Electric cars.

[RichardBartlett]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Gotcha. FINALLY on this thread I am understanding viewpoints and they are sounding rational. That is not an insult to you specifically, but a lot of people have just seemed to …. Oh anyway moving forward.

And excellent point about Hybrids, hell I am on my second and seriously debating whether to buy my third, or go EV. That’s a topic for another thread but my point about saving the human race. I truly believe if we continue to burn fossil fuels for a few hundred years as our main energy source we are doomed. Won’t oil someday run out? And this constant burning of O2 and replacement with CO2…. I am not a scientist but my common sense tells me we can not do this to the ecosystem forever without serious environmental consequences. We can debate that forever as well, and I completely understand the challenges of transitioning to a sustainable, clean energy source is a tremendous challenge, but IMHO, it is essential for our survival. My belief and hope is this transition to EVs will be a catalyst for this transition. In itself, it will not solve energy problems, but maybe it will push us in the right direction.

That is all.

In school in the 70's UK we were told with stern authority that oil would run out by 2000. That's it, that's your lot, the end, goodnight all.

What wasn't factored in was how technology advances to find new oil wells in places thought totally beyond the level of the day and in fact places they hadn't even thought of..

its will be the same with battery tech, charging and EV's.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Nickn

My very smug Tesla driving friend clipped the curb during the Uk’s recent 4” of snow
He then drove 10 miles to work
Before a load of warning lights came on
The wheel was held together by the sound deadening material
it cost £750 for a new wheel
But they couldn’t turn off the warning lights
It turns out the hub was damaged his been quoted over £4000 but the hubs are on back order
I think I’ll stick with my old diesel Mercedes s class

Ridiculous. If you want to state Teslas are poorly made POS, I am not going to argue with you, I think you are right. There are lots of QA problem’s reported about Tesla. NEWSFLASH: There are poorly made ICE vehicles too and here is some more information for you: There are OTHER EV manufacturers besides Tesla. I am not sure, but I believe Polestar, which is the EV division of Volvo has the best rating, (but will have to look it up).

Stating EVs are bad because one manufacturer has Quality issues is like saying all ICE vehicles are bad because Kia, or Renault, or any number of bad manufacturers make crappy vehicles.

[MILGAUSS88]

Originally Posted by Nickn

I don’t know how low income families will be able to afford an ev
My youngest has just past his test so I bought him a perfectly serviceable Vauxhall Astra for £400
I just cannot see a time when an equivalent ev will be this cheap

They won't be able to. They will get to ride the bus. The great thing about EV's is you can discriminate against the poor without a guilty conscience. (Bitter sarcasm there.) But really i think that is what the plan is. Driving will only be for the rich. Mass transit might be feasible in larger cities. But what about small communities. Oh well, screw them too.

A lot of low income families do not have a garage. So, instead of saving money by charging at home they would have to pay more than they would for gas at the charging stations. Good plan, rich pay less, poor pay more. Not equal like it is now.

Have your buddy replace the engine for $1,000.... Nope, more like $10,000 for a bunch of batteries.

The financial burden on lower and middle income families, just one of the many problems that is not being talked about.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by RichardBartlett

In school in the 70's UK we were told with stern authority that oil would run out by 2000. That's it, that's your lot, the end, goodnight all.

What wasn't factored in was how technology advances to find new oil wells in places thought totally beyond the level of the day and in fact places they hadn't even thought of..

its will be the same with battery tech, charging and EV's.

Agree! In a few years we may have batteries that charge in a minute and have 700 mile range and who knows what else!

[daveathall]

Here's my prediction; I am 65, if you are 45 now, by the time you reach my age, your new car will be an EV.

[MILGAUSS88]

Hot off the press's:

KPMG reports automotive executives are less bullish than they were last year about the adoption of electric vehicles.

For the U.S., the median expectation for EV sales was 35% of the new vehicle market by 2030 — down from 65% a year earlier.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/20/auto...ears-kpmg.html

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by daveathall

Here's my prediction; I am 65, if you are 45 now, by the time you reach my age, your new car will be an EV.

I’m with you my British friend

[Krash]

Originally Posted by JasoninDenver

So….

They haven't figured out a way to put streetlights in these neighborhoods either?

yeah, so?

How is that helpful?

[Krash]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Oh, I see, so to use a gasoline car you must either have a pump at your house or live in a gas station. No, when you need gas you go to a gas station, when you need electricity you go to a CHARGING station. Simple. Now, two inconveniences EV compared to Gas.

