Reality check on electric cars

[Nordberg]

If you get all verklempt about EVs, a hybrid will solve all your problems. You use EV power for all local trips, not using gas at all. If you have a trip to make, then after the battery power is gone, you use gas for the rest of the trip. It works out to be much cheaper.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

you and that idiot gfm keep pointing at what EV's are not ideal at doing as an argument against them such as his post i am replying to above this one.

It is a completely stupid argument to make and yet you persist.

IF i want something it is because of what it does, and not because of what it does not do. A motorcycle might be very appropriate for me, and no amount of you guys pointing and laughing that it cannot haul wood, is not good in the winter, etc, changes that for me and a large part of the populace it may be the best choice for them, depending on where they live and what their daily commute looks like.

The FACT is EV's are ideal for the bulk of the populace in the same the class of econo box was prior. AGAIN it does not matter that gfm, like an idiot can list what econo box cars are not good at doing. WHat they were GREAT at doing was getting a person to work and back and around town, CHEAPLY, which is the BULK of most peoples driving.

And EV's are better than the econobox, as they are even cheaper and more convenient for 'fueling' for those type of trips but also the EV"s as a class provide far more value matching most full size sedans, SUV's and minivans for most family needs. Of course this is where the idiot gfm comes in and points out what the EV is not ideal for, thinking he is making some point, and then you, Terry clap along with his idiocy.

Actually, for the bulk of the population, EV's are a poor choice and that shows in the FACT that even with massive government subsidies, not to mention flat out fiats that remove alternatives. The bulk of the population doesn't want an EV. It's that simple. That's as true in China and Norway as it is in the US. The ONLY reason they're making inroads into the market is by force of government.

They are a poor choice by cost where they are more expensive up front than ICE vehicles for many people on a limited budget. They suck as a choice if you rent an apartment or other home and there are no charging stations available where you live. They are completely insane if you live in a large urban area and have to randomly street park your vehicle with no assurance you can find a charging station.
They're insane if you live in more rural areas where the only place you can charge it is possibly your home. They don't work if you have specific needs for something other than just a car that never is used to haul, tow, be driven all day (like say an Uber driver might), or in any of many other applications.
For the better off, as a second car that you use to for a daily commute, it might be just the thing. The last Tesla charger I put in, that's what the customer did. His Porsche, raised V8 Jeep, and 4 x 4 truck were all ICE vehicles and he could afford an EV as the commuter only car. That's hardly the norm for the average person.

That said, if you want one, fine by me. Just don't expect my tax dollars to help you pay for your car or to pay for charging stations everywhere because you think you deserve them. That's the core of my argument against EV's.

 

[QP!]

Actually, for the bulk of the population, EV's are a poor choice and that shows in the FACT that even with massive government subsidies, not to mention flat out fiats that remove alternatives. The bulk of the population doesn't want an EV. It's that simple. That's as true in China and Norway as it is in the US. The ONLY reason they're making inroads into the market is by force of government.

That said, if you want one, fine by me. Just don't expect my tax dollars to help you pay for your car or to pay for charging stations everywhere because you think you deserve them. That's the core of my argument against EV's.

Your logic is flawed and wrong.

the choice of EV's and support for them (charging stations, etc) has been extremely limited, so you CANNOT make the judgements you do in that way.

That would be like in the early days of the internet or the PC or Cell phone judging them by what percent of the populace is using them, when that number is still tiny, percent wise, because they have not done a full mass roll out yet, with all the benefits mass production brings in terms of tech improvement and accessibility.

As always Terry you return to your forever flaw which is why we had decided prior you were not to speak about ANY technology and that is that you ALWAYS judge technology early in its mass commercialization curve based on it today and as if no improvements will follow.

That is wrong Terry. You are wrong Terry.

 

[gfm7175]

gfm next insightful post is to tell the world why the segment of econo box ICE sedans were never actually of value to anyone because he can name situations they are not great at.

... ... ... ... ...

This is how the idiotic mind of gfm works, to tell OTHERS there car choice makes no sense based on the areas HE THINKS they need to ALSO be good at.

Continued bogus position assignments.

 

[gfm7175]

And here you continue with your stupidity as you MAKE MY POINT and do not realize it.

