Reality check on electric cars

[Matt Dillon]

Have you considered that you are an exception? When GM released the Volt, they did an enormous study and found that 50 miles of range was sufficient for 85 percent of the people. Now EVs get 300 miles of charge and it goes up every year. There are also more charging stations being built by the government and privately. They are getting faster and faster.
Electric Cars are the future. You can cling to the past if you want to, but the Big 3 cannot afford to make that mistake.

At the moment, electric cars are fail, ok?

 

[RB 60]

Have you considered that you are an exception? When GM released the Volt, they did an enormous study and found that 50 miles of range was sufficient for 85 percent of the people. Now EVs get 300 miles of charge and it goes up every year. There are also more charging stations being built by the government and privately. They are getting faster and faster.
Electric Cars are the future. You can cling to the past if you want to, but the Big 3 cannot afford to make that mistake.

Hate to piss in your Cheerios (not really) but these won't be going away anytime soon...

...deal with it

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hate to piss in your Cheerios (not really) but these won't be going away anytime soon...

https://brakpanherald.co.za/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2013/10/8-Car-Show.jpg

...deal with it

Did I miss were someone wants those cars banned?

The main point is that the cars in the pictures are specialty vehicles like privately owned airplanes; not in common usage.

 

[RB 60]

Did I miss were someone wants those cars banned?

The main point is that the cars in the pictures are specialty vehicles like privately owned airplanes; not in common usage.

No, our cars are pleasure vehicles, predominantly all in excellent condition, all running internal combustion engines, just like those pictured above.
The point is, they all require gasoline, so those who say they will be phased out are full of shit, or these would have been phased out long ago...

... but they aren't, simply because we drive or fly them.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, our cars are pleasure vehicles, predominantly all in excellent condition, all running internal combustion engines, just like those pictured above.
The point is, they all require gasoline, so those who say they will be phased out are full of shit, or these would have been phased out long ago...

... but they aren't, simply because we drive or fly them.

Agreed, just like the antique aircraft. It's a hobby. The average Texan isn't driving them. The average worker only wants reliable, cheap transportation since, outside of cities, it's a necessity.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The worst of this is that it's unelected government bureaucrats forcing this on all of us for political reasons.

Let's assume for a moment that the greentard movement gets its way on everything related to Gorebal Warming. We're forced to drive EV's like it or not. Solar and wind dominate energy production. But Gorebal Warming is unaffected by all of this and plods on as it has been.

It's not as if this is the first time the greentards have forced something down our throats and it ended up being a complete failure. A perfect example of this is the hole in the ozone layer at the south pole. The greentards told us this was due to CFC's and we had to eliminate them. We did. The hole remains unchanged. The only thing that's changed is the hysteria over this from the greentards disappeared as did any mention of the issue.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. So no math?

None needed.

Just your usual complete ignorance about physics.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Energy is lost when one type of energy is converted to another but the % loss for the conversion can vary quite a bit.

True.

Burning fuel in your car is a very inefficient way to convert fuel to mechanical energy since it is only about 20-30% efficient.

Manufactured number. Argument from randU fallacy.

That means an electric is more efficient if you create the electricity with 60% efficiency

Argument from randU fallacy.

such as a modern combined cycle gas plant and then have an 85% efficiency to charge the battery

Argument from randU fallacy.

and a 90% efficiency motor.

Electric motors don't have 'efficiency'. Argument from randU fallacy.

You are just making up numbers and attempting to use them as data. That's a fallacy, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

Is Anyone Listening?
BY BRYAN PRESTON
The world is not yet ready to support a fully electric auto fleet.https://veteranweb.asn.au/news/is-anyone-listening/

It never will be. Electric cars have too many serious disadvantages, all centered around the need to recharge the battery.

 

[Into the Night]

It's a good think no one is proposing that all cars be electric by the end of February.

The world is not yet ready to go to the moon.
The world is not yet ready to stop using horses to pull plows.
The world is not yet ready to cross oceans with ships.
The world is not yet ready to light homes with electric lights.

Because the world may not be ready today doesn't mean it can't be ready in a few decades. The only reason it can't be ready is if we listen to all the know-nothings instead of getting ready.

You can't change the laws of physics, dude. You cannot make the problem of the time it takes to recharge the battery go away, or the energy required to do it go away. That energy doesn't come for free, you know.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Into the Night]

Electric cars and charging get better all the time.

Not really.

With fast-charging it is down to half an hour assuming you are down to near zero and want a full charge.

You STILL do not recognize the energy used to power such a station, and you STILL do not recognize that you can't charge any battery that quickly without damaging it.

