Jump to content

Recommended Posts

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2021/10/23/costs-charge-ev-fuel-car-gas-study/6154204001/

"On a yearly basis, assuming the mid-priced cars traveled 12,000 miles, it would cost  $1,030 to drive an internal combustion car and $1,554 to drive an EV. 

For luxury cars that get 26 miles per gallon and use premium gas at $3.25 a gallon, the cost to drive an internal combustion car 100 miles is $12.60. The cost to drive a luxury EV, such as a Taycan, Tesla Model S or X or Jaguar I-Pace, is $15.52 to travel 100 miles. That is using mostly commercial chargers. "

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true enough today, but these costs and the so-called deadhead mileage will come down as the infrastructure is built up. You're also not including the fact that EVs cost considerably less to maintain. From your link:

Still, he noted there are environmental benefits to EV ownership and costs could come down if there are more reliable commercial charging centers built. Electric cars also require less costly maintenance than gasoline-powered vehicles. 

“Our research is consistent with what President Joe Biden and the Detroit Three have said, which is, a chokepoint for a number of consumers is the lack of infrastructure," Anderson said. "My own experience with an EV is that the biggest challenge is getting them charged so that it’s something you can use on a daily basis.” 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My daily driver could easily be replaced by electric, with less maintenance.  It does mostly short trips and seldom more then 100 miles / day.   The primary road trips are overnight runs to do chores for my mom, allowing recharge overnight.  I will seriously consider a small electric vehicle when this vehicle dies or is totaled by a deer.    The boat hauler, on the other hand, cannot be replaced by electric any time soon.   The electric draw of hauling a pocket cruiser up hills would force charging during the day, in charging stations not able to accommodate a trailer.    Electric just isn't suited for a 10 hour day behind the wheel, with or without trailer.   I suspect many two or three vehicle families will find it economical to run one gasoline engine and one electric for the foreseeable future.   

We incentivize inefficient vehicle choices by not adjusting the gas tax for inflation.   This results in closed bridges and bad roads, while CAFE standards mean trucks and SUVs are barely capable of their supposed designed task, since they have to have fuel efficiency for a single wanna be poser driving back and forth to the office.   As electric vehicles gradually gain market share,  gas tax will become even more insignificant, with more rural bridges closed for several years while states search for funding.   (See SR 124 over the Salamonie River in Indiana, closed for 3 + years with no deck and no activity this summer.)   With Congress unable to agree on infrastructure, our road problems are doomed to continue to degrade us to third world status, especially in 'flyover' territory once you leave the interstates.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lark said:

My daily driver could easily be replaced by electric, with less maintenance.  It does mostly short trips and seldom more then 100 miles / day.   The primary road trips are overnight runs to do chores for my mom, allowing recharge overnight.  I will seriously consider a small electric vehicle when this vehicle dies or is totaled by a deer.    The boat hauler, on the other hand, cannot be replaced by electric any time soon.   The electric draw of hauling a pocket cruiser up hills would force charging during the day, in charging stations not able to accommodate a trailer.    Electric just isn't suited for a 10 hour day behind the wheel, with or without trailer.   I suspect many two or three vehicle families will find it economical to run one gasoline engine and one electric for the foreseeable future.   

We incentivize inefficient vehicle choices by not adjusting the gas tax for inflation.   This results in closed bridges and bad roads, while CAFE standards mean trucks and SUVs are barely capable of their supposed designed task, since they have to have fuel efficiency for a single wanna be poser driving back and forth to the office.   As electric vehicles gradually gain market share,  gas tax will become even more insignificant, with more rural bridges closed for several years while states search for funding.   (See SR 124 over the Salamonie River in Indiana, closed for 3 + years with no deck and no activity this summer.)   With Congress unable to agree on infrastructure, our road problems are doomed to continue to degrade us to third world status, especially in 'flyover' territory once you leave the interstates.

 

Hills are brutal to E-range, and show you how much gas you're burning to go up a hill. We have 1 hybrid, I'd say 70% of the time it's running on E, and most of that is generated by my panels.  It's our primary driver. The SUV is basically the boat runner these days.  I had purchased it for commuting, but haven't done that in quite awhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hertz orders 100,000 Model 3 electric vehicles from Tesla

DETROIT (AP) — Hertz announced Monday that it will buy 100,000 electric vehicles from Tesla, one of the largest purchases of battery-powered cars in history and the latest evidence of the nation’s increasing commitment to EV technology. 