Correct sedans are not great for hauling wood, and those who need that will buy a Pick up.,

Right. My point all along about people buying vehicles according to their needs. EVs simply don't fit the needs of most people, as I've already explained.

meaning those who buy sedans do so for the OTHER functionality they NEED MORE.

No. It's not about "need more". It's about need. They buy sedans because they either have no need for hauling wood, or like I mentioned, maybe there's a specific niche situation in which a sedan can still get the job done.

That is MY ARGUEMENT with EV's.

No, it's not. Your argument is about EVs meeting 80-90% of a person's driving needs (and not meeting the other 10-20%). You're arguing that a vehicle that fails to meet a person's needs is still a good choice for a person to purchase. I'm arguing that it's not a good choice.

You're arguing that a person who needs the hauling capacity of a truck should still buy an EV because it "serves the other 80-90% of one's driving needs". I'm arguing that this person should purchase a truck instead so that all of his needs are met.

They are valued for what they DO, 80-90% of the time and not excluded, like a sedan for what it cannot do the rest.

... yet EV's are useless for the 10-20% of a person's vehicular needs that EV's CANNOT do. That's the whole point.

And you seem to not understand there are SUV Minivans and Pickup trucks too.

I've mentioned minivans and pickup trucks numerous times, dude. Remember my "four example" post? Obviously not. And I own a smaller SUV, dude, so I'm quite aware that they exist.

So this is where you jump to another niche where EV's are not great thinking

I'm not jumping to anything. YOU are. I'm simply providing you various examples of people's needs for their vehicles and showing you how EV's don't work for most of those examples (or "work" in a very pain in the ass manner that most people don't wish to deal with, given how expensive EVs are).

you are making a statement against them when like you say with Sedans, those who do things are not going to buy an EV. Simple as that. For the rest of the populace (that 80+%) an Ev is an ideal vehicle.

RAAA.

 

[QP!]

Right. My point all along about people buying vehicles according to their needs. EVs simply don't fit the needs of most people, as I've already explained.


No. It's not about "need more". It's about need. They buy sedans because they either have no need for hauling wood, or like I mentioned, maybe there's a specific niche situation in which a sedan can still get the job done.....

Right and they buy EV's because they do not need to drive across great rural expanses or in extreme cold weather.

You accept that as reasons to 'buy sedans' (the 10-20% they do not do great) while saying the reason to not buy EV's is based on the 10-20% they do not do well.

You are a hypocrite and stupid and are the reason my signature rings true.

 

[QP!]

No, it's not. Your argument is about EVs meeting 80-90% of a person's driving needs (and not meeting the other 10-20%). You're arguing that a vehicle that fails to meet a person's needs is still a good choice for a person to purchase. I'm arguing that it's not a good choice.....

Except you argue it is a good choice with Sedans and those who need more, can just buy a pick up truck instead. That is you making the opposite argument as one for Sedans and then you switch and use the same argument against EV's.

If Ev's (Sedans, trucks, SUV's etc) are not good for what they are not ideal for then nor are ICE sedans, pickup trucks, econo box cars, and Minivans.

Each one of them we can create a list of the things they are not ideal for.

And yet people value them all.

YOu argue both sides without realizing it because you are stupid.

 

[gfm7175]

Right and they buy EV's because they do not need to drive across great rural expanses or in extreme cold weather.

Right. I've already said this. This fits into my "Person #4" example. But once anyone has any regular need for, say, quick refueling, then EVs go bye-bye as a vehicle option for that person (as an EV no longer suits that person's needs).

You accept that as reasons to 'buy sedans' (the 10-20% they do not do great)

No, I don't. The sedan that I own is a secondary vehicle of mine (not my primary vehicle). I would never buy a sedan as a primary vehicle because it doesn't suit all of my needs (namely, driving in harsh winter conditions). That's what my primary vehicle (a small SUV) is for. Both of my vehicles suit all of my needs that I have for them.

My small SUV can get through harsh winter conditions and haul anything that I need it to regularly haul, while being able to quickly refuel in a couple of minutes, so it serves all of my needs for it. I don't need the extra functionality of a minivan or a truck.

My large sedan serves all of my very few needs for it because, as a secondary car, I really only need it to be able to quickly refuel in a couple of minutes and to "take on" the mileage that I would otherwise be putting on my SUV during the warmer months.

