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

[T. A. Gardner]

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

And, until it is opened...?

 

[Nordberg]

ICEs are simply and factually more expensive to drive and maintain.

 

[Into the Night]

This does not appear to be correct:

"Production of Hydrogen Using Solar-Powered Electrolysis"

Not enough. Solar power is the most expensive method of producing electricity, watt for watt.

 

[Into the Night]

And, until it is opened...?

The soda is under higher pressure, due to CO2. Are you seriously suggesting that you STORE all the carbonated water produced????

 

[Into the Night]

ICEs are simply and factually more expensive to drive and maintain.

No. I have already described why. Chanting is not going to change any of it.

EVs require expensive specially equipped shops to repair them. ICE cars do not. You can repair them yourself.

You are still locked in paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It's irrational. You have claimed that you do not maintain your car, and claimed that you do send your car in for repair. It cannot be both, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

The soda is under higher pressure, due to CO2.

Vented CO2 in water will vent until it equals the CO2 partial pressure in the air.
Since these ecowackos are so scared of CO2, either in the air or in the ocean water, how are you going to account for that?

The only way to produce the synthesis mixture without producing CO2 is electrolysis. That will require tremendous amounts of power, more than an EV would use.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Not enough. Solar power is the most expensive method of producing electricity, watt for watt.

Well, now it may be but isn't that what being an American is all about? The promise of technological development. It's kind of what we do.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, now it may be but isn't that what being an American is all about? The promise of technological development. It's kind of what we do.

That is not development. It's bullheadedness. Buzzword fallacy. Solar is the most expensive method of producing electricity, watt for watt. Wind is 2nd. Nuclear power is far cheaper. Oil, natural gas, and coal are even cheaper than that.
The only way solar and wind can make a 'profit' at all is because of government grants and subsidies supporting it or even mandating it.

No, fascism and communism is not the way, and it is not development.

 

[Celticguy]

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.

Liquid hydrogen certainly has it's problems but they are working on other ways of delivering it. We are not on the edge of a solution but its not because they are not trying.
EVs can be a partial solution while research and development continues but ICE is going nowhere anytime soon.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

In a more comprehensive study, the Anderson Economic Group did a multi-year study of the costs to charge an EV versus an ICE vehicle. The EV loses, particularly on the cost in time to charge it.

Real-World Electric Vehicle Fueling Costs May Surprise New EV Drivers

The research found that fueling an EV is often more expensive than fueling an ICE vehicle. It further found that fueling costs are far more variable for EVs. The authors go on to note the significant time costs imposed on EV drivers as a result of both inadequate infrastructure and wait times associated with fueling, which can be five to ten times the cost for ICE drivers.
https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.c...le-fueling-costs-may-surprise-new-ev-drivers/

https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.c...world-cost-of-fueling-evs-and-ice-vehicles-2/

https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/EV_ICE_FuelingCosts_2ed4-5-22.pdf

So, when a dispassionate group without an agenda does a very thorough analysis of the costs, the EV loses again.

I didn't realize that the cost of an EV includes installing a new charger in your home every few years. Do they wear out and need to be replaced?

Then your researchers "without an agenda" use some funny numbers. They calculated gasoline would cost $2.81 per gallon for the next 5 years with no increase in cost. It is currently more than that.
Then they assumed the cost for electricity is higher than the current average cost. US average for kwh is 12.56 cents from Nov of 2022. Your "unbiased" researchers used 17 cents. They state that the cost for evening charging could be half of the daytime cost for electricity in some areas but never account for that drop in cost. That would imply they are using costs that are at least 33% higher than normal for the electricity used to charge at night in one's home.

This is hardly a dispassionate group. They use suspect methodology and inflated electrical costs.

 

[Into the Night]

Liquid hydrogen certainly has it's problems but they are working on other ways of delivering it. We are not on the edge of a solution but its not because they are not trying.
EVs can be a partial solution while research and development continues but ICE is going nowhere anytime soon.

