Reality check on electric cars

[Mina]

You are locked in this paradox. Irrational.

Define 'pollutants'. Buzzword fallacy.

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.

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

No, it doesn't.

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

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.

Trolling.

 

[Mina]

Argument from randU fallacy.

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?

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.

False authority fallacy. A magazine is not a proof.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

A political statement. Denial of science and mathematics.

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.

Random numbers being used as data is not math.

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

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.

Trolling.

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

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.



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.



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.



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.

I don't drive a normal amount dimwit as I have stated over and over. An EV will not overcome $30k in extra cost on the front end in fuel savings, they are a loser on the bottom line

 

[Mina]

I don't drive a normal amount [vastly superior human] as I have stated over and over.

Understood. If you drive more than most people, you'd make up for the higher up-front cost of the EV more quickly, and would wind up much better off in the long haul. But if you don't drive much, you may never have enough gas and maintenance savings to recoup that higher initial cost.

An EV will not overcome $30k in extra cost....

Usually the gap isn't that big. Like the Leaf is $30,750 versus $15,380 for the Versa. The Mini Cooper ev is $29,900, versus $22,900 for the base model. The Chevy Bolt is $31,500, versus $19,049 for the Sonic. The Tesla Model 3 is $46,990, versus $35,000 for a Mercedes A-Class. The Tesla Model S is $99,990, versus $69,200 for the Audi A7. So, if you're looking for a really high-end vehicle, like a truck or luxury car, it's possible for the gap to be around $30k, but for most EV's, you're looking at a starting price of more like $10k-$15k over the combustion equivalent. Depending on whether they're eligible for the tax credits, that could be knocked down by $7,500 or even $10,000.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Understood. If you drive more than most people, you'd make up for the higher up-front cost of the EV more quickly, and would wind up much better off in the long haul. But if you don't drive much, you may never have enough gas and maintenance savings to recoup that higher initial cost.



Usually the gap isn't that big. Like the Leaf is $30,750 versus $15,380 for the Versa. The Mini Cooper ev is $29,900, versus $22,900 for the base model. The Chevy Bolt is $31,500, versus $19,049 for the Sonic. The Tesla Model 3 is $46,990, versus $35,000 for a Mercedes A-Class. The Tesla Model S is $99,990, versus $69,200 for the Audi A7. So, if you're looking for a really high-end vehicle, like a truck or luxury car, it's possible for the gap to be around $30k, but for most EV's, you're looking at a starting price of more like $10k-$15k over the combustion equivalent. Depending on whether they're eligible for the tax credits, that could be knocked down by $7,500 or even $10,000.

i like it when you talk about slim gaps.

 

[Mina]

i like it when you talk about slim gaps.

I like it when you indirectly admit you're out of your depth.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I like it when you indirectly admit you're out of your depth.

so you're starving for a fix?

 

[Mina]

so you're starving for a fix?

No. Well satiated.

 

[Into the Night]

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

RQAA.

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.

Math errors: Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to use unbiased raw data. Failure to raw data.
Logic errors: Compositional error fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy.

What makes you think that?

RQAA

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.

Define 'normal commute'. Why not just take the bus? Compositional error fallacy.

2-3 for the fill, then there's the driving to and from the station, and potentially waiting for a pump.

I'm usually already driving by a station, and I don't have to wait for a pump.

I see Teslas waiting for charging stations quite a lot though.

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.

Only because of your very limited driving habits and your discounting the eight hours it took to recover even from that. You are also still ignoring costs associated with the purchase, use, and resale value of an EV.

No, you can't use government numbers, they are made up.
No, you can't use sales propaganda (except stating MSRP).
No, you can't use propaganda sites that have an agenda to push EVs.

If you want to drive a Leaf, feel free. Won't work for me. Won't work for most people. They are not choosing to drive them for a reason. You don't see many Honda Leafs on the road. it's your wallet and your choice. If you want to spend money that way and think you are somehow 'saving the planet', that's your religion.

But you are not saving the planet, and you are not saving money.

