Reality check on electric cars

[Into the Night]

Feel free to share any studies indicating the relative failure rates of gas versus electric vehicles.

RQAA.

 

[Scut Farkus]

OK. My own view of trucks is that they're generally ways that men with erectile disfunction try to cope with their insecurity. Most of those who drive trucks don't really need them -- only very rarely hauling something that couldn't be hauled without one. And what's amazing is how expensive they can be. It's like buying a luxury vehicle. You can easily spend over $80k on a new F-150, depending what bells and whistles you get. And, unlike with an EV, that expense triggers future higher expenses, since it winds up being such a fuel hog -- getting barely 20 mpg.

But, I guess in both cases part of what you're paying for is the message it sends to others, whether it's "I care about our shared environment," for someone buying a Nissan Leaf, or "I can't get hard any more" for someone buying a truck.

you're an imbecile.

 

[Into the Night]

The EV1 debuted in 1996 and the Tesla Roadster in 2008. So we've got a good quarter-century experience with modern electric cars, and 14 years of experience with the new generation of those. There have been at least 2 million electric vehicles on the road since about 2017, so there should be an ample sample size for five-year reliability data. If you have a study on that, feel free to link to it. Until then, we'd just be talking personal impressions, which doesn't have much value.



I don't expect EV cars are better for all consumers, any more than I expect any given car or technology is going to be better in every single situation. EV cars tend to be better for those who mostly just drive to work and back, with a total commute of 120 miles or less per day (well within the range of nearly all modern EV's). For them, EV's will save them time and money. If you're driving over 500 miles in a day, though, an EV is not yet a good choice, since there's only one EV with that kind of range and it's pricey.

EV cars are particularly good choices to be one car for a two-car family. That way, you generally have the spouse with the longer commute use the EV (which saves money), but then you have the other car for road trips or other situations where you expect to be away from charges for too many miles for an EV to be practical. That "complementary" approach to two-car families is something people are already used to in other ways (like maybe you only need one car with more than four seats, or only one truck, or one awd vehicle, and the other car can be about economy and fuel efficiency). EV's are going to be an expansion of that in coming years.

They are expensive cars for what you get. You have to charge them to use them. That takes hours if not days (depending on the charger).

I could buy a lot of gasoline for what I save on ICE cars, and I can tow with them with no problem.

 

[Into the Night]

Other than when it comes to some small number of collectibles, cars are not "investments" in the sense of something bought with the intent of later selling them for a profit. They're consumables -- something that you buy to use, with the idea that they'll be gradually less valuable over time as you wear them out. So, ROI isn't really a concept that works there. The real test is cost of ownership -- what are you paying, per year, for what you're getting? And at least when it comes to roughly comparable cars (e.g., Nissan Leaf versus Nissan Versa, or the EV versus gas version of the Mini Cooper), for most buyers the cost of ownership, measured over a five-year term, will be lower for the EV. That math can vary depending on how high gas prices are, how many miles you drive, and other factors, but at the averages, the EV's are cheaper.

You talk of return on investment, and then you deny cars are investments. Hilarious.

Now, maybe for you it's different. Maybe you almost never drive anywhere, such that the gas and maintenance savings from an EV are lower for you relative to the initial cost premium, and you'd do better with a gas-powered vehicle (assuming you don't care about the environment).

What has gasoline use got to do with environment? Can you even define what you mean by 'environment'?

But for a lot of people, they're going to be the better purchase, just in terms of dollars and cents.

Nah. EV's are definitely a much more expensive car for what you get.

 

[Into the Night]

Nice firework.

 

[Into the Night]

OK. My own view of trucks is that they're generally ways that men with erectile disfunction try to cope with their insecurity.

So you're an ingrate. EVERYTHING you own was transported by trucks.

Most of those who drive trucks don't really need them -- only very rarely hauling something that couldn't be hauled without one.

Bigotry.

And what's amazing is how expensive they can be.
It's like buying a luxury vehicle. You can easily spend over $80k on a new F-150, depending what bells and whistles you get.

A new F-150 XL is about $35,000. A similar configuration for the F-150 Lightning is $72,000.
...and the Lightning isn't available yet.

And, unlike with an EV, that expense triggers future higher expenses, since it winds up being such a fuel hog -- getting barely 20 mpg.