Plus, it just plain feels good to drive a Town Car... It not only "brings me back to my youth" (my first vehicle was a Mercury Grand Marquis), and it's not only a much more comfortable/smoother ride, but it's also fun to set the 4 cylinder aside for a moment and enjoy the feeling of having a V8 under the hood.

Both of my vehicles serve all of my needs for them. If I could only have one vehicle, I would keep the small SUV because it much better fits my winter driving needs (and can haul a larger variety of stuff due to the back seats being able to fold down).

while saying the reason to not buy EV's is based on the 10-20% they do not do well.

No, it's the 10-20% that EVs CANNOT DO. It doesn't make any sense to buy a vehicle that cannot serve a portion of one's regular needs for it.

You are a hypocrite and stupid and are the reason my signature rings true.

No. You just don't understand English.

 

[gfm7175]

Except you argue it is a good choice with Sedans

No, I don't. I would never choose a sedan as my only/primary vehicle as it wouldn't serve all of my needs for one. However, as a SECONDARY vehicle, a sedan DOES serve all of my needs for it.

and those who need more, can just buy a pick up truck instead.

Yup. This is "Person #1" in my 'examples' post.

That is you making the opposite argument as one for Sedans and then you switch and use the same argument against EV's.

Nope. You're simply failing to comprehend English.

Just as I would never buy an EV as a primary vehicle because it doesn't suit all of my needs, I would likewise never buy a sedan as a primary vehicle because it doesn't suit all of my needs.

Now, I WOULD (and did) buy a sedan as a SECONDARY vehicle because, as a SECONDARY vehicle, a sedan suits all of my needs. An EV would NOT suit my needs even for a secondary vehicle (particularly the need to quickly refuel), but even if it did suit all of my needs, it still wouldn't be economically practical for me to purchase one.

If Ev's (Sedans, trucks, SUV's etc) are not good for what they are not ideal for then nor are ICE sedans, pickup trucks, econo box cars, and Minivans.

Each one of them we can create a list of the things they are not ideal for.

Right. That's the whole point of my "Persons #1-4" list that I did for you. Person #1 needs a truck. Person #2 needs a minivan. Person #3 can make due with any ICE vehicle. Person #4 can make due with any ICE or EV vehicle.

Of course there's MANY more than "4 people", but that's just to serve as an example of how needs are assessed and what vehicles can fit each person's needs.

And yet people value them all.

Depends on what people's needs are.

YOu argue both sides without realizing it because you are stupid.

You only say that because you are stupid and don't understand English.

 

[QP!]

Right. I've already said this. This fits into my "Person #4" example. But once anyone has any regular need for, say, quick refueling, then EVs go bye-bye as a vehicle option for that person (as an EV no longer suits that person's needs). ...

Just as like if 'anyone has need to haul more wood the sedan goes bye bye'. Just like if 'anyone has need for cheaper fueling for around town trips primarily the pick up truck goes bye bye'. Just as if someone has 'need for more than 4 passengers econo box go bye bye.

You continue to repeat the same brainless argument that since you can point to an area an EV is not ideal for, that somehow disqualifies EV's as the best choice generally for huge segments of the population.

You do this despite the FACT i can show that each and every vehicle class has areas it is not ideal in.

Econo Box cars have been one of the biggest sellers in any market serving the vast majority of the population, for a long, long time. If you look at the main reason people would choose an econo box, despite them not being perfect in super cold, snowy weather, despite them not being great at hauling stuff, despite them not being ideal for long cross country trips, ... the reason those shortcomings DO NOT impact people buying them, is that their PRIMARY need is for a car to get them around town, to work/school/errands around town and short trips (2-3hours) for weekend trips to cottage or family. EV's cover all that perfectly as well, and as a segment do so much more.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Your logic is flawed and wrong.

the choice of EV's and support for them (charging stations, etc) has been extremely limited, so you CANNOT make the judgements you do in that way.

That would be like in the early days of the internet or the PC or Cell phone judging them by what percent of the populace is using them, when that number is still tiny, percent wise, because they have not done a full mass roll out yet, with all the benefits mass production brings in terms of tech improvement and accessibility.

As always Terry you return to your forever flaw which is why we had decided prior you were not to speak about ANY technology and that is that you ALWAYS judge technology early in its mass commercialization curve based on it today and as if no improvements will follow.

