Americans Paying Record Electricity Prices

[Tbird19482]

You need a Holy Link to show it's possible to carry extra gasoline??

Has anybody told you YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

 

[Into the Night]

Has anybody told you YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

Many times. You think you're unique, Tball?

 

[QP!]

No, I said they failed because their energy source, fuel, isn't portable. That's the whole problem with EV's in a nutshell. They rely on fixed location stations to recharge and there is no way around that.

An ICE vehicle can transport more fuel with it. A group of ICE vehicles can have one with them that refuels the group multiple times. That is what makes them viable and EVs not so.

Once again that ability for ICE to carry their fuel existed since the inception of their fuel.

so it was ALWAYS an advantage over horse and buggy and EV's even in the time when YOU ADMIT Ev's had the advantage over ICE.

So your point is disproven by yourself. It was not the ability to carry fuel at all. IT was the addition of gas stations. Just as EV's stations now are why EV's are found to have increasingly utility for people.

That you want to maintain a position that EV charging stations are irrelevant and not to be considered in their growing utility for users shows how demented you are on this topic. It is obvious that without charging stations there is no way this Tesla lead wave of EV growth would have got a fraction of the traction that it did.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Once again that ability for ICE to carry their fuel existed since the inception of their fuel.

so it was ALWAYS an advantage over horse and buggy and EV's even in the time when YOU ADMIT Ev's had the advantage over ICE.

EV's only had an advantage over ICE vehicles in an urban setting, just like they largely do today. Outside of urban areas with good infrastructure support, they fail. On that, EV's often fail today because the infrastructure isn't there and never will be.

So your point is disproven by yourself. It was not the ability to carry fuel at all. IT was the addition of gas stations. Just as EV's stations now are why EV's are found to have increasingly utility for people.

You are wrong and just want to argue.

EV's are being found to have decreasing utility for people. That's why roughly half of buyers switch back to an ICE vehicle after trying an EV.

Nearly half of American EV owners want to switch back to gas-powered vehicle, McKinsey data shows

New findings from consulting firm McKinsey & Co. show a significant share of Americans who own electric vehicles have buyer's remorse. Nearly half want to switch back to gas.

www.foxbusiness.com

Many early-adopting EV owners around the world want to gas up again

Buyer's remorse is booming in the EV market, as many electric vehicle owners say they may go back to gas cars with their next auto purchase.

www.cnbc.com

For example, right now if you are Norwegian and own an EV to drive it to Denmark you have to drive to Russia then through the Baltic states, across Poland, and then Germany to do so. The Baltic ferry routes won't let you board your car due to the fire hazard they pose.

Why a Norwegian Shipping Company Just Banned Electric Cars - Lightnet

In recent years, electric vehicles (EVs) have been lauded as the future of sustainable transport. With promises of zero emissions and a cleaner environment,

www.lightnet.co.uk

That you want to maintain a position that EV charging stations are irrelevant and not to be considered in their growing utility for users shows how demented you are on this topic. It is obvious that without charging stations there is no way this Tesla lead wave of EV growth would have got a fraction of the traction that it did.

Usability of EV's is decreasing as evidenced by owners wanting to ditch them for ICE vehicles. It is obvious that in a market not heavily skewed by government mandates and subsidies that EV's just as they always have been in the past would be relegated to a small, niche, market while ICE vehicles dominate sales and use.

 

[QP!]

EV's only had an advantage over ICE vehicles in an urban setting, just like they largely do today. Outside of urban areas with good infrastructure support, they fail. On that, EV's often fail today because the infrastructure isn't there and never will be.




You are wrong and just want to argue.

EV's are being found to have decreasing utility for people. That's why roughly half of buyers switch back to an ICE vehicle after trying an EV.