1., there are not as many Charging stations as gas. This is quickly changing. Here in CA you are seeing a lot of dual use, and every single day the number of charging stations increases. I know there is a long way to go, but every day we get closer.

2. It takes longer to charge then fill up with gasoline. True. A super charger can charge an EV to 300 miles in about 20 minutes, a typical gas fill up takes five. We are improving and some day the times will be equal, but I agree it is an inconvenience until that day arrives. What about the inconvenience of time getting oil changes-in your ICE? Something not required in an EV along with other maintenance you can skip, how much time does that save.?

Saying you can’t own an EV because you live in an apartment is like saying you can’t own an ICE because you don’t live in a gas station or have a pump in your living room.

You're being silly. Of course we don't have gas pumps at our homes.

No offense intended, but you have repeatedly used analogies that are over the top.

If people can't charge their EVs at night while they're sleeping, then of course that's a pretty big limitiation for many. Actually a deal breaker for the masses.

[Blansky]

It seems like there are 3 arguments going on here from the anti-EV people.

Climate change deniers who don't think we need them.

People who don't think there will be infrastructure to support it.

And anti govt people who think the change should be organic.

Climate change deniers can't be argued with so that's a waste of time. I think infrastructure will come and pretty rapidly. And thinking this move away from oil companies could possibly happen without govt intervention would take until all the oil is gone from beneath the earth.

The oil companies own research from 50 years ago told them that their products were damaging the planet but they just hid the research and paid people to deny it to milk the resource as long as they could.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Gotcha. FINALLY on this thread I am understanding viewpoints and they are sounding rational. That is not an insult to you specifically, but a lot of people have just seemed to …. Oh anyway moving forward.

And excellent point about Hybrids, hell I am on my second and seriously debating whether to buy my third, or go EV. That’s a topic for another thread but my point about saving the human race. I truly believe if we continue to burn fossil fuels for a few hundred years as our main energy source we are doomed. Won’t oil someday run out? And this constant burning of O2 and replacement with CO2…. I am not a scientist but my common sense tells me we can not do this to the ecosystem forever without serious environmental consequences. We can debate that forever as well, and I completely understand the challenges of transitioning to a sustainable, clean energy source is a tremendous challenge, but IMHO, it is essential for our survival. My belief and hope is this transition to EVs will be a catalyst for this transition. In itself, it will not solve energy problems, but maybe it will push us in the right direction.

That is all.

If you must do something to save the planet, buying a hybrid makes more sense. I bought my first Prius in 2004 when the gen 2’s came to the US. When the gen 3’s came out I looked into a Tesla, but the buy in was too high. The money I saved not buying the Tesla paid for all the fuel, insurance, and maintenance for the Prius for the time I had it, plus a new Rolex. Compared to a Prius, EVs are still outrageously expensive.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Blansky

It seems like there are 3 arguments going on here from the anti-EV people.

Climate change deniers who don't think we need them.

People who don't think there will be infrastructure to support it.

And anti govt people who think the change should be organic.

Climate change deniers can't be argued with so that's a waste of time. I think infrastructure will come and pretty rapidly. And thinking this move away from oil companies could possibly happen without govt intervention would take until all the oil is gone from beneath the earth.

The oil companies own research from 50 years ago told them that their products were damaging the planet but they just hid the research and paid people to deny it to milk the resource as long as they could.

I haven’t seen any climate change deniers on this thread. Saying the climate is changing independent of human activity is not denying that it’s changing.

Throwing out the denier card is a cop out for lack of an informed counter argument. It is akin to the race card in that it’s intended to end the discussion without accepting that there is merit in another point of view.

[JasoninDenver]

Originally Posted by Krash

yeah, so?

How is that helpful?

If we have conduits and utility tunnels already serving utilities to these neighborhoods why would it be impossible to put a pay charging station at several locations on a block? It is imminently scalable as needs and demand expands.

I agree it will be expensive, but the users can pay like we do at a gas station, right?

I mean, we all pay for the pipeline infrastructure, trucking fees and gas station capital costs in the price of our gas…. How would this be any different?

Even in high rise development this can be done and probably even more cost effectively.

[JasoninDenver]

Originally Posted by Krash

You're being silly. Of course we don't have gas pumps at our homes.

No offense intended, but you have repeatedly used analogies that are over the top.

If people can't charge their EVs at night while they're sleeping, then of course that's a pretty big limitiation for many. Actually a deal breaker for the masses.

Wouldn’t you agree that ev efficiency and charging capabilities are at an early stage in the tech progression? I think many opponents here are implicitly ssuming that nothing will change with ev.