The purchase by one of the world’s leading rental car companies reflects its confidence that electric vehicles are gaining acceptance with environmentally minded consumers as an alternative to vehicles powered by petroleum-burning internal combustion engines. 

In an interview with The Associated Press, Mark Fields, Hertz’ interim CEO, said that Teslas are already arriving at the company’s sites and should be available for rental starting in November. 

Hertz said in its announcement that it will complete its purchases of the Tesla Model 3 small cars by the end of 2022. It also said it will establish its own electric vehicle charging network as it strives to produce the largest rental fleet of electric vehicles in North America. 

The company says it’s buying the Tesla Model 3s by the end of 2022, and it also will buy electric vehicle chargers. No price was given for the order, but it has to be worth around $4 billion because each Model 3 has a base price of around $40,000. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, file) 

 

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/business-lifestyle-travel-car-rental-mark-fields-0da1c7ac07d45682cf101077b62988ab 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite the flawed study. It appears to calculate the cost of charging the electric car they only used commercial chargers and seemingly the most expensive ones they could find. But this "study" is all over the place now. Most people that own electric cars do not exclusively use commercial chargers: they're terribly expensive. 

When I first bought an electric vehicle I did the math. Charging at home, my electric car came out to approximately 1/2 the 'fuel' cost that my 30mpg gasser was. That's even better now since gas here is approaching $5/gal. 

Charging at work, it's free. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gptyk said:

Quite the flawed study. It appears to calculate the cost of charging the electric car they only used commercial chargers and seemingly the most expensive ones they could find. But this "study" is all over the place now. Most people that own electric cars do not exclusively use commercial chargers: they're terribly expensive. 

When I first bought an electric vehicle I did the math. Charging at home, my electric car came out to approximately 1/2 the 'fuel' cost that my 30mpg gasser was. That's even better now since gas here is approaching $5/gal. 

Charging at work, it's free. 

Wait, you mean that the cost to the consumer of a new product that lacks required infrastructure is higher than the existing one?

No shit sherlock.

It's no surprise that one of our resident trolls like quod would grab a total misinformation piece like this.  There are very powerful interests that look to disparage everything they can about electrification.  We know electric cars are going to be more expensive at first.  If you don't think 'horseless carraiges' were more expensive than buggies, you're deluded.  It takes time and infrastructure.  But - cost was never the point of EV's.  It's just what prevents their widespread adoption.  The point of EV's is pollution.  Remember?

Read this.  Slowly.  100 times.  Try to let it sink it.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

Now ask.... why would a study like this even be performed when we know the answer?  Because someone wants to discourage the switch to EVs.  Period.  We know that the infrastructure isn't in place.  We know that it'll be costly to install.  I mean - jesus - you think the goddamn highway system was free?  What IDIOT came up with a horseless buggy that requires us to make and pave roads and stuff?  Horses don't need any of that shit.

Quod's even helping them.  His title is going 'green'.  Perhaps meant as an ironic twist because EV's are supposed to be green and the color of money is green.  Really just designed to muddy the water between this survey saying "SHIT, EV'S Cost MONEY" and the whole point of EV's - LOWERING POLLUTION.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grrr... said:

Wait, you mean that the cost to the consumer of a new product that lacks required infrastructure is higher than the existing one?

No shit sherlock.

It's no surprise that one of our resident trolls like quod would grab a total misinformation piece like this.  There are very powerful interests that look to disparage everything they can about electrification.  We know electric cars are going to be more expensive at first.  If you don't think 'horseless carraiges' were more expensive than buggies, you're deluded.  It takes time and infrastructure.  But - cost was never the point of EV's.  It's just what prevents their widespread adoption.  The point of EV's is pollution.  Remember?

Read this.  Slowly.  100 times.  Try to let it sink it.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

Now ask.... why would a study like this even be performed when we know the answer?  Because someone wants to discourage the switch to EVs.  Period.  We know that the infrastructure isn't in place.  We know that it'll be costly to install.  I mean - jesus - you think the goddamn highway system was free?  What IDIOT came up with a horseless buggy that requires us to make and pave roads and stuff?  Horses don't need any of that shit.

