Reality check on electric cars

QP! said:
Your stupidity is your issue. You, like Marjorie Greene are just too stupid to understand why.

An EV does not have to work for the "remainder" to be good for the vast, vast majority of people.

Again this is the same myth Terry spins which if not good for all then they are not good.

Pickups are not good for all. They cannot be parked easily and in some cases at all in city downtown areas. They cost wayyyyy more than a sedan if you want comparable comfort to sedan for a family of 4 or more. They burn way more gasoline. Very impractical for many, many people thus by your logic not good at all. Same for sports cars and convertibles.
Click to expand...
Nope. You still don't get it. I'll try another way.

Person #1: Needs a vehicle that can haul a lot of wood at once, haul machinery and other supplies around, tow trailers, etc etc... Ergo, person #1 needs a pickup truck. It would serve 99-100% of his needs VERY well.

Person #2: Needs a vehicle that can haul a handful of children around while also being able to haul a dozen or more bags of, say, chicken feed/care products around at a time. Ergo, person #2 needs a minivan. It would serve 99-100% of his needs VERY well.

Person #3: Needs a vehicle that can commute 20 miles to work and back during weekdays, and that can travel hundreds of miles in a single day (capable of refueling within minutes) during some weekend days. Ergo, person #3 needs an ICE vehicle of some sort (it wouldn't have to be a truck or a minivan that can also serve other unnecessary purposes for this person). It would serve 99-100% of his needs VERY well.

Person #4: Needs a vehicle that can commute short distances within the big city and can easily find at least a level 2 charging station in the near vicinity of any destination. He doesn't need any hauling/towing capabilities and doesn't ever travel long distances (or doesn't need to get long distances in a much shorter period of time). Person #4 needs an ICE or an EV of some sort (could just be a basic tiny car). It would serve 99-100% of his needs VERY well, or at least well enough.

Most people fall under #1, 2, or 3. Only a small niche of people fall under #4. An ICE vehicle of some sort can adequately serve all of these people. An EV of some sort can only adequately serve person #4.

If people are going to own a single vehicle to meet 99-100% of their needs, then chances are it's not going to be an EV.

QP! said:
Most people do not own EV's because only 1 car company was really offering any broad choice in what you could buy. As more car companies offer more choice what you see is a mass of people continually moving into EV's.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's not about choices; it's about needs. EVs just plain don't serve most people's needs, as explained (yet again) above.
 
QP! said:
But commuting is their biggest need by FAR. So most people get great benefit from EV's.

Outside commuting EV's are still great for most of the remaining needs. it is really only a tiny number of long road trips across mostly rural State areas where EV's are not ideal and that is such a tiny number of trips to be near meaningless and those people who do them should not buy an EV. Other super cold weather States are really the only other issue for the current technology. Again a tiny percent of all drivers who should just buy something else.

And again most people do not drive EV's as most manufacturers are only in the early part of their adoption curve and had very few EV offerings.
Click to expand...
Continued repetitions of falsehoods that have already been addressed. (RAAA).
 
gfm7175 said:
Nope. You still don't get it. I'll try another way.

Person #1: Needs a vehicle that can haul a lot of wood at once, haul machinery and other supplies around, tow trailers, etc etc... Ergo, person #1 needs a pickup truck. It would serve 99-100% of his needs VERY well.

Person #2: Needs a vehicle that can haul a handful of children around while also being able to haul a dozen or more bags of, say, chicken feed/care products around at a time. Ergo, person #2 needs a minivan. It would serve 99-100% of his needs VERY well.

Person #3: Needs a vehicle that can commute 20 miles to work and back during weekdays, and that can travel hundreds of miles in a single day (capable of refueling within minutes) during some weekend days. Ergo, person #3 needs an ICE vehicle of some sort (it wouldn't have to be a truck or a minivan that can also serve other unnecessary purposes for this person). It would serve 99-100% of his needs VERY well.