Nearly half of American EV owners want to switch back to gas-powered vehicle, McKinsey data shows

New findings from consulting firm McKinsey & Co. show a significant share of Americans who own electric vehicles have buyer's remorse. Nearly half want to switch back to gas.

www.foxbusiness.com

Many early-adopting EV owners around the world want to gas up again

Buyer's remorse is booming in the EV market, as many electric vehicle owners say they may go back to gas cars with their next auto purchase.

www.cnbc.com

For example, right now if you are Norwegian and own an EV to drive it to Denmark you have to drive to Russia then through the Baltic states, across Poland, and then Germany to do so. The Baltic ferry routes won't let you board your car due to the fire hazard they pose.

Why a Norwegian Shipping Company Just Banned Electric Cars - Lightnet

In recent years, electric vehicles (EVs) have been lauded as the future of sustainable transport. With promises of zero emissions and a cleaner environment,

www.lightnet.co.uk

Usability of EV's is decreasing as evidenced by owners wanting to ditch them for ICE vehicles. It is obvious that in a market not heavily skewed by government mandates and subsidies that EV's just as they always have been in the past would be relegated to a small, niche, market while ICE vehicles dominate sales and use.

False, you keep recycling the same stupid misinformation even though you already admitted you are wrong.

By your own admission EV's had the advantage on ICE in the 1900's when they had THE SAME level of infrastructure support.

ICE always had the ability to carry their fuel, even then but as you ADMIT EV's were better. ICE then got gas stations and have been better since.

EV's have been getting charging stations and your argument is 'that does not matter, it was proved over a hundred years ago ICE is better', when you admitted now EVs were actually better with that level playing field.

So as EV infrastructure and chargers grow, by YOUR OWN admission, EV's will be better.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

False, you keep recycling the same stupid misinformation even though you already admitted you are wrong.

By your own admission EV's had the advantage on ICE in the 1900's when they had THE SAME level of infrastructure support.

They did in urban areas. Outside of cities, they were a major fail.

One clear fail was that early EV manufacturers, particularly when faced with ICE vehicles, marketed their cars to women. That meant they limited themselves in the marketplace to a more affluent clientele.

ICE always had the ability to carry their fuel, even then but as you ADMIT EV's were better. ICE then got gas stations and have been better since.

EV's weren't "better," but rather in an urban setting equivalent.

EV's have been getting charging stations and your argument is 'that does not matter, it was proved over a hundred years ago ICE is better', when you admitted now EVs were actually better with that level playing field.

The charging station issue is one that isn't getting better. It's a perpetual disaster, then and now.

So as EV infrastructure and chargers grow, by YOUR OWN admission, EV's will be better.

EV's will not perform well in rural or isolated areas. They didn't then, they don't now. It's likely they never will.

 

[QP!]

They did in urban areas. Outside of cities, they were a major fail.
...

Right.

Even when ICE had the advantage of portability of their fuel you admit they lost to EV's in urban areas but the portability of that fuel gave some (few) a potential if they traveled. But both ICE and EV were major fails outside urban areas, generally before there fueling stations. Both would more often than not be towed home by a horse and buggy.

What changed for ICE and not EVs was gas stations. And ICE dominated due to that once they got that.

And yet you state, now that EV's are getting fueling stations (charging stations) it does not matter as the debate was decided in the 1900's and ICE won. YOu are desperate to deny fueling stations for BOTH are game changers that allow utility outside urban areas and only want to consider them for ICE.

BUt you gave the game away as you said EV"s won in the 1900's when the playing field was equal reversing what you said prior.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Right.

Even when ICE had the advantage of portability of their fuel you admit they lost to EV's in urban areas but the portability of that fuel gave some (few) a potential if they traveled. But both ICE and EV were major fails outside urban areas, generally before there fueling stations. Both would more often than not be towed home by a horse and buggy.

Lost? No. Were competitive with, yes. EV's never had some clear advantage over ICE vehicles. At best, they managed parity under specific circumstances. Outside of urban areas, motor vehicles were still needed and used. ICE vehicles dominated there entirely. Because fuel for ICE vehicles was portable, the fuel could be brought to the use site and even stored there for future use.