Quod's even helping them.  His title is going 'green'.  Perhaps meant as an ironic twist because EV's are supposed to be green and the color of money is green.  Really just designed to muddy the water between this survey saying "SHIT, EV'S Cost MONEY" and the whole point of EV's - LOWERING POLLUTION.

Our resident righties really need to pick up their game. A series of own-goal threads is quite impressive, but boring. 

Maybe they could address the R love-fest for Orban?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Total cost of ownership is total cost.   The EV has a purchase premium over ICE vehicles.  The EV should be much less to maintain, even brakes last a long time since the EV is doing REGEN.  But, but but but.....   it has to shift back to the ICE vehicle at some point when the battery pack needs to be replaced.   What is the life expectancy of a pack these day in a car?   It also degrades toward the end of life so range drops over time.    I have/had two new vehicles that went over 250k in less than 20 years with the original engine, only needing normal maintenance (maybe 2 starters, AC pump, alternator, etc).   Will an EV deliver with a stock pack that long...?  Maybe, but certainly with a great reduction of the original range.   Of course EVs are the future but these EVs we have now will seem pathetic once the next generation battery tech comes into production.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, solosailor said:

Total cost of ownership is total cost.   The EV has a purchase premium over ICE vehicles.  The EV should be much less to maintain, even brakes last a long time since the EV is doing REGEN.  But, but but but.....   it has to shift back to the ICE vehicle at some point when the battery pack needs to be replaced.   What is the life expectancy of a pack these day in a car?   It also degrades toward the end of life so range drops over time.    I have/had two new vehicles that went over 250k in less than 20 years with the original engine, only needing normal maintenance (maybe 2 starters, AC pump, alternator, etc).   Will an EV deliver with a stock pack that long...?  Maybe, but certainly with a great reduction of the original range.   Of course EVs are the future but these EVs we have now will seem pathetic once the next generation battery tech comes into production.   

Yes, and the reason we have this problem is the shifting of COST to everybody else.

Driving any vehicle, infernal or electric, the buyer/owner/driver does not pay the actual environmental cost.

Until some stable and sound gov't assesses the people with the actual environmental cost of stuff they buy/do, we will continue to have the planet's environment destroyed for profit and convenience. It's the Tragedy Of The Commons, in great big capital letters. Red ones!

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat, if all we do is convert our current transportation system from ICE SOV's to EV SOV's we have completely missed the point.  That said, whatever we do we are going to pay a lot more in the future for decades of ignoring climate change and continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry instead of using the money to build a proper non-fossil-fuel transportation infrastructure like other developed countries.

When governments remove the subsidies from fossil fuel production, fueling your car with fossil fuel will be more expensive than charging your EV except in areas where the electricity is generated from fossil fuel.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Our resident righties really need to pick up their game. A series of own-goal threads is quite impressive, but boring.  

I offered no commentary, the article is there for you to gain some insight you may be lacking.
You want to "up your game" Then state how the article is dead wrong.
Cost, overall costs for comparison are incomplete with out everything added up, a full tally of the cost of the vehicle to build, maintain and operate..... plus the expanding of the electric distribution system and necessary charging stations. 
What I think would really be helpful, in terms of reduction in Greenhouse Gases, is how much do EV's add between building the cars, efforts to get the materials necessary to build them, additional energy required and delivered, etc.... relative to the same numbers for gas or diesel powered vehicles, and do that in tons of carbon expended.
I know, I know, Steaming Flinger and the usual suspects will come along shortly and claim I ask post idiotic shit......but do I? (rhetorical you dumb asses)

Link to post
Share on other sites

why not just say it; there's nothing 'green' about any modern transportation tech/infrastructure, just the supposed lesser of evils. sure, an EV is uh, 'greener' than some sheepfucker rolling coal, but walking is 'green', cycling (once the bicycle has been made) is sustainable, etc...

we've created impressive conveniences that have made life far easier and we've become addicted to them.

so what matter to us (and how many of us are willing to walk the walk). if we want a way out this mess, we are going to need to work for it and adapt accordingly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, quod umbra said:

That is using mostly commercial chargers.

Except that is not how EV owners typically use their vehicles. They charge at home for most of the time. They only use commercial chargers for longer road trips.

And it ignores lower maintenance cost.