Person #4: Needs a vehicle that can commute short distances within the big city and can easily find at least a level 2 charging station in the near vicinity of any destination. He doesn't need any hauling/towing capabilities and doesn't ever travel long distances (or doesn't need to get long distances in a much shorter period of time). Person #4 needs an ICE or an EV of some sort (could just be a basic tiny car). It would serve 99-100% of his needs VERY well, or at least well enough.

Most people fall under #1, 2, or 3. Only a small niche of people fall under #4. An ICE vehicle of some sort can adequately serve all of these people. An EV of some sort can only adequately serve person #4.

If people are going to own a single vehicle to meet 99-100% of their needs, then chances are it's not going to be an EV.


Nope. It's not about choices; it's about needs. EVs just plain don't serve most people's needs, as explained (yet again) above.
Click to expand...

Except your post is a lie.

Person 1 is : a person who drives to work, school, errands around town and short weekend trips all within a few hours. That is BY FAR the biggest part of the populace and an EV is perfect for them.

But by all means try and answer the below with regards to most people and families and explain what percent of their driving you think an EV could not meet for them and what the specifically looks like.
QP! said:
Explain what you think are the trips that the average family or person in the USA would struggle to make with an EV today that is not on an extreme cold weather day, ...or not doing 5 hour or more hours drive across mostly rural areas?

Explain what percent of their driving in a year you think that drive above would constitute?
Click to expand...
 
QP! said:
Explain what you think are the trips that the average family or person in the USA would struggle to make with an EV today that is not on an extreme cold weather day, ...or not doing 5 hour or more hours drive across mostly rural areas?
Click to expand...
Here, you're attempting to force a particular conclusion ("EVs are wonderful for most people") via the elimination of any instance you can think of in which EVs can't (or struggle to) perform adequately. That's not how real life works, dude. You're still stuck in fantasy.

Those instances DO exist, dude. You can't just eliminate them for the sake of trying to force a particular favored conclusion to be true. They are absolutely relevant with regard to choosing which vehicle a person wants in order to suit one's purposes for having one.

QP! said:
Explain what percent of their driving in a year you think that drive above would constitute?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

All that matters is that the need exists at least SOME of the time. If that occasional (but necessary) need cannot be met with an EV, then an EV is not a good fit for that particular person.
 
gfm7175 said:
Here, you're attempting to force a particular conclusion ("EVs are wonderful for most people") via the elimination of any instance you can think of in which EVs can't (or struggle to) perform adequately. That's not how real life works, dude. You're still stuck in fantasy.

Those instances DO exist, dude. You can't just eliminate them for the sake of trying to force a particular favored conclusion to be true. They are absolutely relevant with regard to choosing which vehicle a person wants in order to suit one's purposes for having one.


Irrelevant.

All that matters is that the need exists at least SOME of the time. If that occasional (but necessary) need cannot be met with an EV, then an EV is not a good fit for that particular person.
Click to expand...

LIe.

I am the one admitting they are not great for all people in all times.

You are the one trying to force a conclusion. You create a unique instance, your Person 3 but you add in he needs to fuel in 20 minutes or less, because you believe that disqualifies EV's from that category.

How many people in that category have some imperative that they need to fuel in 20 minutes or less.

What about the person in the EV who meets that category but unlike the person with ICE who has to stop for fuel, and faces those long ICE lineups that were pictured above, the EV buzzes on by laughing at those lining up for gas, as he charged at home?

Once again my argument is ALL these scenarios exist, and not all are ideal for EV's nor ICE but EV's suit the vast VAST majority of the average families every day driving.

And i am correct. You have to hand craft some very specific scenarios (driving in remote area, need to charge in 20 minutes or less) to try and make EV's not look ideal.

What you cannot do and will not even try is simply explain the type of trip an average family takes, and how often, that an EV would not suit, even if not ideal, it would be plenty good enough.
 
QP! said:
Once again Terry this is why we came to the conclusion that you were NEVER to speak about new technology roll outs.

New technologies often require SCALE and REACH before they become profitable. You lose money rolling out Facebook to new users at the start, or Amazon at the start, knowing once you have scale and can add features, that bigger user base CAN and WILL get you to profitability.