 

[Into the Night]

Trolling.

Trolling.

Trolling.

Trolling.

This seems to be your go to chant when you have no further arguments and can provide no counterargument.
Apparently you think science and math is 'trolling'.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't drive a normal amount dimwit as I have stated over and over. An EV will not overcome $30k in extra cost on the front end in fuel savings, they are a loser on the bottom line

Of course you drive a normal amount...for you.

Just what is a 'normal amount'? Mina seems to think a short commute only. A typical stupid city kid view.

 

[Mina]

RQAA.

Math errors: Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to use unbiased raw data. Failure to raw data.
Logic errors: Compositional error fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy.

RQAA

Define 'normal commute'. Why not just take the bus? Compositional error fallacy.

Trolling.

I'm usually already driving by a station, and I don't have to wait for a pump.

OK. Others have to go out of their way and wait. Whether or not you factor that extra time in would depend on your individual situations.

I see Teslas waiting for charging stations quite a lot though.

I see internal-combustion-engine car drivers weeping on the side of the road rending their garments and bewailing the fates for their poor decision not to buy an EV. Aren't unverifiable anecdotes fun?!

You are also still ignoring costs associated with the purchase, use, and resale value of an EV.

I'm not. If you check back you'll see that I have provided calculations that also factor in the higher resale values of EV's, which further expands their edge over comparable combustion-engine cars.

No, you can't use government numbers, they are made up.
No, you can't use sales propaganda (except stating MSRP).
No, you can't use propaganda sites that have an agenda to push EVs.

Trolling. Step up your game, little one.

If you want to drive a Leaf, feel free. Won't work for me

Understood. If the point of the vehicle is to compensate for sexual inadequacy, it's going to take something with more heft. Some people are going to be willing to have a significantly higher cost of ownership over the life of the car in order to feel less emasculated by their advancing years. But it works for a lot of people, and given the fast growth of the share of cars that are EV's, it's clear that more and more people are finding it works for them, too.

 

[Mina]

This seems to be your go to chant when you have no further arguments and can provide no counterargument.

No, it's what I write when someone didn't even bother making a point at all, but instead simply tried to provoke an emotional response with a vague dismissal. In those cases, I have no urge to waste my time pretending there's something there worthy of a specific response.

For example, picture if one poster takes the time to actually pull the official mpg numbers for gas vehicles, and also the range and charge numbers for electric equivalents, and then does the math to show relative fuel costs over time. Now picture that a particularly pathetic person were to respond with a limp-wristed dodge like "No, you can't use government numbers, they are made up."

That's just trolling. It offers no alternate source, much less an argument for why other figures are better. It just tries to erase the inconvenient data by way of a completely unsubstantiated assertion. That's not worthy of any response, unless it be to laugh in the face of the twerp. So, rather than typing a lot in response to that bad-faith move, I simply call it out for the trolling that it is.

So, there's really no use blubbering like a little bitch about it. If you want your argument addressed, you first have to bother making one.

 

[Into the Night]

Understood. If you drive more than most people,

you'd make up for the higher up-front cost of the EV more quickly, and would wind up much better off in the long haul.[/QUOTE]
I don't think he wants to wait to recharge it.

But if you don't drive much, you may never have enough gas and maintenance savings to recoup that higher initial cost.

So you are denying your own argument. Gotit. You just said you don't drive your car much.

Usually the gap isn't that big. Like the Leaf is $30,750 versus $15,380 for the Versa. The Mini Cooper ev is $29,900, versus $22,900 for the base model. The Chevy Bolt is $31,500, versus $19,049 for the Sonic. The Tesla Model 3 is $46,990, versus $35,000 for a Mercedes A-Class. The Tesla Model S is $99,990, versus $69,200 for the Audi A7. So, if you're looking for a really high-end vehicle, like a truck or luxury car, it's possible for the gap to be around $30k, but for most EV's, you're looking at a starting price of more like $10k-$15k over the combustion equivalent. Depending on whether they're eligible for the tax credits, that could be knocked down by $7,500 or even $10,000.