Instead of speculating on long term costs, here is a company offering Tesla shuttles that beat the shit out of them in terms of charging.

https://electrek.co/2018/07/17/tesla-model-s-holds-up-400000-miles-3-years/

Running costs:

Tesloop has incurred a combined maintenance cost of roughly $19,000 or about $0.05/mile. This cost breaks down to $6,700 for general vehicle repairs and $12,200 for regularly scheduled maintenance. The Model S’ full service record is available here. The record includes comparable estimated costs of running the service with a Lincoln Town Car instead of a Model S or Mercedes GLS class instead of a Model X. Tesloop estimates that a Lincoln Town Car or Mercedes GLS class’ combined maintenance cost to be around $88,500 ($0.22/mile) and $98,900 ($0.25/mile) respectively over 400,000 miles.

Battery life:

 

The first battery pack replacement happened after 194,000 miles. At that time, the battery pack energy capacity degradation was at ~6%, which is reasonable, but Tesla found a problem due to Tesloop’s frequent Supercharging.

Here’s the reason Tesla gave for the battery replacement:

Found internal imbalance in HV battery due to consistent supercharging to 100% from a low state of charge (SOC) without any rest periods in between. HV battery has been approved to be replaced. Also recommend that customer does not Supercharge on a regular basis and does not charge to 100% on a regular basis. We also recommend that the customer use scheduled charging to start charge 3 hours after end of drive at low SOC.

Tesloop says that it was supercharging the car multiple times a day and at 95 to 100% state-of-charge – two things that Tesla doesn’t recommend for the health of the battery pack.

The second battery pack replacement happened at 324,000 miles and Tesloop says it experienced a much more aggressive battery degradation of ~22%.

Tesla said that there was an issue with the pack:

Diagnostics show the high voltage battery assembly is not functioning appropriately. Removed and replaced the high voltage battery assembly. Replaced with a 90kw permanent battery replacement. Pushed updated firmware to ensure proper communications. Upon completion, function test was performed to confirm concern has been rectified.

Tesla repairs and reused parts of its old battery packs, which in this case were replaced under warranty.

Those actually weren’t Tesloop battery packs with the most cycles since it also has a Model X with its original battery pack after 300,000 miles. The company reports about ~10% of battery degradation

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rain Man said:

I repeat, if all we do is convert our current transportation system from ICE SOV's to EV SOV's we have completely missed the point.  That said, whatever we do we are going to pay a lot more in the future for decades of ignoring climate change and continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry instead of using the money to build a proper non-fossil-fuel transportation infrastructure like other developed countries.

When governments remove the subsidies from fossil fuel production, fueling your car with fossil fuel will be more expensive than charging your EV except in areas where the electricity is generated from fossil fuel.  

When AI driven vehicles are here, that model (SOV) will go away for quite a few urban dwellers. Maybe suburban as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, quod umbra said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2021/10/23/costs-charge-ev-fuel-car-gas-study/6154204001/

"On a yearly basis, assuming the mid-priced cars traveled 12,000 miles, it would cost  $1,030 to drive an internal combustion car and $1,554 to drive an EV. 

For luxury cars that get 26 miles per gallon and use premium gas at $3.25 a gallon, the cost to drive an internal combustion car 100 miles is $12.60. The cost to drive a luxury EV, such as a Taycan, Tesla Model S or X or Jaguar I-Pace, is $15.52 to travel 100 miles. That is using mostly commercial chargers. "

I assume you have included battery depreciation in the EV calc ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you see the story I linked, they had one Model S that had its battery changed at 194,000 miles wit 6% loss in performance, one at 324,000 miles with 22% loss in performance.  And a model 3 at 300,000 miles with 10% degradation in performance. And this is them charging at Superchargers all the time, which reduces battery capacity

The average mileage of IC cars when scrapped is about 200,000 miles. An IC with 200,000 miles would be probably worth ~1-5K. Pretty much at the end of the depreciation curve.. An electric car with 200,000 miles seems still will have lots of range on the battery (exception - Nissan Leaf which at first doesn't actively cool battery pack)

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the EV battery fire that no fire department can put out ?  Is that a myth or fact ???

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, F395 said:

How about the EV battery fire that no fire department can put out ?  Is that a myth or fact ???

I heard gasoline can explode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, F395 said:

How about the EV battery fire that no fire department can put out ?  Is that a myth or fact ???

How about "very hard to put out". But so what? If your gas car catches fire in your garage, chances are by the time the FD gets there, you'll have lost the house too.

I do not see very many EV bursting into flames (and living in Vancouver Teslas are everywhere)

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

What a stupid thread.