As you always do Terry, you lock the tech in time today to make your flawed analysis which is why if you were the advisor to FaceBook or the first cell phone companies, etc, etc, you would be saying to them 'stop, you are not profitable now, and using your sales pitch (AKA forecast usage growth models) to analyse is not the way, I Terry, would do it'.


The above Terry is why you should advise NO ONE because most new technology rollouts, if not ALL, are based 'sales pitches' (aka forecast growth models) to REACH profitability, knowing the tech rollout will NOT start out profitable.



So for your own good Terry, and to stop your embarrassment of yourself, just STOP commenting on technology.
Click to expand...
wow-stupid.gif
 
200 miles a day will suit nearly everyone in the country. Some EVs are getting more. The fact is the charging gets faster and the range gets longer. Who knows how much better it will get next?
 
Nordberg said:
200 miles a day will suit nearly everyone in the country. Some EVs are getting more. The fact is the charging gets faster and the range gets longer. Who knows how much better it will get next?
Click to expand...

if we look at history and how technology scales from its early mass adoption and commercialization stages, to latter stages, in things like Computers, cell phones, the internet, and even ICE vehicles themselves it is very clear, that unless EV's end up being an outlier, that EV's will crush ICE vehicles in pretty much every measurable way.

There is mass amounts of venture cash, chasing improvements in all areas, and we are seeing significant advances constantly. Whereas ICE is a mature technology and improvements are tiny.

I think we can expect EV', that on a single charge will get multiples of the mileage of ICE, with charge times comparable to filling up a gas tank now. Again, certainly the history of most major tech roll outs and how they improved, suggests that to be the smart money bet.

US scientists make breakthrough for long-range EV batteries
A new lithium-air battery could one day replace the lithium-ion battery, and power cars, domestic airplanes and long-haul trucks.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The above are just 2 examples of dozens, i could cite showing where Venture capital is betting their money and many of the early gains and proofs they are seeing.

The first one deals with ranges ICE will never be able to touch. The video below shows one, of many early super fast charging innovations being worked on already showing positive results.
 
QP! said:
LIe.
Click to expand...
Not a lie.

QP! said:
I am the one admitting they are not great for all people in all times.
Click to expand...
You're the one trying to push how EVs are a great option for most people, when in reality, EVs just plain aren't a practical option for most people. It shows by how FEW of them are on the roads, even in large cities.

QP! said:
You are the one trying to force a conclusion.
Click to expand...
Ahhhhh, yup... "I'm" doing what YOU are doing... got it. ;)

QP! said:
You create a unique instance, your Person 3 but you add in he needs to fuel in 20 minutes or less, because you believe that disqualifies EV's from that category.
Click to expand...
It DOES disqualify EVs from that category. Being able to refuel in a few minutes instead of a few hours makes a HUGE difference in longer distance traveling.

QP! said:
How many people in that category have some imperative that they need to fuel in 20 minutes or less.
Click to expand...
I've already debunked your "20 minutes" claim, dude. EVs cannot fully refuel in 20 minutes. I've even presented you with Chevy dealership info and you completely ignored it and continued onward with your false claims about "20 minute refueling" for EVs.

QP! said:
What about the person in the EV who meets that category but unlike the person with ICE who has to stop for fuel, and faces those long ICE lineups that were pictured above, the EV buzzes on by laughing at those lining up for gas, as he charged at home?
Click to expand...
It takes much less time for the ICE person to wait a few minutes for a pump to open up (and to refuel) than it does for an EV person to refuel their EV at home.

QP! said:
Once again my argument is ALL these scenarios exist, and not all are ideal for EV's nor ICE but EV's suit the vast VAST majority of the average families every day driving.

And i am correct.
Click to expand...
RAAA.

QP! said:
You have to hand craft some very specific scenarios (driving in remote area, need to charge in 20 minutes or less) to try and make EV's not look ideal.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about a remote area. I said nothing about needing to charge in 20 minutes or less. You're not even paying attention to what I am saying. You're forming bastardizations of my arguments and then attacking those because you can't attack my actual arguments as I actually present them. Anyone with half a thinking brain can very clearly see through what you are dishonestly doing in this conversation.