Pretty good for a truck hauling a shitload of stuff.

But, I guess in both cases part of what you're paying for is the message it sends to others, whether it's "I care about our shared environment,"

There you go with that meaningless buzzword again. What do you mean by 'the environment'? What has the use of gasoline got to do with it, specifically?

for someone buying a Nissan Leaf, or "I can't get hard any more" for someone buying a truck.

A Nissan Leaf can't tow anything. Not even an empty small utility trailer. It would over gross the car.

 

[Mina]

They are expensive cars for what you get

Less so than comparable gas-driven cars, when you look at the five-year cost of ownership. Assuming a normal level of use and gas prices in the range they are today, you'll come out well ahead with the EV. You'll also save time at the pump, since most "refueling" with EV's consists of a few seconds at night and in the morning to hook up and unhook the car in your garage, rather than having to make a special stop at a gas station and stand there while it fills.

 

[Mina]

You talk of return on investment, and then you deny cars are investments. Hilarious.

With a consumable like a car, we generally don't speak of ROI, but instead cost of use.

What has gasoline use got to do with environment?

Burning gasoline puts out a number of pollutants, including greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

Can you even define what you mean by 'environment'?

Sure, but it's just the dictionary definition, so you can look it up yourself if you're interested in learning more about the topic.

Nah. EV's are definitely a much more expensive car for what you get.

Depends entirely on what you're looking to get. If you're looking to signal your membership in the right wing cultural faction, they certainly have less value to you than buying some 20-mpg gas hog. If, on the other hand, you're looking to get a lower overall cost of ownership over the life of the car, for most drivers looking to buy a small-to-medium-sized passenger vehicle, an EV will be more economical.

 

[Mina]

EVERYTHING you own was transported by trucks.

Incorrect.

Pretty good for a truck hauling a shitload of stuff.

That mpg is when it's hauling nothing.

What do you mean by 'the environment'?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/environment

What has the use of gasoline got to do with it, specifically?

Explained in my last reply.

A Nissan Leaf can't tow anything.

Yes, the Leaf wouldn't be hour choice for hauling things. It's meant mostly as a commuter vehicle.

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

OK. My own view of trucks is that they're generally ways that men with erectile disfunction try to cope with their insecurity. Most of those who drive trucks don't really need them -- only very rarely hauling something that couldn't be hauled without one. And what's amazing is how expensive they can be. It's like buying a luxury vehicle. You can easily spend over $80k on a new F-150, depending what bells and whistles you get. And, unlike with an EV, that expense triggers future higher expenses, since it winds up being such a fuel hog -- getting barely 20 mpg.

But, I guess in both cases part of what you're paying for is the message it sends to others, whether it's "I care about our shared environment," for someone buying a Nissan Leaf, or "I can't get hard any more" for someone buying a truck.

My view of people that make asinine statements like that is they are too fucking lazy to work and earn enough money for a truck so they have to buy a leaf or prius ( deemed throwaway cars around here). The price of an EV and trade in value more than off sets the fuel costs and not to mention when an EV goes down there are only a handful of people that can fix them at a premium price. Buying a lithium powered car in no way says you care about the environment as the cradle to grave on lithium powered cars is much worse than a combustion engine car. People who buy them are like cattle, they have to be told when to eat, sleep, and shit buy their government masters. I had you pegged for a dumbass, thanks for showing me I was right

 

[Into the Night]

Less so than comparable gas-driven cars, when you look at the five-year cost of ownership.

No. I could pay for the gas for five years and still come out cheaper.

Assuming a normal level of use

Void argument fallacy. Define 'normal'.

and gas prices in the range they are today, you'll come out well ahead with the EV.

No, I won't. They are still more expensive.

You'll also save time at the pump, since most "refueling" with EV's consists of a few seconds at night and in the morning to hook up and unhook the car in your garage,

EV's take hours to days to recharge, depending on the charger.

rather than having to make a special stop at a gas station and stand there while it fills.

2-3 minutes. Big hairy deal.

 

[Mina]

The price of an EV and trade in value more than off sets the fuel costs

It turns out that's wrong. The premium on an EV's initial purchase price is smaller than the gas savings over the life of a car, when comparing comparable cars, if you drive a normal amount.