1) No one uses mostly commercial chargers.

2) The reduced maintenance costs alone for a mid sized near luxury car is 6-8K  less over the life of the car

So BG, does that include the cost of a new battery? I am guessing no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

So BG, does that include the cost of a new battery? I am guessing no.

My hybrid car won't need a new battery (well, starter battery yes) over it's expected 10+ year life. Why would you add back in a replacement cost? Do you add back in the replacement cost of an ICE for a legacy tech car?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

So BG, does that include the cost of a new battery? I am guessing no.

Taxis are all hybrids these days 

I recently asked a taxi in Spain about batteries and he told me about 4-5 years battery life and about 4 or 5 thousand for the new battery and whatever is replaced and serviced at this time 

it was a Toyota station wagon style 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, F395 said:

How about the EV battery fire that no fire department can put out ?  Is that a myth or fact ???

Myth.

 Any fire can be put out with the right equipment. As EVs become more common, more FDs will have the appropriate technology.

In 1980-81 I responded to a car fire on a main (Not major) E-W road in S. VT. By the time our trucks got to the scene (In the middle of nowhere at 8PM) the once beautiful, 6 hour old Porsche 911 Turbo was a charred lump of melted glass, rubber, and rust. We cooled down the remains, but that was all that there was to do. Luckily the 2 yuppies had managed to scamper out before they got hurt, or died. Of course they left the car in the middle of a 2 lane, on a bad curve.... I'm pretty sure they were more upset about the several kilos of coke they had in the door panels than the car it's self.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Myth.

 Any fire can be put out with the right equipment. As EVs become more common, more FDs will have the appropriate technology.

In 1980-81 I responded to a car fire on a main (Not major) E-W road in S. VT. By the time our trucks got to the scene (In the middle of nowhere at 8PM) the once beautiful, 6 hour old Porsche 911 Turbo was a charred lump of melted glass, rubber, and rust. We cooled down the remains, but that was all that there was to do. Luckily the 2 yuppies had managed to scamper out before they got hurt, or died. Of course they left the car in the middle of a 2 lane, on a bad curve.... I'm pretty sure they were more upset about the several kilos of coke they had in the door panels than the car it's self.

Electric bus station fire Germany 

unable to extinguish 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/germany-large-fire-at-stuttgart-bus-depot/a-59372518

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Taxis are all hybrids these days 

I recently asked a taxi in Spain about batteries and he told me about 4-5 years battery life and about 4 or 5 thousand for the new battery and whatever is replaced and serviced at this time 

it was a Toyota station wagon style 

Yeah, and taxis run hundreds of ks in miles, and multiple engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was on the fire dept, at the scene of a car fire we were usually able to save the axles and not much more.  And have you ever tried to extinguish a burning tire?  You keep putting it out and it keeps re-igniting.  I have no scientific evidence (and don't own an EV), but I would guess that gasoline-vehicle fires are probably worse in terms of the energy given off, and unless you can get to it very quickly not much easier to extinguish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, quod umbra said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2021/10/23/costs-charge-ev-fuel-car-gas-study/6154204001/

"On a yearly basis, assuming the mid-priced cars traveled 12,000 miles, it would cost  $1,030 to drive an internal combustion car and $1,554 to drive an EV. 

For luxury cars that get 26 miles per gallon and use premium gas at $3.25 a gallon, the cost to drive an internal combustion car 100 miles is $12.60. The cost to drive a luxury EV, such as a Taycan, Tesla Model S or X or Jaguar I-Pace, is $15.52 to travel 100 miles. That is using mostly commercial chargers. "

Nobody who has an EV uses commercial chargers, so I call bullshit on that one mate. I have a stage II charger at home and haven't used charge point in years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, valis said:

When I was on the fire dept, at the scene of a car fire we were usually able to save the axles and not much more.  And have you ever tried to extinguish a burning tire?  You keep putting it out and it keeps re-igniting.  I have no scientific evidence (and don't own an EV), but I would guess that gasoline-vehicle fires are probably worse in terms of the energy given off, and unless you can get to it very quickly not much easier to extinguish.

