can fill up for free at work, meaning we've paid about $50 in fuel for the past 2K miles driven. I can park in my driveway and charge outside, so there is a lot less concern about the extremely low chance of a fire. We have the luxury of having multiple vehicles so we have a road trip ICE, a fun to drive ICE, and then our EV. The list goes on about my specific circumstances and why it works well.

But it will not work for a lot of people, and the mandates need to drop. Manufacturers need to make ICE, Hybrid, and EV... I'd like to see a situation where 50% of cars are hybrid, 25% are ICE, 25% are EV.

The real sweet spot is PHEVs and Range Extended EVs. Cover most daily use with a modest battery pack, and pair it with an ICE generator or motor for range. The problem is that they are often too expensive to have an ROI for people, and that's a deal breaker for most people.

The reality of it is that EVs aren't really more green, the greenest thing is not producing as many new cars and repairing and upkeeping the existing ones. But that doesn't make the green that matters, money. Unless you're charging with power you're creating yourself, reality is you're getting power from a mix of sources. You might have a large hydro or nuke plant nearby, but the grid is, well, a grid. So you're getting power from everywhere.

In the end, we should be subsidizing PHEVs at a much higher rate than BEVs. And frankly, the limits for MSRP and incomes should be adjusted to be more strict. Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing this GS for people earning at the top like 5% of households. That said, the MSRP cap at 80k is an awkward price point, where it's a lot of money, but it's also not including higher end trims for some of these things. Lightning for example, any platinum trim truck is excluded, so if you want one, and you're spending fairly good money for an expensive truck, you're stuck in a lariat trim with a few options. The other EV trucks are likely to be even more expensive than Lightning, so they'll likely be totally excluded from it.

IMO, what would be the best solution is to have the government pay the manufacturers a variable rate rebate to cover the cost of the addition of a PHEV setup, with a minimum range of 30 miles (or whatever), and a maximum value of $10k. So that allows the manufacturer to price their PHEVs at the exact same price as the ICE vehicles, and if you're given the option between a PHEV or a basic ICE for the same price, nobody would say no to the PHEV (unless it was an X5 50e that doesn't work :X ) The government already has policies in place on the defense side to prove to the government what something costs, so that could be leveraged.

This sort of rebate would provide an immediate boost to PHEV sales and an immediate and dramatic drop in gasoline consumption, while still giving people the flexibility of ICE range. The current issue of PHEVs not having a reasonable ROI goes out the window. The only losers are people who are heavily I vested in EVs and their supply chains, which includes big money banks, and so it won't ever happen.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Let the market develop an EV that uses something different than a battery for fuel and is convenient to use in the broad use case ICEV can fulfill and you'll see my praises written here in this thread.

Ramcharger with its ra.ge extended EV setup is going to be this. It's going to be a real paradigm breaker, assuming Ram actually brings it to market, and doesn't price it out of contention.

The other real issue with EV adoption, at some point, a vehicle costs so much that I don't care about the fuel economy savings. Ramcharger is going to be a great example. If a fully loaded Ramcharger is like 100k, even if it matches the performance of a 90k turbo6 truck, I don't care about the potential ROI because it's a 100k truck. I'm not gonna pay 100k to beta test something that has a competitive alternative. Frankly, even with price parity, I'm likely not going to buy the beta test product, because I have more money than time, and so the risk of having to deal with new product issues is of more importance to me than maybe saving money on "fuel".

If i'm looking at cars in the 30k range, then saving money on fuel is gonna matter a lot more to me, because that fuel cost is a larger portion of my income most likely. If you're buying a 100k car, fuel costs shouldn't be factoring into your budget.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

The reality of it is that EVs aren't really more green,

This is false and has been proven many times over. EV's are better for the environment from start to finish, from mining the materials to recycling. Even with a so-so electricity source.

Originally Posted by BlkGS

the greenest thing is not producing as many new cars and repairing and upkeeping the existing ones. But that doesn't make the green that matters, money.

Not sure I agree with this. In some respects, yes. In others no. Many of the old existing cars on the road have very little in emissions controls, and even if they did have it to begin with, they often stop working with zero other symptoms other than what comes out of the tailpipe.

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Unless you're charging with power you're creating yourself, reality is you're getting power from a mix of sources. You might have a large hydro or nuke plant nearby, but the grid is, well, a grid. So you're getting power from everywhere.

Yes and no. Electricity companies "buy" power from various sources to support their customers. My electricity supplier pays for 97% sustainable energy (mostly hydro) with the remainder coming to help support the peak loads that the sustainable sources can't handle. So while yes, the grid is the grid, my money is going to support sustainable sources, helping them grow rather than increasing demand on coal plants...


I agree on Hybrids. They hit a sweet spot. They're pretty good, they help stretch resources, and they keep things within the comfort level of most people.

[BlkGS]

If you compare it to a car from the 60s, sure. But if you're talking about something from like 1995 or newer, you're talking about a very clean car, with some exceptions. And if the catalytic converter system fails on any vehicle with OBD2 (1996), you'll get downstream O2 errors and a check engine light.

If you have a car that's like an 05 or newer, it is in no way more green to replace it than it is to repair it. There's plenty of other reasons to replace a car, safety features, size, whatever, but just like it isn't actually cheaper to replace a car for fuel economy (outside of some very niche, cherry picked situations), it isn't greener to replace it for emissions.