I agree with you that the current state of development does make it an unattractive and infeasible option for many right now. These consumers still have a choice of ICE or hybrid engines.

Personally, I am on the fence as to ev or hybrid to meet my needs, as is Paul. My wife, however, is the perfect ev target user.

However, the pace of progress will rapidly narrow or close the gap and I think this is the main point of disagreement between the two camps here.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Maleg

I haven’t seen any climate change deniers on this thread. Saying the climate is changing independent of human activity is not denying that it’s changing.

Throwing out the denier card is a cop out for lack of an informed counter argument. It is akin to the race card in that it’s intended to end the discussion without accepting that there is merit in another point of view.

Yes but that argument has morphed over time. First it was denial then it was that it wasn't man made.

As our weather started getting worse it became obvious, so then it became that it was just happening but not man made.

The next argument will be that it's too late to do anything about it so lets just party.

[Nickn]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Ridiculous. If you want to state Teslas are poorly made POS, I am not going to argue with you, I think you are right. There are lots of QA problem’s reported about Tesla. NEWSFLASH: There are poorly made ICE vehicles too and here is some more information for you: There are OTHER EV manufacturers besides Tesla. I am not sure, but I believe Polestar, which is the EV division of Volvo has the best rating, (but will have to look it up).

Stating EVs are bad because one manufacturer has Quality issues is like saying all ICE vehicles are bad because Kia, or Renault, or any number of bad manufacturers make crappy vehicles.

Where did I say it was poorly made?
An alloy wheel is an alloy wheel
I stated a fact that it cost my friend £750 for a wheel
And that a new hub was going to cost over £4000 when Tesla Milton Keynes can get one
My point is any savings on fuel have been lost

[JasoninDenver]

Originally Posted by Nickn

Where did I say it was poorly made?
An alloy wheel is an alloy wheel
I stated a fact that it cost my friend £750 for a wheel
And that a new hub was going to cost over £4000 when Tesla Milton Keynes can get one
My point is any savings on fuel have been lost

This is one reason I am reluctant to buy a BMW X5. The rims are $1,500 US for the 21”. My neighbor backed into a light pole and the rear bumper cover was $4500.

[Nickn]

And I never stated EV”s were bad just too expensive for the average person
And the savings in fuel
The real reason most people buy them
Isn’t there when it costs £4000+ for a hub
which is on back order so he can’t even drive it
He also cracked the screen nearly a year ago apparently they are no back order also

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Blansky

Yes but that argument has morphed over time. First it was denial then it was that it wasn't man made.

As our weather started getting worse it became obvious, so then it became that it was just happening but not man made.

The next argument will be that it's too late to do anything about it so lets just party.

With the investments in climate research over the last forty years the body of knowledge has transitioned from historical temperature data to advanced geophysical techniques. That the planet began warming long before humans could influence it is not disputed. There is consensus that we are in an interglacial period and should be warmer than before. (As a note, past interglacial periods have been much warmer than the current period)

What is disputable is whether or how much the planet should continue to warm as a natural phenomena and how much influence human activity has on the change. Differentiating natural warming from anthropomorphic warming is at best a guess right now. But certainly, there is no consensus that the rate of change is a crisis or that the end state is harmful to the planet itself or the human status quo.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Blansky

Yes but that argument has morphed over time. First it was denial then it was that it wasn't man made.

As our weather started getting worse it became obvious, so then it became that it was just happening but not man made.

The next argument will be that it's too late to do anything about it so lets just party.

Actually, it’s the the man made climate change argument that morphed over time. It started as global warming. I remember reading articles stating that we would never see snow again starting around 2010 and wasn’t New York City supposed to be flooded by now because of the melting ice caps?

It then morphed to climate change when global warming became too difficult to defend.

Also, nobody on this planet is old enough to say that the weather is getting worse because nobody knows what it was like 500, 1000, 10000 years ago. There were hurricanes, snow storms, etc. back then too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nickn]

Yes It started as global cooling
I was taught this at school in the 70’s
Then global warming now climate change
Follow the money

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Krash

Actually, it’s the the man made climate change argument that morphed over time. It started as global warming. I remember reading articles stating that we would never see snow again starting around 2010 and wasn’t New York City supposed to be flooded by now because of the melting ice caps.

It then morphed to climate change when global warming became too difficult to defend.

Also, nobody on this planet is old enough to say that the weather is getting worse because nobody knows what it was like 500, 1000, 10000 years ago. There were hurricanes, snow storms, etc. back then too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually the term changed because goofballs and R.W. politicians got on the media and said stuff like” how can there be global warming because it snowing outside”.

