EV's now more expensive in time and money to refuel than ICE vehicles

[Into the Night]

It's no different than personal computers which now sell for a fraction of what they did 15 years ago and are far more sophisticated.

False equivalency fallacy. A personal computer is not a car nor a battery.

HD TV's were costing in the thousands now far better are available for a few hundred dollars.
It's happening already, much cheaper alternatives to Tesla are already on the market.

False equivalency fallacy. A TV or a display is not a car nor a battery.

You just refuse to accept any progress.

The Li-ion battery was developed in the mid-70's. It has not changed. The chemistry is the same. The battery produces 3.158 A-h per mole of lithium. You cannot change that.
The long charging time is part of the life of EVs. You cannot change that without further damaging the battery.
The cost of lithium that is rising is a commodity item. It causes ALL EVs to be more expensive. You cannot change that.

What 'progress'??

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong. PC's were expensive until IBM changed one thing about them: IBM built one with open architecture. The IBM 8088 PC computer revolutionized not the internal components. Those were off-the-shelf run of the mill ones used more or less by every manufacturer. What changed was IBM made the operating system and source code open sourced. That meant anybody that wanted to develop software for it could do so free of royalties that other manufacturers charged exorbitantly for.
All of a sudden there was a massive increase in applications and uses for a PC due to the software that was now available. It creamed all the smaller, proprietary manufacturers. It also would put IBM ultimately out of the PC business, but it revolutionized small computers.

Unlike computers where a true revolution in design occurred, battery cars today are not that far removed from earlier ones. Sure, the Edison of 1912 was simpler, but it's essentially the same drive train that a modern EV has.

There's nothing innovative about a modern EV. That's why they fail in the market without the government putting their proverbial thumb on the scale to force people into buying them.

IBM did not make the PC cheaper nor invent the PC.

The first microprocessor was the Intel 4004, developed during a disastrous partnership with OTIS (which later pulled out of the deal). The 4004 never succeeded in the general marketplace.
The first microprocessor to succeed in the general marketplace was the Intel 8080. The first machine sold using this processor was the Altair computer, the first personal computer, which cost $357 (quite a bit cheaper than today's PC's, even accounting for inflation!).

 

[Into the Night]

What does the beginning of the automobile age have to do with today.? The early cars set speed records but the technology was not competitive regarding range and cost. Once they were rethought, they found how much better they are. They are improving rapidly in range and cost. they already are ahead of ICEs in speed.

Gasoline cars beat the electric cars in speed and in endurance. Another reason they became popular.

The time of ICEs is ending rapidly.

Nope. Less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs.

Here are the ev ICE cost comparisons . You are way off,. The cost of an average ICE and operation is 8,691 per year. In Oregon, an EV yearly cost is 2,474. In Mich, the most expensive is 5.076.
https://www.self.inc/info/electric-cars-vs-gas-cars-cost/

Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy. Special pleading fallacy. You are STILL ignoring higher maintenance costs, costs of the vehicle, long charge times, costs to expand generating and distribution capacity, costs of energy waste (EVs use about twice the energy of a gasoline car of similar size going the same distance, when you factor in the discharge AND charge cycle).

You are also still locked in your paradox. You are being irrational.

 

[Nordberg]

Gasoline cars beat the electric cars in speed and in endurance. Another reason they became popular.

Nope. Less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs.

Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy. Special pleading fallacy. You are STILL ignoring higher maintenance costs, costs of the vehicle, long charge times, costs to expand generating and distribution capacity, costs of energy waste (EVs use about twice the energy of a gasoline car of similar size going the same distance, when you factor in the discharge AND charge cycle).

You are also still locked in your paradox. You are being irrational.

I provided you with articles explaining exactly what I said, EVs require far LESS maintenance. An EV is a far cheaper car to own and operate. Then you repeat your lies. You are so dishonest.

 

[Celticguy]

What? Joke Communist and the rest of the EV true believers aren't refuting this? Can it be their arguments in favor of EVs are all tissue thin bullshit?

They are only good if you only need to charge at your home (with a garage) (in a temperate climate) (and only if not too many of your neighbors have EVs).

This places a serious limit on who is in the market for these cars. They cannot replace ICE vehicles. Hydrogen will be able to.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

IBM did not make the PC cheaper nor invent the PC.

The first microprocessor was the Intel 4004, developed during a disastrous partnership with OTIS (which later pulled out of the deal). The 4004 never succeeded in the general marketplace.
The first microprocessor to succeed in the general marketplace was the Intel 8080. The first machine sold using this processor was the Altair computer, the first personal computer, which cost $357 (quite a bit cheaper than today's PC's, even accounting for inflation!).

True, but IBM turned the PC from a curiosity for tech geeks into a tool for everyone, particularly business. The result was an explosion of the PC market with tens of millions of units sold rather than tens of thousands. That happened without government intervention in the market.

