Any of You Left Wing Morons Have An Electric Car?

[Plasmodium]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

You thought something that most others didn't agree with?   Say it ain't so.

mspart

It is lonely at the top!!

[Husker_Du]

based on the replies it appears that everyone here agrees.

So why do people buy electric cars? 

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

based on the replies it appears that everyone here agrees.

So why do people buy electric cars? 

Most of the ones I know bought Teslas.  They like to be early adopters of technology and they like the power.  It is the former more than anything.  I haven't bought a car in a long time, but I'm considering a Ford Lightning when my number comes up in a few years.

[Husker_Du]

they (Ford Lightenings) are pretty sharp looking. 

[Plasmodium]

1 minute ago, Husker_Du said:

they (Ford Lightenings) are pretty sharp looking. 

Yeah, they look good.  Advertised performance is good also.

[mspart]

Dragging a trailer or hauling a load as a work truck not so good.   Need a portable charging station.   If only Tesla could have developed his electricity through the air idea. 

mspart

[Gus]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

Dragging a trailer or hauling a load as a work truck not so good.   Need a portable charging station.   If only Tesla could have developed his electricity through the air idea. 

mspart

Maybe you could pull a two trailers behind your truck. One filled with charged up $20k backup truck batteries and one with whatever you need to haul.

[mspart]

Hey, now there's an idea!!   That is some out of the box thinking.  

If this didn't happen, what about the poor slobs that get caught in between cities with low/no charge left?   I'm thinking specifically west of the Mississippi where towns can be quite far apart.   Tough to hitchhike to the charging station and back to pour a coulomb or two of charge into the batteries.    That's a must tow situation.   Hopefully the EV tow truck has enough charge to get that done. 

mspart

[PortaJohn]

2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Most of the ones I know bought Teslas.  They like to be early adopters of technology and they like the power.  It is the former more than anything.  I haven't bought a car in a long time, but I'm considering a Ford Lightning when my number comes up in a few years.

The capable torque on an EV is unmatched. 

[ionel]

1 hour ago, Gus said:

Maybe you could pull a two trailers behind your truck. One filled with charged up $20k backup truck batteries and one with whatever you need to haul.

Good grief no.  Just put a wind turbine on top your trailer.  

[GreatWhiteNorth]

8 hours ago, PortaJohn said:

The capable torque on an EV is unmatched. 

Yet not capable of pushing a snowplow. 

Lightnings aren't work trucks.

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 10/27/2023 at 1:13 AM, Husker_Du said:

 

A foundation funded by Exxon, says electric cars are bad? Shocking. Next at 9, dog chases cat.  

DoE says an average of $.16 /kWh equates to about $60/month. 

Who would have a bigger incentive to lie? A company that has financial interest in oil or a government with no financial interest in EVs. Only a 'supposed' interest in the environment. 

[headshuck]

Remember when people used to buy pickup trucks to pick things up and move those things to other places?

Now they cost $100k after fleecing tax payers for $7500.00 credit so the wealthy can say they are saving the planet.

[Wrestleknownothing]

I have been thinking about switching to an EV for a year or so now. My wife has a good old fashion gas guzzling SUV we can use for long trips and, with a recent move, my commute is down to 2 miles each way when I decide to drive to work. Given how little I now drive my car and always locally, the idea of an EV intrigues me. Also, I have switched to a lot of battery powered tools and I love them.

I have not done the math on them, but I am pretty sure the math Texas Policy did is wrong based purely on the number they came up with. If you are not skeptical when you see a number like $17.33 per gallon then I know a number of "financial advisors" that will want to talk with you. That they are currently banned from the industry, or serving jail, or both should not dissuade you in any way.

But off the top of my head Texas Policy talks about the "cost of owning", but then include "costs" imposed on others. I put costs in quotation marks because they also use some questionable arguments/assumptions to calculate those costs to others before imposing them on the owner. For example, they do not do any netting. While there may be costs to others, what about the savings you are imposing on others? Nope, lets ignore those. Anyway...

I have been meaning to look into the true cost of ownership: cost of electricity, cost of car, insurance, cost of inconvenience, etc. for some time. I just haven't. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 10/27/2023 at 1:51 PM, Husker_Du said:

this was the point of starting the topic.

it doesn't save money and it doesn't help the environment.

Should perfect be the enemy of the good? Keeping us from doing anything. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, headshuck said:

Remember when people used to buy pickup trucks to pick things up and move those things to other places?

Now they cost $100k after fleecing tax payers for $7500.00 credit so the wealthy can say they are saving the planet.

Typically a new thing that doesn't yet, but could potentially make change for the better, is set at a price point that mostly wealthy people could buy. Or someone who feels a sense of duty, obligation, ambition, or patriotism makes a financial sacrifice to buy that new thing. If the market deems it a worthy investment the prices go down as the new thing is improved upon. Making it a benefit to more and more people. 

ICE cars are a great example of that. 

Steel. 

Computers.

Cell phones. 

And the people that fear the world that might be if these things take off, always say the same things that you're saying and usually for the same reasons. Care to tell us yours?

[mspart]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Should perfect be the enemy of the good? Keeping us from doing anything. 

Improvement would be a good start.   They have not shown improvement.   They cost more, don't go as far, are not as easy to refill, and when the batteries go out, a big layout to get new ones.   Trucks are even worse as no business would use one for their business because you can't haul anything with them.   That's a big deficit.   No they are not perfect.   They are not even an improvement over what we have except in the emission realm.   There has to be  more to get people to move that direction.  

The hybrid is a better situation.  Small engine that charges the batteries, smaller batteries that are also charged when braking.   More fuel efficient, thus less CO2 emitted.   And the minuses of the EV are not attached to the hybrid. 