And “ this is the coldest January we’ve ever had ….global warming can’t be real.”

The petroleum industry has spend millions funding these various groups, politicians, so called think tanks, getting their talking points aligned to snow the public, when their own research knew about it in the 1970s.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...on-study-says/

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Blansky

It seems like there are 3 arguments going on here from the anti-EV people.

Climate change deniers who don't think we need them.

People who don't think there will be infrastructure to support it.

And anti govt people who think the change should be organic.

Climate change deniers can't be argued with so that's a waste of time. I think infrastructure will come and pretty rapidly. And thinking this move away from oil companies could possibly happen without govt intervention would take until all the oil is gone from beneath the earth.

The oil companies own research from 50 years ago told them that their products were damaging the planet but they just hid the research and paid people to deny it to milk the resource as long as they could.

I would argue that it’s a lot more complicated than that. The average mom and dad out there are living pay check to pay check. They’re only interested in purchasing a car that meets their most basic needs, and one that fits within their budget parameters. Fact is, used car sales out number new car sales by almost 3 to 1. That’s the real world.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Blansky

Actually the term changed because goofballs and R.W. politicians got on the media and said stuff like” how can there be global warming because it snowing outside”.

And “ this is the coldest January we’ve ever had ….global warming can’t be real.”

The petroleum industry has spend millions funding these various groups, politicians, so called think tanks, getting their talking points aligned to snow the public, when their own research knew about it in the 1970s.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...on-study-says/

That was fed by claims that it’s no longer going to snow and that New York City would be totally flooded by 2010.

You don’t need a PR campaign from an oil company to know those claims were complete nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krash]

Originally Posted by JasoninDenver

Wouldn’t you agree that ev efficiency and charging capabilities are at an early stage in the tech progression? I think many opponents here are implicitly ssuming that nothing will change with ev.

I agree with you that the current state of development does make it an unattractive and infeasible option for many right now. These consumers still have a choice of ICE or hybrid engines.

Personally, I am on the fence as to ev or hybrid to meet my needs, as is Paul. My wife, however, is the perfect ev target user.

However, the pace of progress will rapidly narrow or close the gap and I think this is the main point of disagreement between the two camps here.

Actually, I am advocate of EVs to the point where I would like to see an equal market (50/50) share between EV and ICE vehicles. You might not believe this by viewing some of my posts, but that's my position on this.

I do agree that EV charging capabilities are at an infant stage and will most certainly improve.

I am against government mandates but I am not sure we need government mandates to achieve a 50/50 market split.

A 50/50 split is a huge advancement. There's just no way to argue against that. It's a huge win.

One benefit of EVs--that is often overlooked--is National Security. There are a lot of bad actors in this world that are very much dependent on producing oil for economic well being. If we had a 50/50 market share between EVs and ICE vehicles, that would literally crush some of these rogue nations.

I am not in the camp where we should completely abolish ICE vehicles. Maybe someday I will be, but definitely not today, and not anytime in the near future.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Krash

That was fed by claims that it’s no longer going to snow and that New York City would be totally flooded by 2010.

You don’t need a PR campaign from an oil company to know those claims were complete nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That sounds like a total straw man argument.

Ridiculous assertion and I’ve never heard anyone claim that nonsense. I d like to see some documentation on that one.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Blansky

That sounds like a total straw man argument.

Ridiculous assertion and I’ve never heard anyone claim that nonsense. I d like to see some documentation on that one.

I would like to see documentation on the “R.W. Politicians” trope you posted about earlier, but that straw man is probably prohibited by forum rules.

Time for some wine and a meaningless NFL game. Enjoy your Christmas

[Nickn]

When did gore say the arctic would be void of ice 2000 2010?

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Krash

You're being silly. Of course we don't have gas pumps at our homes.

No offense intended, but you have repeatedly used analogies that are over the top.

If people can't charge their EVs at night while they're sleeping, then of course that's a pretty big limitiation for many. Actually a deal breaker for the masses.

Of course it is, not being able to charge your car in your garage at house would be a big detractor. It is up to the owner if the benefits, price of gas, no oil changes, etc outweighs that detractor. To suggest it is not possible or even beneficial to own an EV unless you have a garage with 220 charging capability is also not reasonable.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Of course it is, not being able to charge your car in your garage at house would be a big detractor. It is up to the owner if the benefits, price of gas, no oil changes, etc outweighs that detractor. To suggest it is not possible or even beneficial to own an EV unless you have a garage with 220 charging capability is also not reasonable.

If I couldn’t charge mine at home, I wouldn’t have bought it. Just anecdotal