Neither of those are normal conditions.

It is on cross country use, or on continuous use.

Some are experimenting with roads that charge you as you drive over them.

Right. Have you SEEN what it takes to build a road and keep it reasonably maintained? Have you SEEN the condition of many roads these days??

Chargers get faster and faster.

You don't get energy for free, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

Battery powered cars preceded internal combustion engines. The internal combustion engine was cheaper to run and more reliable (at the time), so it was used to power transportation vehicles.

The internal combustion engine was invented in 1794, dumbass. He is showing a car from 1912! Pay attention!

 

[Into the Night]

ROFLMAO. So your argument is because the world wasn't ready then it can never be ready? You are only restating your idiocy in order to prove you are an idiot.


This is the rocket that launched Sputnik. Clearly the world wasn't yet ready to go to the moon but that didn't prevent man from going to the moon when science and engineering improved.

The first tractor - Clearly the world wasn't ready to stop using horses to pull plows but that didn't prevent tractors from becoming the machine to pull farm equipment when science and engineering improved.
https://www.farmcollector.com/steam-traction/first-steam-tractor-zm0z01sepzraw/

I think we can all agree that man used boats of various kinds for centuries before one was ever able to cross an ocean.

Compositional error fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

What fallacy are you accusing me of making?

Compositional error fallacy. Example. You have a bag full of marbles. You pull a white one out and immediately assume that all the marbles in the bag are white. A compositional error fallacy is extending the property of a class across the class improperly, or to the class itself.

The initial cost of an electric vehicle may be higher than that of an ICE vehicle but that ignores the total cost of the vehicle over its lifetime.

Now you are going to make some argument from randU fallacies. This fallacy occurs when you manufacture numbers and attempt to use them as data (often as some sort of proof).

If we compare the 2022 basic Ford F-150 with the basic Ford F-150 Lightning, the cost over 10 years is likely less for the Lightning even though its purchase price is $10,000 more assuming 12,000 miles per year.

Argument from randU fallacy.

F-150 ICE - Cost $29,900, 10 years of oil changes - $1000, 2 complete brake jobs - $1200, 60,000 mile tuneup and other routine maintenance - $2500, 25mpg at 120,000 miles and $3 per gallon = $14,400. Total cost for the ICE vehicle - $48,800 over 10 years.
F-150 Lightning - Cost $39,974 - No oil changes or tuneups required. assume 1 brake job - $600, no 60,000 mile tuneup, air filters, radiator flushes etc, .5kwh per mile at 120,000 miles and .13 per kwh cost (US average is .105/kwh) = Total cost of $48,374

Argument from randU fallacies.

Even assuming electric is more expensive than it currently is

No one is saying that.

and gas is cheaper than it currently is

No one is saying that either. Strawman fallacies.

the Lightning still costs less over that 10 years.

Argument from randU fallacy.

I also assumed the high end of the mpg for the ICE and the low end for the Lightning.

Yes. The bias is obvious. So is the argument from randU fallacy.

I also didn't include the $7,500 tax credit in my calculations so your claim that when that goes away EVs will is horse shit.

So everyone else buys YOUR truck because they are forced to. That's theft, dude.

EVs are here to stay and their cost will come down.

So?

Caredge lists the 10 year maintenance cost for an F-150 at just over $10,000.

Argument from randU fallacy.

That means we have about $5,000 to spend on the Lightning before it costs more than the ICE version.

Argument from randU fallacy.

Charging at home every day takes less of the owner's time than it does to drive to a gas station 3 times a month to fill up the vehicle with gas.

No, it doesn't. 8 hour x 30 days is more than 15 minutes.

The F-150 will give more than 200 miles of driving with an overnight charge.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are also assuming the truck is not used to tow or haul anything. Watts are watts, dude.

It's rough that you don't sleep at night like other people.

Why do you assume this?

The average mileage for most people is less than 100 miles per day

Argument from randU fallacy. You don't get to speak for most people.

so the charging is not an issue for most people.

You don't get to extend 'most people' to 'all people' either.

The batteries don't last is a red herring.

Bull. Batteries begin losing their ability to charge the very first time you use them. All rechargeable batteries have this problem. It is caused by electrolysis not being intelligent.

ICE engines don't last forever nor do transmissions.

Did you know there are STILL 1950's cars driving around? I myself fly a 1967 airplane. The fellow in the hangar next to mine flies a 1948 airplane.

75 years ago it was rare for an ICE engine to survive to 100,000 miles without a ring job or other major repair.

75 years ago is 1947. Did you know there are STILL people driving around in the army jeeps used in WW2? Tanks too.
Do you know how much it costs to replace a battery on an EV???