Fuel cell might be the better way to go, no emissions at all other than H2O.  We are still a long way off from nuclear powered cars.   Not sure that should be in the hands of just any Joe. 

mspart

[ionel]

3 hours ago, headshuck said:

Remember when people used to buy pickup trucks to pick things up and move those things to other places?

Now they cost $100k after fleecing tax payers for $7500.00 credit so the wealthy can say they are saving the planet.

And yet there are still these 

my brother has one except its a diesel King Ranch (its the nice truck 8' bed) and I was using it just a couple weeks ago to pull the 20,000 lb loaded seed tender.  Its built for pulling & hauling stuff.  He has 3 other pickup trucks all have 250k or 350k+ miles on them.  There is no time to stop & charge vehicles.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

Improvement would be a good start.   They have not shown improvement.   They cost more, don't go as far, are not as easy to refill, and when the batteries go out, a big layout to get new ones.   Trucks are even worse as no business would use one for their business because you can't haul anything with them.   That's a big deficit.   No they are not perfect.   They are not even an improvement over what we have except in the emission realm.   There has to be  more to get people to move that direction.  

The hybrid is a better situation.  Small engine that charges the batteries, smaller batteries that are also charged when braking.   More fuel efficient, thus less CO2 emitted.   And the minuses of the EV are not attached to the hybrid. 

Fuel cell might be the better way to go, no emissions at all other than H2O.  We are still a long way off from nuclear powered cars.   Not sure that should be in the hands of just any Joe. 

mspart

Granted, fuel economy and safety has improved immensely. 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1237-may-9-2022-fuel-economy-all-vehicle-classes-has-improved

We are traveling nearly twice as far on the same amount of gas. That it will be difficult product to replace is a testament to how much it has advanced and how good it really is. If our infrastructure and economy can adapt to EVs the way it did with ICEs and then we see the big jump that we saw in fuel economy(like the leaps they are predicting with solid state batteries, TODAY!), then the ICE will be nothing but a memory for kids alive today. 

Also, the fuel cell stuff. Great technology. Lots of possibilities. What did the guy say in Armageddon? Wouldn't trust some with a potato gun let alone a nuclear car. 

[mspart]

14 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

like the leaps they are predicting with solid state batteries, TODAY!

 

Ah yes, the solid state battery.   That may be a game changer if it works as advertised.  The other problem with EVs are they are dependent on an already fragile electrical grid.   If we all change to them, then we will over stress the electrical production machine that we have right now.   This is just part of the problems those on the EV side jumped to without thinking this through.   This chart shows we have a long ways to go to be carbon neutral in our electrical generation.  This from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 

 

And if the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, then you have to have something else to fall back on.   You cannot just start and stop generating plants like a light switch.   They take time to get  on line.  So they would have to be running in a backup mode to cover any shortfalls.   That is not really a great solution. 

mspart

[ThreePointTakedown]

4 minutes ago, mspart said:

Ah yes, the solid state battery.   That may be a game changer if it works as advertised.  The other problem with EVs are they are dependent on an already fragile electrical grid.   If we all change to them, then we will over stress the electrical production machine that we have right now.   This is just part of the problems those on the EV side jumped to without thinking this through.   This chart shows we have a long ways to go to be carbon neutral in our electrical generation.  This from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 

 

And if the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, then you have to have something else to fall back on.   You cannot just start and stop generating plants like a light switch.   They take time to get  on line.  So they would have to be running in a backup mode to cover any shortfalls.   That is not really a great solution. 

mspart

Yes, if ALL of those things happen then power will stop flowing. If the grid is upgraded(don't get me started on power companies and their motivations/reasoning for making upgrades to the power grid) to a sufficient extent and the power is supplied from a large number of sources(ie, home solar, wind, sea, maybe go back to nuclear like you said before but different then in the past, or any one of a number of other things that are in the works) that scenario will likely never play out. Right now the risk is not spread very evenly. So it could be more prone to failure(looking at you Texas). As in all things if it is accepted then it could very well replace a staple of our current economy. Some companies don't want to see that happen. Those motivations may not be in the best interest of the country or the world. 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

15 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Yes, if ALL of those things happen then power will stop flowing. If the grid is upgraded(don't get me started on power companies and their motivations/reasoning for making upgrades to the power grid) to a sufficient extent and the power is supplied from a large number of sources(ie, home solar, wind, sea, maybe go back to nuclear like you said before but different then in the past, or any one of a number of other things that are in the works) that scenario will likely never play out. Right now the risk is not spread very evenly. So it could be more prone to failure(looking at you Texas). As in all things if it is accepted then it could very well replace a staple of our current economy. Some companies don't want to see that happen. Those motivations may not be in the best interest of the country or the world. 

What makes you think the power companies will suddenly change their stripes and become 'good guys' when we are all even that much more dependent on them?

"Go back to nuclear" ... "but different"? What would 'different' nuclear look like? Fusion would be great, but we're not close to that yet. 

Your ideas are fine. Ideas are good. Keep at it.

But don't forget that ideas put out for public review do have to at least pass the most basic critical thinking tests if you expect anything but a negative response.

[ionel]

16 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

What makes you think the power companies will suddenly change their stripes and become 'good guys' when we are all even that much more dependent on them?

"Go back to nuclear" ... "but different"? What would 'different' nuclear look like? Fusion would be great, but we're not close to that yet. 

Your ideas are fine. Ideas are good. Keep at it.

But don't forget that ideas put out for public review do have to at least pass the most basic critical thinking tests if you expect anything but a negative response.

What makes you think they aren't 'good guys?'

[GreatWhiteNorth]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

What makes you think they aren't 'good guys?'

The post I was replying to.

[ionel]

4 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

The post I was replying to.

Re-read it but don't see it.