If EV's were really what the market wants, the same thing would have happened, but it didn't. The only--ONLY--way they've made inroads is by force--FORCE--of government in the market. It is government forcing people to buy EV's through bribes and eliminating the alternatives that EV's are gaining market share. The second government stops interfering in the market is the second the EV goes right back to being unpopular. So, government will be forced to keep incentives and mandates in place indefinitely to allow EV's to be the automotive market.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

They are only good if you only need to charge at your home (with a garage) (in a temperate climate) (and only if not too many of your neighbors have EVs).

This places a serious limit on who is in the market for these cars. They cannot replace ICE vehicles. Hydrogen will be able to.

Hydrogen, anhydrous ammonia, or something like one of those using a fuel cell. And when a manufacturer does, the EV market is doomed. It will be no different than slide rules being replaced by electronic calculators.

 

[Nordberg]

Somebody somewhere wrote a story saying ICEs are cheaper to drive. Here is a careful response. In fact, it is not true. https://insideevs.com/news/650278/c...1jyPBfv93XBfyPLlCrs-cMCU48IY3wBSJYOIMBAEnPUQU You rightys do not need the truth, just a false story will do.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Somebody somewhere wrote a story saying ICEs are cheaper to drive. Here is a careful response. In fact, it is not true. https://insideevs.com/news/650278/c...1jyPBfv93XBfyPLlCrs-cMCU48IY3wBSJYOIMBAEnPUQU You rightys do not need the truth, just a false story will do.

That guy clearly did not read the original article I posted. Instead, drifts off on a shallow analysis of charging that is typical of those who are "True Believers" in EV's. Read the original article(s) I posted. You can clearly see the difference.

 

[Into the Night]

I provided you with articles explaining exactly what I said, EVs require far LESS maintenance. An EV is a far cheaper car to own and operate. Then you repeat your lies. You are so dishonest.

You provided marketing shit and propaganda and you are making shit up.

You are back to Argument 1 of your paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It's irrational. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

They are only good if you only need to charge at your home (with a garage) (in a temperate climate) (and only if not too many of your neighbors have EVs).

This places a serious limit on who is in the market for these cars. They cannot replace ICE vehicles. Hydrogen will be able to.

Hydrogen won't be able to.

Hydrogen must be manufactured. High pressures must be used in the car, making it dangerous to handle and requiring frequent checks on the integrity of the fuel tank(s) due to hydrogen embrittlement and the high pressures.
Hydrogen today is manufactured by cracking hydrocarbons, releasing CO2...you know...that magick gas that everyone thinks is causing 'global warming' or 'climate change' (or whatever buzzword the decide to use).
You can generate hydrogen by electrolysis, but that requires MORE electricity than the EV requires. You haven't reduced demand on the grid, you've increased it by going that way.

Fueling a hydrogen car takes upwards to 30 minutes because the nozzle freezes to the car during fueling and can't be removed until it thaws.

Further, fuel cells require the rhodium and paladium to manufacture, two rare and very expensive materials. Fuel cells also do not provide instant power. It takes a significant time for them to come up to power. This means the car must still carry a fairly large lithium battery pack (along with it's weight) to electrically ballast the load (provide the acceleration needed for normal driving conditions). The fuel cell itself can recharge the pack during cruise when loads are low.

Even when compressed to 3000psi, hydrogen provides nowhere near the energy density of gasoline.

 

[Into the Night]

True, but IBM turned the PC from a curiosity for tech geeks into a tool for everyone, particularly business.

No. Wang, Commodore and Apple did that. The IBM PC was late to the party (by several years). Eventually, people turned more to the PC by themselves, as capability and software became available for it. It wasn't until Win3.11 was released that the IBM PC finally got a network stack, essential for business. Until then, businesses primarily used minicomputers such as Dec or Digital Research machines.

The result was an explosion of the PC market with tens of millions of units sold rather than tens of thousands.

Not for quite awhile. By the time it did, IBM got pretty well blown out of the PC market. Now they're just another manufacturer (and not a particularly good one) of laptops and a few desktop machines. The PC 'compatible' just smashed IBM, and took control away from Microsoft as well.

That happened without government intervention in the market.

Yup. While your chronology of events is in error, the conclusion is correct. It all happened without government intervention. Good ole' capitalism! Another big key that made it all work, of course, is the open source community. The IBM PC 'compatible' would've been nowhere without that community coming in and supporting that platform.

If EV's were really what the market wants, the same thing would have happened, but it didn't.

Quite right. The only way Tesla succeeded with the Roadster, for example, was because it could sell them for below cost, thanks to government grants.

The only--ONLY--way they've made inroads is by force--FORCE--of government in the market.

Again, quite right. This is something also that Nordberg and floridafan take great pains to deny, because it reveals the fascism that was taking place here.

It is government forcing people to buy EV's through bribes and eliminating the alternatives that EV's are gaining market share.

Yup. Fascism...pure and simple.

The second government stops interfering in the market is the second the EV goes right back to being unpopular.