I think a much larger issue that we face is the culture of replacement vs repair. Cheap labor has created a culture in society where we don't fix things, we replace them. Got a bad Les strip in your tv? Replace the tv, not replace the part. They say the majority of appliances are replaced due to failed control boards that are a couple hundred bucks
We have been conditioned however to say "why fox it for $500 when I can replace the whole thing for $800" and don't give a crap about the waste.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by dfox

Yes and no. Electricity companies "buy" power from various sources to support their customers. My electricity supplier pays for 97% sustainable energy (mostly hydro) with the remainder coming to help support the peak loads that the sustainable sources can't handle. So while yes, the grid is the grid, my money is going to support sustainable sources, helping them grow rather than increasing demand on coal plants...

What percentage of the electricity market you are in does your electricity supplier serve? Most green energy suppliers serve a pretty small percentage of the overall market in which they operate. When I lived in a single family home in Texas I used Green Mountain Energy, but they supplied a very small percentage of the overall electricity supplied to the grid.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

I guess you will never see this but I’ll just add a small tidbit. The “No Politics” was added pretty recently. I’m not sure what happened, but I’m guessing the political debate was heating up and a warning was issued.

Here is a question I have posed in this thread numerous times and I’ve never seen an answer. I’ve also never seen it addressed by the government or the industry. It’s possible someone has addressed it in this thread, because I don’t check it every day, but I’m going to guess it probably still hasn’t been addressed. As Efthreeoh mentioned a few posts back in his list of seven issues, if you can’t charge at home BEVs are a pain to own. So, the issue I’m raising the question about is how do the “powers that be”, whose goal is to force EVs on the market within a pretty compressed time frame, propose folks without garages (or at least driveways) are going to charge their EVs? I live in Chicago. My ballpark estimate is at least 50% of automobiles in the city are owned by folks who only have street parking. I actually think when you take into account the number of car owners who live in large condominium buildings with parking garages the percentage is higher than 50% that don’t have access to home charging stations. There are many cities in the U.S. like Chicago and if I recall correctly the projections are that the city populations will be growing a pretty fair amount over the coming years.

If someone has an idea for how charging apparatus can realistically be installed along the street curbs, please do share. I live in a medium size condominium building that is a little over ten years old. Relatively new for the housing stock in Chicago. We have 180 garage parking spaces in two garages that were not designed to accommodate EV charging stations. About six years ago our association, along with the electric company, had a study done to see how much it would cost to add the basic infrastructure that would allow us to be able to accommodate a garage full of EVs. At that time the cost was estimated at $300,000. Just to bring our basic electric infrastructure up to a level where we could accommodate adding charging stations. My rough estimate is the cost of actually adding 180 charging stations would be in the neighborhood of $1,000,000. Just a little side note. We did the infrastructure study because we had a condo owner who bought a Tesla and got the board to agree to let him install a charging station for his car, which he paid for. As part of that process the board asked the electrician doing the installation how many stations our garage could accommodate and they were told it could not accommodate any others with the current infrastructure.

And then an anecdotal story about EVs being a pain if you can’t charge at home. We recently had someone buy a condo in our building who already owned a Tesla. His parking space is right next to mine. I think he was here less than four months before I saw his Tesla was gone. He actually bought an X1. Not long after that I saw him in the garage and asked him about it. He said it had been too difficult to keep the Tesla charged and also he didn’t like how much the performance of the battery was degraded in the winter time. Of course I asked him how he liked the X1 and he loves it and said he has no plans to go back to an EV.

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

The "issue" with this question is that it's not an EV question. It's a political question. The simple EV focused answer is there is no good way to charge an EV if you live in a condo. Period. Just like there is no good place to park my F350 if I lived in my mom’s condo with an enclosed parking garage where it doesn't fit. Or like there's no good way to carry a family of 4 and all their luggage in my Miata.

The real answer to your political question has already been discussed ad nauseam. However I will give my political answer anyways. I don't believe they will be mandated, period. They can say whatever they want but when 2030 or whatever comes around and most people still don't have EVs they will dump it or basically neuter it. Or it might just happen in a couple months. There's still 2 elections between now and then.

I don’t agree with you that my question is political, but I won’t worry about that. I asked the question as a pragmatic issue and you answered that. I appreciate your answer, because you are literally the only person who has ever answered the question. Of course, I guess I have to say I appreciate your answer at least partly because I agree with it. With the EV technology we have today (mainly the battery technology) there is no practical way to charge cars that must be parked on the street and even though infrastructure wise it may be possible to fill parking garages with charging stations, fiscally the cost would be so enormous it borders on being impractical.

So for a very large percentage of car owners in our big cities the technology will have to improve dramatically. I would say more than improve. It will have to change. Batteries will have to be able to be charged within a matter of minutes, much like now with filling a tank with gas, and there will have to be chargers capable of delivering such a charge.

As I mentioned in the original post, I have never heard an industry representative or a political representative even mention this issue in passing. It appears to be totally ignored.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

What percentage of the electricity market you are in does your electricity supplier serve? Most green energy suppliers serve a pretty small percentage of the overall market in which they operate. When I lived in a single family home in Texas I used Green Mountain Energy, but they supplied a very small percentage of the overall electricity supplied to the grid.

They serve all of Snohomish county in Washington State, which has a population of 840K people.

https://www.snopud.com/community-env.../clean-energy/