Zackly... I don't see the "batteries catch FIRE!!!" thing as a biggie in terms of one over the other. Any form of stored energy can be dangerous, hell lift up a bowling ball onto a high shelf and walk away.

if the manufacturing of EVs can be made as "clean"... relatively... as manufacturing regulare ICE vehicles, then the differences in operating them is a clear gain.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, d'ranger said:

When someone starts a thread and later states they didn't offer an opinion it means they are lonely and here for attention.  So I am doing my part to help out AG.

Naw... Dog used to do it all the time to stir shit.  It just means they've already had their balls chopped off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

0434F190-D677-4E81-841D-E3E2E9681E10.png

It looks like I was wrong about the difficulty of extinguishing an EV fire.  40,000 gallons???  Seems like a lot, but I've found other confirmation of this 40X number.  My "wildland fire" truck (on a 1-ton truck chassis) carried perhaps 500 gallons, certainly less than 1000.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, valis said:

It looks like I was wrong about the difficulty of extinguishing an EV fire.  40,000 gallons???  Seems like a lot, but I've found other confirmation of this 40X number.  My "wildland fire" truck (on a 1-ton truck chassis) carried perhaps 500 gallons, certainly less than 1000.

Squirting water on an electrical or metal fire is not the recommended way to do it, anyhow. I think Sluggo is spreading RWNJ "jollies"

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

Because pouring water on exposed Lithium is the best way to settle it down...

Sluggo says it, it must be so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Remodel said:

That's true enough today, but these costs and the so-called deadhead mileage will come down as the infrastructure is built up. You're also not including the fact that EVs cost considerably less to maintain. From your link:

Still, he noted there are environmental benefits to EV ownership and costs could come down if there are more reliable commercial charging centers built. Electric cars also require less costly maintenance than gasoline-powered vehicles. 

“Our research is consistent with what President Joe Biden and the Detroit Three have said, which is, a chokepoint for a number of consumers is the lack of infrastructure," Anderson said. "My own experience with an EV is that the biggest challenge is getting them charged so that it’s something you can use on a daily basis.” 

 

What the article is also missing is that the vast majority of people with plug in EVs charge at home and are not paying the fees at commercial charging stations unless on a trip out of the local area.  

Also, at $3.25 a gallon maybe the article is true to a point.  But I'm betting there are few places save deep rural BFE that have prices that low today.  It's been above $4 for all of this year here where I live, and we're not even the highest in the nation.  

I laugh and I laugh everyday I drive home on the way to/from work past the new gas station that went up this year and there are always lines at the pump for $4+/gal.  I plug in when I get home knowing that my Solar panels are topping me up for practically free.  I also get free supercharging for the life of the car.  So road trips cost me $0.  In fact it would be cheaper for me to charge up away from the house if there was one on the way to work.  

So unless you're factoring in the cost of the car purchase itself, the thesis is BS.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lark said:

With Congress unable to agree on infrastructure, our road problems are doomed to continue to degrade us to third world status, especially in 'flyover' territory once you leave the interstates.

Dude, I recently did a couple of road trips to AZ.... on a couple of 4 day weekend holidays.  Sedona over labor day and Tucson a couple of weeks ago for columbus day.  AZ, BY FAR, has the shittiest interstates I've ever driven on.  I-40 was so bad, you had to stay in the left hand lane most of the time unless someone fast than you was passing because the right lane was so rough from the trucks tearing up the road.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Battlecheese said:

Because pouring water on exposed Lithium is the best way to settle it down...

 

1 hour ago, Battlecheese said:

Because pouring water on exposed Lithium is the best way to settle it down...

https://www.industrialfireworld.com/617470/get-ready-for-lithium-ion-battery-fires
 

Yes water

“However, the Purple K was unsuccessful in extinguishing the fire, the report said. “

“Firefighters then applied high flow water to the fire and once they cooled the batteries, firefighters applied Portland cement, which helped extinguish the fire by July 2, according to the report.”

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

 

https://www.industrialfireworld.com/617470/get-ready-for-lithium-ion-battery-fires
 

Yes water

“However, the Purple K was unsuccessful in extinguishing the fire, the report said. “

“Firefighters then applied high flow water to the fire and once they cooled the batteries, firefighters applied Portland cement, which helped extinguish the fire by July 2, according to the report.”

 

 

 

 

Cause a warehouse fire is so much like a Tesla in the road. You know, like your galley fire is just like that containership burning containers of hazardous chemicals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Wait, you mean that the cost to the consumer of a new product that lacks required infrastructure is higher than the existing one?

No shit sherlock.