That is wrong Terry. You are wrong Terry.

Battery powered electric cars are nothing new. They've been around for about 150 years now, longer than ICE vehicles, and they have NEVER been able to penetrate the market. The ONLY reason they are succeeding now is because government has their thumb on the scale. That's it, that's the only reason.

1905 Tribelhorn Electric

1911 Baker Electric

1912 Edison Electric

1920 Detroit Electric Model 82

Nobel Electric

1950 Nik-L-Silver Electric

There have been dozens upon dozens of companies that have tried to market an electric, battery powered, car for over a century. Not one succeeded against ICE vehicles. The only reason today EV's are gaining traction is government is forcing them on the market.

 

[QP!]

Battery powered electric cars are nothing new. They've been around for about 150 years now, longer than ICE vehicles, and they have NEVER been able to penetrate the market. The ONLY reason they are succeeding now is because government has their thumb on the scale. That's it, that's the only reason.
...

There have been dozens upon dozens of companies that have tried to market an electric, battery powered, car for over a century. Not one succeeded against ICE vehicles. The only reason today EV's are gaining traction is government is forcing them on the market.

So you are just recycling this stupid argument I already debunked and disproved prior. Ok then.

the REASONS all other forms of vehicles fell behind ICE were many.

The biggest one was that gas station roll out, extended the range of ICE vehicles.

The Oil and Gas industry supplying that gas, was highly subsidized by gov't and still is over 100 years later despite you lying and claiming they have never received subsidies. They are IN FACT one of the most subsidized industries in American history, up their with farming.

in the next highest grouping of subsidized / bailouts (tax payer money) are companies like airlines and ICE Manufacturers. they have got massive sums of tax payer to help restructure ultimately keeping the ICE product cost artificially low.

So the gov't had a huge hand in picking winners and losers, in that regard.

So what you call EV being forced into the market is because finally the thumb on the scale ICE has had for 100 years+ is being made available to EV's to create more of a fair playing field.

 

[Nordberg]

Electric cars were ignored because we were ass deep in oil and gas. We also did not know the environmental and health costs. Showing electric cars from 1900 is meaningless. ICEs were crappy then too.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Electric cars were ignored because we were ass deep in oil and gas. We also did not know the environmental and health costs. Showing electric cars from 1900 is meaningless. ICEs were crappy then too.

Wrong. Electric cars were ignored because they were impractical. They took forever to charge and charging wasn't portable. You could use an ICE vehicle to haul hundreds of gallons of gasoline somewhere and store it for other ICE vehicles to use. If you ran out of gas in the middle-of-nowhere, you could always walk back to a town, get more gas, and bring it to your ICE vehicle.

Gasoline was portable and convenient. That's why it won out.

The Baker Electric of 1911 was marketed as a "Ladies" car and as one that was good for a second commuter vehicle. The "Ladies" part was because it wasn't messy in terms of handling fuel, didn't need to be crank started, so it wouldn't give women problems to use. The commuter angle was the same then as today. It avoided the long charging times. But both uses were niches and over time, the Baker simply couldn't compete although for about 10 years it did reasonably well in the market in cities and urban areas.

It's you that doesn't grasp history. It also doesn't change that in all of that previous time, it wasn't government deciding what sort of vehicle you should own and drive unlike now where it IS government deciding those things.

 

[Kurmugeon]

REALITY CHECK: At a neighborhood BBQ I was talking to a neighbor, a BC Hydro Executive. I asked him how that renewable thing was doing. He laughed, then got serious "If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, you have to face certain realities."

"For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded. This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load."

So, as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system! This later "investment" will not be revealed until we're so far down this deadend road that it will be presented with an 'OOPS...!' and a shrug.

Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine." Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip, your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 Mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car costs about $25,000 while the Volt costs $46,000 plus. So, the Government wants us to pay twice as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run and takes three times longer to drive across the country.

WAKE UP NORTH AMERICA!!!!!!!

The Lithium batteries will only last about 18 months with normal usage, less if used more frequently.

The cost of the new battery, installed, is around $14K, and that doesn't included the EPA $6K battery disposal fee.

There currently is not plant or facility anywhere in the world for dealing with the dead, 2000lbs toxic battery hulks.