Liquid hydrogen is not practical in a car. The cryogenic plant is too heavy. Hydrogen cars use pressurized hydrogen gas at about 3000psi.
ICE cars have had quite a few developments and are still the most popular car. Less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs.
They are not only going places, they are passing EVs doing it.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't realize that the cost of an EV includes installing a new charger in your home every few years. Do they wear out and need to be replaced?

Strawman fallacy.

Then your researchers "without an agenda" use some funny numbers.

Inversion fallacy.

They calculated gasoline would cost $2.81 per gallon for the next 5 years with no increase in cost. It is currently more than that.

No, you can't blame justification for an EV on Joe Biden.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Strawman fallacy.

Inversion fallacy.

No, you can't blame justification for an EV on Joe Biden.

Fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night can't dispute actual claims made and in order to make himself appear smarter then he is simply claims another poster is using a fallacy while never explaining how or why he thinks it is a fallacy.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I didn't realize that the cost of an EV includes installing a new charger in your home every few years. Do they wear out and need to be replaced?

Like computers and other tech today, they become obsolescent or obsolete. Let's say you install a Tesla home station this year and in 5 years decide to buy another brand of EV that is incompatible with your Tesla charging station. Now you need a new charging station. Or, you decide to upgrade yours, or whatever.

Then your researchers "without an agenda" use some funny numbers. They calculated gasoline would cost $2.81 per gallon for the next 5 years with no increase in cost. It is currently more than that.
Then they assumed the cost for electricity is higher than the current average cost. US average for kwh is 12.56 cents from Nov of 2022. Your "unbiased" researchers used 17 cents. They state that the cost for evening charging could be half of the daytime cost for electricity in some areas but never account for that drop in cost. That would imply they are using costs that are at least 33% higher than normal for the electricity used to charge at night in one's home.

This is hardly a dispassionate group. They use suspect methodology and inflated electrical costs.

The cost of electricity is based on what public charging stations price at. Those charge higher rates than the nominal per KW rate.

 

[Into the Night]

Fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night can't dispute actual claims made and in order to make himself appear smarter then he is simply claims another poster is using a fallacy while never explaining how or why he thinks it is a fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Mockery. Discard of logic.

 

[Into the Night]

Like computers and other tech today, they become obsolescent or obsolete. Let's say you install a Tesla home station this year and in 5 years decide to buy another brand of EV that is incompatible with your Tesla charging station. Now you need a new charging station. Or, you decide to upgrade yours, or whatever.



The cost of electricity is based on what public charging stations price at. Those charge higher rates than the nominal per KW rate.

That's assuming they even work. Broken charging stations is a real problem. Tracking apps don't even properly inform you of it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Says it all. Want to bet it gets more complicated as this goes on?

I can see this ending up like...

 

[Into the Night]

Says it all. Want to bet it gets more complicated as this goes on?

I can see this ending up like...

Yup. Oh, that last one the Molex 4-pin connector is incorrect. It's an AMP 4-pin connector. Molex does not make a shell like that. I noticed that this list doesn't show any of the numerous optical connectors.

When you look at a charging station, usually several 'nozzles' are hanging from the same charger because of the different connector. Worse, international sales are hurt because of the different standards used in different countries. Kind of like the fun you get with power adapters when you travel. Unfortunately, these are high current plugs, and adapters are less practical. At least in America, the J1772 plug is physically compatible with CCS1. It just charges at a slower rate. In the EU, it's a similar situation with the Mennekes and CCS2. Then, of course, their is Tesla, with their own proprietary connector.

I think your assessment of EV plugs is spot on. It will get worse too, as requirements change.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Yup. Oh, that last one the Molex 4-pin connector is incorrect. It's an AMP 4-pin connector. Molex does not make a shell like that.

When you look at a charging station, usually several 'nozzles' are hanging from the same charger because of the different connector. Worse, international sales are hurt because of the different standards used in different countries. Kind of like the fun you get with power adapters when you travel. Unfortunately, these are high current plugs, and adapters are less practical.

Are you an electrician?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Are you an electrician?

I don't know if he is, but I am. I still 'dabble' rather than do it full time. Working on a project right now to install a 400 amp 240/120Y 3 ph service feeder for a guy with a 5 acre lot that wants to power a number of buildings on it down the road.