Do the math yourself, if you don't believe me.

Right now, the average electricity rate in the US is 10.42 cents per kilowatt-hour. A Nissan Leaf gets 0.31 kWh/mi. So, that's a cost of about 3.23 cents per mile. Right now the average gas price is $4.60. The Nissan Versa, which is the gas equivalent of the Leaf, gets 32 mpg. So, that's about 14.38 cents per mile. So, you save about 11.15 cents per mile driven with the EV car. Consumer reports says the average life expectancy of a new vehicle today is about 150,000 miles. So, over the life of the car, you'll save about $16,725 on fuel, if gas and electricity prices stay where they are. A Leaf costs $27,400. A Versa costs $15,080. So, after accounting for initial cost and fuel cost, over the life of the car you'll spend $4,405 less on the EV. And that's if you don't get a dime of tax credits for the EV, when in fact EV's can come with $7,500 in federal tax credits and up to $2,500 in state tax credits, depending on model, timing, and state. So, any tax credit would further expand the savings for the EV buyer.

and not to mention when an EV goes down there are only a handful of people that can fix them at a premium price

EV cars are cheaper to service. The US DOE had a study that found EV's cost 6.1 cents per mile to maintain, versus 10.1 cents per mile for combustion-engine vehicles. So, over the course of a 150,000 car lifetime, that would make the EV $6,000 cheaper to maintain. That further increases the gulf between the two. And EV's have 22% lower repair bills:

https://www.businessinsider.com/ele...rvice-maintenance-than-gas-cars-study-2021-10

If you take the $4,405 lower cost we already calculated, add in both the federal and state credits, and the $6000 in lower maintenance, you're looking at up to $20,000 or so in savings with the EV, over the life of the car.

Buying a lithium powered car in no way says you care about the environment as the cradle to grave on lithium powered cars is much worse than a combustion engine car.

You'll notice that's a talking point pushed hard by right-wingers and those who routinely dismiss environmental worries in any other context. So, we're talking about a bad faith argument. Those with an actual track record of fighting for environmentalism favor EV cars over combustion cars. Time and again actual environmental groups, government environmental agencies around the world, and reputable scientists and newspapers have looked into this and they all come to the conclusion that EV cars are greener. The only sources that come to the opposite conclusion are petro companies and those on their payrolls.

People who buy them are like cattle, they have to be told when to eat, sleep, and shit buy their government masters.

Funny, I was thinking something similar about the lowing herd of morons who obediently follow every wingnut talking point about EV cars, without ever actually bothering to do the math. I'm a numbers gal, so when I looked into this, I didn't just accept anyone's talking points. I sat down with data sources and a calculator and figured it out.

 

[Mina]

No. I could pay for the gas for five years and still come out cheaper.

Void argument fallacy. Define 'normal'.

No, I won't. They are still more expensive.

EV's take hours to days to recharge, depending on the charger.

2-3 minutes. Big hairy deal.

Trolling.

 

[Into the Night]

With a consumable like a car, we generally don't speak of ROI, but instead cost of use.

You are locked in this paradox. Irrational.

Burning gasoline puts out a number of pollutants,

Define 'pollutants'. Buzzword fallacy.

including greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

No such thing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are AGAIN ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Sure, but it's just the dictionary definition, so you can look it up yourself if you're interested in learning more about the topic.

No, it's ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Depends entirely on what you're looking to get.

No, it doesn't.

If you're looking to signal your membership in the right wing cultural faction, they certainly have less value to you than buying some 20-mpg gas hog.

Bigotry. I don't buy a truck or car to signal membership in anything. That vehicle is for doing work.

If, on the other hand, you're looking to get a lower overall cost of ownership over the life of the car, for most drivers looking to buy a small-to-medium-sized passenger vehicle, an EV will be more economical.

No. Same problem. EV's are too expensive, and it will get worse as limited supplied of lithium become scarce. Already it's getting harder and harder to even FIND an EV available for purchase. They also take too long to recharge.

 

[gfm7175]

Burning gasoline puts out a number of pollutants, including greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

Buzzword soup.

What "pollutants", specifically?
What is a "greenhouse gas"?
What is "global warming"?