The electricity to remediate just ONE sedan sized battery is the energy equivalent to running a gasoline engine for the same size sedan for 10 years. Each Sedan sized dead lithium battery will need 50,000 gallons of fresh water to process.

Unremediated deal battery hulks will always have the cells swell and burst, leaking toxic lithium hydrocarbons into the ground water causing Cancers, Birth defects, and violent mental illness. aka zombie land.

The Lithium battery EVs are going to become the biggest environmental disaster in world history, by a wide margin.

The basic concept of a low pollution electrically chargeable vehicle is not a bad idea, if the energy storage mechanism were the new sodium batteries (not yet proven), Liquid-Air, Flywheels, Synthetic Methane from Atmospheric CO2, just about anything but Lithium batteries.

Lithium Battery EVs are a form of Suicide.


-

 

[Nordberg]

Wrong. Electric cars were ignored because they were impractical. They took forever to charge and charging wasn't portable. You could use an ICE vehicle to haul hundreds of gallons of gasoline somewhere and store it for other ICE vehicles to use. If you ran out of gas in the middle-of-nowhere, you could always walk back to a town, get more gas, and bring it to your ICE vehicle.

Gasoline was portable and convenient. That's why it won out.

The Baker Electric of 1911 was marketed as a "Ladies" car and as one that was good for a second commuter vehicle. The "Ladies" part was because it wasn't messy in terms of handling fuel, didn't need to be crank started, so it wouldn't give women problems to use. The commuter angle was the same then as today. It avoided the long charging times. But both uses were niches and over time, the Baker simply couldn't compete although for about 10 years it did reasonably well in the market in cities and urban areas.

It's you that doesn't grasp history. It also doesn't change that in all of that previous time, it wasn't government deciding what sort of vehicle you should own and drive unlike now where it IS government deciding those things.

Wrong they were ignored because of the amounts oil that was being found in huge quantities across the country. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ly-why-men-snubbed-the-original-electric-car/

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Wrong they were ignored because of the amounts oil that was being found in huge quantities across the country. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ly-why-men-snubbed-the-original-electric-car/

You weren't paying attention. At one point Leno states there were 15,000 of those electric vehicle in NYC and hundreds of charging stations all over the city too. That is, they were predominant in NYC and there was a charging network in place for them. Yet, they still failed and it wasn't because oil was found everywhere.

And, yes, in part they failed because the companies marketing them made a "Bud Light" sort of blunder. They marketed the electric car to women, and men saw them as being effeminate and unmanly. That resulted in men not wanting to buy one. Marketing is important too. Today, the EV is marketed as "Green." This too is a mistake as most people don't give a rat's ass about the Greentard agenda. Thus, there's no incentive to buy an EV for most people.

 

[Lao Tse]

You weren't paying attention. At one point Leno states there were 15,000 of those electric vehicle in NYC and hundreds of charging stations all over the city too. That is, they were predominant in NYC and there was a charging network in place for them. Yet, they still failed and it wasn't because oil was found everywhere.

And, yes, in part they failed because the companies marketing them made a "Bud Light" sort of blunder. They marketed the electric car to women, and men saw them as being effeminate and unmanly. That resulted in men not wanting to buy one. Marketing is important too. Today, the EV is marketed as "Green." This too is a mistake as most people don't give a rat's ass about the Greentard agenda. Thus, there's no incentive to buy an EV for most people.

and they don't go far enough on a charge and take to long to charge and batteries always die eventually.

it's not about marketing blunders; it's a shit concept and product.

i guess you can say it's gendered marketing because actually being a good idea and product does appeal to rational people, whom are mostly men.

shit products can only be marketed to women, who are stupid.

this is why the bankers want women in charge of household spending (feminism), because they are stupid and will buy shit products for dumb reasons.

 

[Lionfish]

Joey has already rid himself from his mistake but here for the other "believers"


Mercedes-Benz delays EV goals because of weak demand, will continue to build gas-powered cars

 

[Into the Night]

In fact, DTE and other power companies make a list of acceptable vendors who will give you a deal and good service in installation. The cost for a fast charger is about 800 bucks. You will get that back in gasoline costs quickly.
EVs are cheap. There are many way below the average cost of ICEs.
You have it all wrong after all this time.

Blatant lies. EVs are NOT cheap.