There comes a time when socialism must fail. Once it runs out of places to steal from. Until that time, the risk of violent revolt slowly increases.

So, government will be forced to keep incentives and mandates in place indefinitely to allow EV's to be the automotive market.

They can't. Eventually, it must collapse. It's like a pyramid scheme. And the chance of a revolt increases all the way.

 

[Into the Night]

Hydrogen, anhydrous ammonia, or something like one of those using a fuel cell. And when a manufacturer does, the EV market is doomed. It will be no different than slide rules being replaced by electronic calculators.

You are still failing to account for the problems of hydrogen or ammonia vehicles. It will require even MORE electricity to manufacture these fuels then EVs require.

 

[Into the Night]

Somebody somewhere wrote a story saying ICEs are cheaper to drive. Here is a careful response. In fact, it is not true. https://insideevs.com/news/650278/c...1jyPBfv93XBfyPLlCrs-cMCU48IY3wBSJYOIMBAEnPUQU You rightys do not need the truth, just a false story will do.

ICE cars are cheaper to drive. The cars cost less. They do not require specialized and expensive shops for maintenance and repair. They do not require massive expansion of generating capacity and distribution of power. They last a LONG time (people are still driving around cars made in the 40's and 50's). Today's FADEC engines are much more efficient than the charge/discharge cycle of an EV (which uses about twice the energy). You also don't have to wait hours to refuel the car. They have far greater towing and payload capacity since they are much lighter. I don't need a 'story' like you do. These are the specs. I have already provided links to many of them. Others do not require links since they are math or physics.

 

[Into the Night]

That guy clearly did not read the original article I posted. Instead, drifts off on a shallow analysis of charging that is typical of those who are "True Believers" in EV's. Read the original article(s) I posted. You can clearly see the difference.

"True Believers" is indeed the right term to use. The Church of the EV stems directly from the Church of Global Warming, which in turn stems directly from the Church of Green.

Like any fundamentalist religion, anyone that presents anything in conflict with it is condemned and despised.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You are still failing to account for the problems of hydrogen or ammonia vehicles. It will require even MORE electricity to manufacture these fuels then EVs require.

Anhydrous ammonia is already widely manufactured as a fertilizer. It is made from natural gas and the process doesn't require massive amounts of electricity.

Worldwide production is currently about 170 million metric tons.

One way to placate the greentards would be to use solar for the power process with the plant running only when there is solar available to run it.

 

[Into the Night]

Anhydrous ammonia is already widely manufactured as a fertilizer. It is made from natural gas and the process doesn't require massive amounts of electricity.

Worldwide production is currently about 170 million metric tons.

One way to placate the greentards would be to use solar for the power process with the plant running only when there is solar available to run it.

Because this particular version of the process produces the hydrogen by using natural gas. I have already described this and why it won't be accepted by the eco wackos.
See that CO2 being produced from the catalysor?

Now, if you don't care about CO2, why are trying to push ammonia cars?

If you get the hydrogen from electrolysis, you are still using more electricity than an EV car would.

The Haber-Bosche process REQUIRES free hydrogen from somewhere. That is what MUST go into the reactor chamber.
Remember ammonia is NH3.

It's either CO2 or solar power to produced the required hydrogen by electrolysis. What's it gonna be? If electrolysis is used, solar won't cut it.

Getting the synthesis mixture for the reactor is the key problem here.

170 million tons of ammonia is just not that impressive. Most of the weight is in the nitrogen (taken from the air)
As a comparison, the U.S. alone produced 790 million tons of oil. Worldwide production of oil came to 4.9 billion tons (2021 figures) Source: UN)

Weight doesn't mean a whole lot here. Most of oil's weight comes from the carbon.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Because this particular version of the process produces the hydrogen by using natural gas. I have already described this and why it won't be accepted by the eco wackos.
See that CO2 being produced from the catalysor?

Now, if you don't care about CO2, why are trying to push ammonia cars?

If you get the hydrogen from electrolysis, you are still using more electricity than an EV car would.

The Haber-Bosche process REQUIRES free hydrogen from somewhere. That is what MUST go into the reactor chamber.
Remember ammonia is NH3.

It's either CO2 or solar power to produced the required hydrogen by electrolysis. What's it gonna be? If electrolysis is used, solar won't cut it.

Getting the synthesis mixture for the reactor is the key problem here.

The CO2 is captured as part of the process. It isn't simply vented off. This process takes air (02 + N2) and CH4 to make NH3. The carbon is captured as an off gas in water--eg., carbonated water.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

If electrolysis is used, solar won't cut it.

This does not appear to be correct:

"Production of Hydrogen Using Solar-Powered Electrolysis"

 

[Into the Night]

The CO2 is captured as part of the process. It isn't simply vented off. This process takes air (02 + N2) and CH4 to make NH3. The carbon is captured as an off gas in water--eg., carbonated water.

Nope. Carbonated water is not capture. Every soda vents to the atmosphere when you open it. That's why sodas go flat.