It seems you want to claim batteries have not gotten better at the same time you accept that ICE has improved.

Batteries have gotten better. The Lithium oxide battery is light and has a low internal resistance. It is also rechargeable. This makes the battery ideal for everything from portable electronics to cars. Like any other battery, they have a limited lifespan.

Does that mean an EV will work for everyone today? No, I never said that.

Yes you did, liar.

However it will work for the majority of the people starting today since the majority of people don't drive more than 100 miles per day and it will be cheaper for them in the long run.

Argument from randU fallacy.

Amazon, UPS and other delivery companies aren't moving to EVs because they are getting subsidies.

They aren't moving to EVs.

They are doing it because they see how it will save them money.

They aren't moving to EVs.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Electric motors don't have 'efficiency'. Argument from randU fallacy.

It's funny how you contradict yourself in the same post. You agree that energy is lost when it is transformed from one form to another. The efficiency of the energy transfer is easy to calculate, energy out in the new form divided by energy in is the efficiency. Electric motors convert electrical energy to mechanical energy so they have an efficiency. The math to calculate it is well known in physics.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/motor-efficiency

There is even a requirement for how efficient motors have to be in the US to be considered high efficiency motors.

Thanks for proving once again, you don't know shit about physics.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Compositional error fallacy. Example. You have a bag full of marbles. You pull a white one out and immediately assume that all the marbles in the bag are white. A compositional error fallacy is extending the property of a class across the class improperly, or to the class itself..

Let's look at some other examples of that fallacy.
If EVs didn't become the predominant vehicle 100 years ago then they won't become the predominant vehicle in 20 years would be an example of a compositional fallacy.
If one battery takes 12 hours to charge and then assuming all batteries take 12 hours to charge would be a compositional fallacy.
If Amazon is currently using ICE vehicles and then assuming they aren't moving to EVs would be a compositional fallacy.

My example of the rocket was to point out the idiocy of the claim about EV vehicles can never be good enough to be the most common vehicle.

 

[Into the Night]

It's funny how you contradict yourself in the same post.

There isn't any. You are hallucinating again.

You agree that energy is lost when it is transformed from one form to another.

It is.

The efficiency of the energy transfer is easy to calculate,

No, it isn't.

energy out in the new form divided by energy in is the efficiency.

No it isn't. Energy out is always the same as energy in. You cannot create or destroy energy.

Electric motors convert electrical energy to mechanical energy so they have an efficiency.

Spinning a shaft isn't efficiency.

The math to calculate it is well known in physics.
...deleted misquoted Holy Links...

Misquoting people is going to get you nowhere.

There is even a requirement for how efficient motors have to be in the US to be considered high efficiency motors.
...deleted Holy Chart...

Government law isn't physics, dumbass.

Thanks for proving once again, you don't know shit about physics.

No, that would be YOU. Inversion fallacy.

Just in this post, you tried to label engineering as physics, random numbers as physics, and U.S. law as physics.

 

[Into the Night]

Let's look at some other examples of that fallacy.
If EVs didn't become the predominant vehicle 100 years ago then they won't become the predominant vehicle in 20 years would be an example of a compositional fallacy.

Not a compositional error fallacy. Not a fallacy at all. You are making an argument of the Stone fallacy and a redefinition fallacy.

If one battery takes 12 hours to charge and then assuming all batteries take 12 hours to charge would be a compositional fallacy.

Not a compositional error fallacy. Not a fallacy at all. You are ignoring the internal resistance of a battery and the size of the battery bank and the available power to charge it. You are again making an argument of the Stone fallacy.

If Amazon is currently using ICE vehicles and then assuming they aren't moving to EVs would be a compositional fallacy.

Not a fallacy at all. Amazon is not moving to EVs. The only place Amazon uses anything like an electric vehicle is the robots in their warehouses. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

My example of the rocket was to point out the idiocy of the claim about EV vehicles can never be good enough to be the most common vehicle.

Don't see why they would. You have not produced a convincing argument yet. Fallacies are not an argument. Ignoring the characteristics of batteries, especially the Li-ion battery, and the characteristics of power generating and distribution systems is not going to get you anywhere. Ignoring the lack of sufficient lithium and cobalt supplies for all those cars is going to get you nowhere as well.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not a fallacy at all. Amazon is not moving to EVs. The only place Amazon uses anything like an electric vehicle is the robots in their warehouses. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
.

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-creating-fleet-of-electric-delivery-vehicles-rivian-2020-2

Denial of facts on your part doesn't make those facts not true other than in your feeble mind.

 

[Lao Tse]

dum and dummer