Sure, but it's just the dictionary definition, so you can look it up yourself if you're interested in learning more about the topic.

You speak as if there is only one dictionary in existence and that it is "holy" with regard to what any particular word means. You also act as if dictionaries somehow define words. How does a dictionary go about doing that, exactly?

Depends entirely on what you're looking to get. If you're looking to signal your membership in the right wing cultural faction, they certainly have less value to you than buying some 20-mpg gas hog. If, on the other hand, you're looking to get a lower overall cost of ownership over the life of the car, for most drivers looking to buy a small-to-medium-sized passenger vehicle, an EV will be more economical.

You obviously have NO idea what all happens in rural areas nor the requirements for efficiently performing said work in those areas.

 

[Into the Night]

It turns out that's wrong. The premium on an EV's initial purchase price is smaller than the gas savings over the life of a car, when comparing comparable cars, if you drive a normal amount.

Argument from randU fallacy.

Do the math yourself, if you don't believe me.

Right now, the average electricity rate in the US is 10.42 cents per kilowatt-hour. A Nissan Leaf gets 0.31 kWh/mi. So, that's a cost of about 3.23 cents per mile. Right now the average gas price is $4.60. The Nissan Versa, which is the gas equivalent of the Leaf, gets 32 mpg. So, that's about 14.38 cents per mile. So, you save about 11.15 cents per mile driven with the EV car. Consumer reports says the average life expectancy of a new vehicle today is about 150,000 miles. So, over the life of the car, you'll save about $16,725 on fuel, if gas and electricity prices stay where they are. A Leaf costs $27,400. A Versa costs $15,080. So, after accounting for initial cost and fuel cost, over the life of the car you'll spend $4,405 less on the EV. And that's if you don't get a dime of tax credits for the EV, when in fact EV's can come with $7,500 in federal tax credits and up to $2,500 in state tax credits, depending on model, timing, and state. So, any tax credit would further expand the savings for the EV buyer.

Your data is wrong and mostly made up. You are also not factoring in the cost of waiting around for recharging the Leaf, or the cost to install a charging system in your home or the resale value of the car.
The Leaf is not available right now. Shortages, you see. I don't condone communism. Why should I pay for YOUR car?

EV cars are cheaper to service. The US DOE had a study that found EV's cost 6.1 cents per mile to maintain, versus 10.1 cents per mile for combustion-engine vehicles. So, over the course of a 150,000 car lifetime, that would make the EV $6,000 cheaper to maintain. That further increases the gulf between the two. And EV's have 22% lower repair bills:

Made up numbers. Argument from randU. A study is not a proof. EV's are no cheaper to maintain. Only a few shops even have the equipment to handle battery problems.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ele...rvice-maintenance-than-gas-cars-study-2021-10

False authority fallacy. A magazine is not a proof.

If you take the $4,405 lower cost we already calculated, add in both the federal and state credits, and the $6000 in lower maintenance, you're looking at up to $20,000 or so in savings with the EV, over the life of the car.

No, you are looking at communism, made up numbers, and missing numbers.

You'll notice that's a talking point pushed hard by right-wingers and those who routinely dismiss environmental worries in any other context.

Buzzword fallacy. You don't give a damn about 'the environment', whatever THAT is supposed to mean.

So, we're talking about a bad faith argument.

Yes we are. You are using made up numbers, failing to factor in significant costs, and proposing communism. No thanks.

Those with an actual track record of fighting for environmentalism favor EV cars over combustion cars.

Buzzword fallacy. You are not fighting for environmentalism. You are fighting for your religion. The Church of Green and the Church of Global Warming are fundamentalist style religions, both stemming from the Church of Karl Marx.

Time and again actual environmental groups,

I don't give a shit about environmental groups, commies as they are.

government environmental agencies around the world,

I don't give a shit about government environmental agencies, unconstitutional as they are.

and reputable scientists

Science isn't reputation, scientists, degrees, credentials, licenses, or any other form of 'blessing'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It has does not use consensus. It has no voting bloc. It has no politics. It has no religion. Void authority fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

and newspapers

Science isn't newspapers, magazines, journals, websites, papers, or pamphlets.

have looked into this and they all come to the conclusion that EV cars are greener.