What changed for ICE and not EVs was gas stations. And ICE dominated due to that once they got that.

Wrong! Kerosene and gasoline were portable and available at hardware stores, blacksmith shops, etc. Gas stations just made getting gasoline more convenient. Whether they existed or not didn't change that gasoline was easily portable while electric charging stations were fixed and immobile.

And yet you state, now that EV's are getting fueling stations (charging stations) it does not matter as the debate was decided in the 1900's and ICE won. YOu are desperate to deny fueling stations for BOTH are game changers that allow utility outside urban areas and only want to consider them for ICE.

ICE won because the fuel was portable. Also, ICE engines could be produced that were capable of greater horsepower and torque than electric motors and batteries could provide.

BUt you gave the game away as you said EV"s won in the 1900's when the playing field was equal reversing what you said prior.

EV's didn't "win" in the 1900's. They were competitive for a short window of time. What really did them in was when ICE vehicles started getting inertia starters and clutch systems rather than having to be hand cranked and use 'crash' gearboxes. At that point the perceived ease of starting and use of an EV compared to an ICE vehicle disappeared and there no longer was any competitive value in using or having an EV over an ICE vehicle.

 

[QP!]

Lost? No. Were competitive with, yes. EV's never had some clear advantage over ICE vehicles. At best, they managed parity under specific circumstances. Outside of urban areas, motor vehicles were still needed and used. ICE vehicles dominated there entirely. Because fuel for ICE vehicles was portable, the fuel could be brought to the use site and even stored there for future use.


Wrong! Kerosene and gasoline were portable and available at hardware stores, blacksmith shops, etc. Gas stations just made getting gasoline more convenient. Whether they existed or not didn't change that gasoline was easily portable while electric charging stations were fixed and immobile.


ICE won because the fuel was portable. Also, ICE engines could be produced that were capable of greater horsepower and torque than electric motors and batteries could provide.

EV's didn't "win" in the 1900's. They were competitive for a short window of time. What really did them in was when ICE vehicles started getting inertia starters and clutch systems rather than having to be hand cranked and use 'crash' gearboxes. At that point the perceived ease of starting and use of an EV compared to an ICE vehicle disappeared and there no longer was any competitive value in using or having an EV over an ICE vehicle.

You already ADMITTED it.

When you put EV and iCE on anything approaching equal footing but STILL give ICE the benefit of portability of fuel, EV's won and had the advantage and more utility in the urban setting.

You ADMITTED ICE only gained advantage outside the urban setting when ICE gained access to more infrastructure that EV's did not have and that is fueling stations.

Where you go awol, is when you say 'but now EV's have growing infrastructure (charging stations), none of that should be considered' as you say the debate was settled in 1900's, but you ADMITTED EV's had the better utility then.

 

[Jake Starkey]

I am paying less for 2500 sqft than I did more than four years ago.

 

[Diogenes]

The average retail price for electricity gained 7.4% in September to a record 18.07 cents per kilowatt-hour, the biggest gain since December 2023, according to data released Tuesday.

American households are paying more than ever before for electricity after prices surged the most in almost two years, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

I noticed you didn't explain why American households are paying more than ever before for electricity.

Is that because you hoped nobody would bother to find out?

Hint: it's not "Trump".

https://x.com/i/grok/share/e082ba68d2f14c3f8fef0382c443bd2d

 

[FastLane]

It turns out wind and solar power is a very expensive way to generate electricity. just like @T.A. Gardner has been telling everyone.

They did in urban areas. Outside of cities, they were a major fail.

One clear fail was that early EV manufacturers, particularly when faced with ICE vehicles, marketed their cars to women. That meant they limited themselves in the marketplace to a more affluent clientele.


EV's weren't "better," but rather in an urban setting equivalent.


The charging station issue is one that isn't getting better. It's a perpetual disaster, then and now.


EV's will not perform well in rural or isolated areas. They didn't then, they don't now. It's likely they never will.

And then Libratard started attacking Teslas and Tesla dealerships. Brilliant!