Apples are not oranges.

 

[Into the Night]

Trolling.

So you have no counterargument again. You'll just continue to chant your religion and ignore the math and logic errors you are making.

OK. Others have to go out of their way and wait. Whether or not you factor that extra time in would depend on your individual situations.

Special pleading fallacy.

I see internal-combustion-engine car drivers weeping on the side of the road rending their garments and bewailing the fates for their poor decision not to buy an EV. Aren't unverifiable anecdotes fun?!

Not an anecdote. The data is verifiable. Go out and look at what's on the road.

I'm not. If you check back you'll see that I have provided calculations that also factor in the higher resale values of EV's, which further expands their edge over comparable combustion-engine cars.

Math errors: already stated.
Logic errors: already stated. Argument by repetition fallacy.

Trolling. Step up your game, little one.

Your chant again. So you have no other sources than made up numbers by government and propaganda.

Understood. If the point of the vehicle is to compensate for sexual inadequacy, it's going to take something with more heft. Some people are going to be willing to have a significantly higher cost of ownership over the life of the car in order to feel less emasculated by their advancing years. But it works for a lot of people, and given the fast growth of the share of cars that are EV's, it's clear that more and more people are finding it works for them, too.

It obviously doesn't work for a lot of people. You are hallucinating. There are not that many Honda Leafs on the road. That's for a reason.

 

[gfm7175]

There are not that many Honda Leafs on the road. That's for a reason.

True.

In my personal experience, I tend to only see electric and hybrid type vehicles (e.g. Prius, Bolt, Volt, etc) within Madison (and I would imagine within Milwaukee as well, but I never go there). However, I even avoid Madison all that I can, and outside of the Madison area, I all but never see the damned things. People overwhelmingly prefer ICE vehicles.

 

[Mina]

you'd make up for the higher up-front cost of the EV more quickly, and would wind up much better off in the long haul.

I don't think he wants to wait to recharge it.

So you are denying your own argument. Gotit. You just said you don't drive your car much.


Apples are not oranges.[/QUOTE]

Trolling.

 

[Mina]

So you have no counterargument again. You'll just continue to chant your religion and ignore the math and logic errors you are making.

Special pleading fallacy.

Not an anecdote. The data is verifiable. Go out and look at what's on the road.

Math errors: already stated.
Logic errors: already stated. Argument by repetition fallacy.

Your chant again. So you have no other sources than made up numbers by government and propaganda.


It obviously doesn't work for a lot of people. You are hallucinating. There are not that many Honda Leafs on the road. That's for a reason.

Trolling.

Seriously, little one, you need to step up your game. This is getting sad.

 

[Mina]

There are not that many Honda Leafs on the road. That's for a reason.

Yes: the reason being that Honda has never made a vehicle called the Leaf.

 

[Into the Night]

No, it's what I write when someone didn't even bother making a point at all,

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

but instead simply tried to provoke an emotional response with a vague dismissal.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

In those cases, I have no urge to waste my time pretending there's something there worthy of a specific response.

So you give a vague dismissal.

For example, picture if one poster takes the time to actually pull the official mpg numbers for gas vehicles, and also the range and charge numbers for electric equivalents, and then does the math to show relative fuel costs over time.

Random numbers are not data.

Now picture that a particularly pathetic person were to respond with a limp-wristed dodge like "No, you can't use government numbers, they are made up."

They are made up.

That's just trolling.

No. It's just pointing out that you are using random numbers as data.

It offers no alternate source,

RQAA

much less an argument for why other figures are better.

RQAA.

It just tries to erase the inconvenient data

You are not using data. Random numbers are not data.

by way of a completely unsubstantiated assertion.

RQAA.

That's not worthy of any response, unless it be to laugh in the face of the twerp.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

So, rather than typing a lot in response to that bad-faith move, I simply call it out for the trolling that it is.

Buzzword fallacy.

So, there's really no use blubbering like a little bitch about it. If you want your argument addressed, you first have to bother making one.

Already did. RQAA.