A political statement. Denial of science and mathematics.

The only sources that come to the opposite conclusion are petro companies and those on their payrolls.

You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you.
You do, however, get to see the cars on the road today. Only a very small percentage of them are EVs'. The ONLY exception is in nations that are mandating EV's, such as the SDTC, the SOTNY, the SODC, and Norway.

Funny, I was thinking something similar about the lowing herd of morons who obediently follow every wingnut talking point about EV cars, without ever actually bothering to do the math.

Random numbers being used as data is not math.

I'm a numbers gal, so when I looked into this, I didn't just accept anyone's talking points.

Lie. You accepted the talking points of your religions. You even pointed to the scripture of your religions as 'proof'.

I sat down with data sources and a calculator and figured it out.

These are not data sources. These are numbers made up. That's a random number of type randU. Using them as data is a fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Buzzword soup.

What "pollutants", specifically?
What is a "greenhouse gas"?
What is "global warming"?


You speak as if there is only one dictionary in existence and that it is "holy" with regard to what any particular word means. You also act as if dictionaries somehow define words. How does a dictionary go about doing that, exactly?


You obviously have NO idea what all happens in rural areas nor the requirements for efficiently performing said work in those areas.

This is obvious. Stupid city kid, thinking they know everything.

 

[Into the Night]

My view of people that make asinine statements like that is they are too fucking lazy to work and earn enough money for a truck so they have to buy a leaf or prius ( deemed throwaway cars around here). The price of an EV and trade in value more than off sets the fuel costs and not to mention when an EV goes down there are only a handful of people that can fix them at a premium price. Buying a lithium powered car in no way says you care about the environment as the cradle to grave on lithium powered cars is much worse than a combustion engine car. People who buy them are like cattle, they have to be told when to eat, sleep, and shit buy their government masters. I had you pegged for a dumbass, thanks for showing me I was right

Bingo. You'll notice that the 'proof' of the benefits of an EV come directly from the government masters, and the Church of Green and the Church of Global Warming, even the data that was used. Then he comes right now and touts the benefits of communism.

Communism is a form of socialism. It is theft of wealth.

 

[gfm7175]

My view of people that make asinine statements like that is they are too fucking lazy to work and earn enough money for a truck so they have to buy a leaf or prius ( deemed throwaway cars around here). The price of an EV and trade in value more than off sets the fuel costs and not to mention when an EV goes down there are only a handful of people that can fix them at a premium price. Buying a lithium powered car in no way says you care about the environment as the cradle to grave on lithium powered cars is much worse than a combustion engine car. People who buy them are like cattle, they have to be told when to eat, sleep, and shit buy their government masters. I had you pegged for a dumbass, thanks for showing me I was right

Nailed it!

 

[Mina]

No. I could pay for the gas for five years and still come out cheaper.

What makes you think that? I'd like to see your math.

Void argument fallacy. Define 'normal'.

In this case, I'm actually using the average. If you do the math either in terms of what the average person drives per year, times five years, or if you do it in terms of what Consumer Reports says is the average number of miles over the life of the car, the math comes out similarly, by showing that gas savings wind up being substantially greater than the value of the initial price premium on the vehicles.

No, I won't. They are still more expensive.

What makes you think that?

EV's take hours to days to recharge, depending on the charger.

The timing varies depending on the level of the charger, and the capacity of the battery. With a Nissan leaf, it's about one hour to fully charge with a rapid charger. With a charger that pulls about what a typical electric oven does, it would be about 6 hours from empty to full. With just a normal 120-volt wall outlet, it's 20 hours. However, that's taking it from empty to full. If you're plugging it in every night when you park, you're typically only recharging whatever you spent during the day. If you live 20 miles from work and just drove there and back, you need 40 miles of charge. Even with a normal wall outlet, it'll be topped up in eight hours, while you sleep. And with something more substantial (even just what you'd have with an electric oven or dryer outlet), it would take a lot less time than that.

2-3 minutes. Big hairy deal.

2-3 for the fill, then there's the driving to and from the station, and potentially waiting for a pump. One of the advantages of an electric vehicle is you effectively start every day with a "full tank," so you never spend any time on any of that, and don't even need to think about it, if you're just doing a normal commute.