QP! said:
What you cannot do and will not even try is simply explain the type of trip an average family takes, and how often, that an EV would not suit, even if not ideal, it would be plenty good enough.
Click to expand...
RQAA.
 
gfm7175 said:
Not a lie.


You're the one trying to push how EVs are a great option for most people, when in reality, EVs just plain aren't a practical option for most people. It shows by how FEW of them are on the roads, even in large cities.


Ahhhhh, yup... "I'm" doing what YOU are doing... got it. ;)


It DOES disqualify EVs from that category. Being able to refuel in a few minutes instead of a few hours makes a HUGE difference in longer distance traveling.


I've already debunked your "20 minutes" claim, dude. EVs cannot fully refuel in 20 minutes. I've even presented you with Chevy dealership info and you completely ignored it and continued onward with your false claims about "20 minute refueling" for EVs.


It takes much less time for the ICE person to wait a few minutes for a pump to open up (and to refuel) than it does for an EV person to refuel their EV at home.


RAAA.


I said nothing about a remote area. I said nothing about needing to charge in 20 minutes or less. You're not even paying attention to what I am saying. You're forming bastardizations of my arguments and then attacking those because you can't attack my actual arguments as I actually present them. Anyone with half a thinking brain can very clearly see through what you are dishonestly doing in this conversation.


RQAA.
Click to expand...

No.

You've been embarrassed and debunked in pretty near every claim and yet keep repeating already refuted points.

EV's fit perfectly in to your Person 3 profile outside your arbitrary and stupid attempt to create a restriction that would apply to very few, to no drivers, with regards to 'needing to charge in 20 minutes or less'.

On the vast vast majority of trips for Person 3 the charge they leave with will be adequate to get where they are going. Far more likely, especially on busy weekends that the ICE vehicle is searching for gas stations not lined up (like the picture you guys were mocking for the wrong reason up thread) and that is because so many ICE drivers are not fully fueled (yes they too run below 100%) before they have to go on a long trip and have to grab gas at the busiest times (weekends, holidays, long weekends).

And it is the EV driver zipping past the ICE driver who cannot fuel in 20 minutes or less, while the EV does not need to fuel at all, as they did so at home before leaving.


WHich is why you still have not have even attempted to define what an average family or person drive would look like that an EV could not do and what percent of their yearly driving that takes up?? Why won't you explain that?
 
QP! said:
No.

You've been embarrassed and debunked in pretty near every claim and yet keep repeating already refuted points.

EV's fit perfectly in to your Person 3 profile outside your arbitrary and stupid attempt to create a restriction that would apply to very few, to no drivers, with regards to 'needing to charge in 20 minutes or less'.

On the vast vast majority of trips for Person 3 the charge they leave with will be adequate to get where they are going. Far more likely, especially on busy weekends that the ICE vehicle is searching for gas stations not lined up (like the picture you guys were mocking for the wrong reason up thread) and that is because so many ICE drivers are not fully fueled (yes they too run below 100%) before they have to go on a long trip and have to grab gas at the busiest times (weekends, holidays, long weekends).

And it is the EV driver zipping past the ICE driver who cannot fuel in 20 minutes or less, while the EV does not need to fuel at all, as they did so at home before leaving.


WHich is why you still have not have even attempted to define what an average family or person drive would look like that an EV could not do and what percent of their yearly driving that takes up?? Why won't you explain that?
Click to expand...
Continued parroting of RAAA and RQAA.
 
Port Tack said:
I can't believe i'm having this discussion with such an ignoramous.
Click to expand...
Too funny. You sought out a meme that validates your prior statements, and you have no idea that it is erroneous. You actually think that memes are textbooks! Way too funny.

Port Tack said:
Coal may contain a host of impurities but it's primary make-up is hydrocarbons.
Click to expand...
Nope. You are a moron. The reason you never call boooolsch't when you should is because you never have any clue when you should. Hilarious.

Port Tack said:
Why the fuck do you think it burns.
Click to expand...
It's combustable. Why do you think anything burns?

... and you claim to be a scientist! ... with many years of experience! Let me catch my breath!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top