It's no surprise that one of our resident trolls like quod would grab a total misinformation piece like this.  There are very powerful interests that look to disparage everything they can about electrification.  We know electric cars are going to be more expensive at first.  If you don't think 'horseless carraiges' were more expensive than buggies, you're deluded.  It takes time and infrastructure.  But - cost was never the point of EV's.  It's just what prevents their widespread adoption.  The point of EV's is pollution.  Remember?

Read this.  Slowly.  100 times.  Try to let it sink it.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

The POINT OF EV'S IS TO REDUCE POLLUTION.  NOT LOWER COST.

THIS STUDY IS ABOUT COST.

Now ask.... why would a study like this even be performed when we know the answer?  Because someone wants to discourage the switch to EVs.  Period.  We know that the infrastructure isn't in place.  We know that it'll be costly to install.  I mean - jesus - you think the goddamn highway system was free?  What IDIOT came up with a horseless buggy that requires us to make and pave roads and stuff?  Horses don't need any of that shit.

Quod's even helping them.  His title is going 'green'.  Perhaps meant as an ironic twist because EV's are supposed to be green and the color of money is green.  Really just designed to muddy the water between this survey saying "SHIT, EV'S Cost MONEY" and the whole point of EV's - LOWERING POLLUTION.

The cool thing is they both reduce pollution AND Lower cost.  Winner winner, chicken dinner.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

The cool thing is they both reduce pollution AND Lower cost.  Winner winner, chicken dinner.

 

And are quicker than shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, solosailor said:

Total cost of ownership is total cost.   The EV has a purchase premium over ICE vehicles.  The EV should be much less to maintain, even brakes last a long time since the EV is doing REGEN.  But, but but but.....   it has to shift back to the ICE vehicle at some point when the battery pack needs to be replaced.   What is the life expectancy of a pack these day in a car?   It also degrades toward the end of life so range drops over time.    I have/had two new vehicles that went over 250k in less than 20 years with the original engine, only needing normal maintenance (maybe 2 starters, AC pump, alternator, etc).   Will an EV deliver with a stock pack that long...?  Maybe, but certainly with a great reduction of the original range.   Of course EVs are the future but these EVs we have now will seem pathetic once the next generation battery tech comes into production.   

Sounds exactly like the argument that the Horse and buggy guys made against the early internal combustion cars.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 3to1 said:

why not just say it; there's nothing 'green' about any modern transportation tech/infrastructure, just the supposed lesser of evils. sure, an EV is uh, 'greener' than some sheepfucker rolling coal, but walking is 'green', cycling (once the bicycle has been made) is sustainable, etc...

we've created impressive conveniences that have made life far easier and we've become addicted to them.

so what matter to us (and how many of us are willing to walk the walk). if we want a way out this mess, we are going to need to work for it and adapt accordingly.

What kind of car do you drive, out of curiosity?

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Yes water

“However, the Purple K was unsuccessful in extinguishing the fire, the report said. “

“Firefighters then applied high flow water to the fire and once they cooled the batteries, firefighters applied Portland cement, which helped extinguish the fire by July 2, according to the report.”

When all you have is a hammer... Do you need me to point out that the water was only being used to carry away some of the heat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

My hybrid car won't need a new battery (well, starter battery yes) over it's expected 10+ year life. Why would you add back in a replacement cost? Do you add back in the replacement cost of an ICE for a legacy tech car?

Hybrid???  I thought you said you had an S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Hybrid???  I thought you said you had an S.

Nope, mines just a first gen Audi etron

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Nope, mines just a first gen Audi etron

Ah Ok, I could have sworn one your elk said they had an S.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

What kind of car do you drive, out of curiosity?

no car, three nice bicycles (not for transportation).

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Sounds exactly like the argument that the Horse and buggy guys made against the early internal combustion cars.  

What I find curious is the push by some, including Mercedes Benz, to develop synthesized diesel that burns "clean". I makes one wonder if the better solution in the near term is to clean up the fuel used to generate power, fuel vehicles, etc.

As may here know or have heard me say in the past, live in the NYC metro area. Driving around here at time challenging. I often wonder why there are not more turning lanes, smart traffic signals and roads improved to handle the volume of traffic experienced. You may argue that would be a drop in the bucket in co2 emissions, but when you are trying to reduce GHG, you really should focus on efficiencies first.

Was reading this morning about the only road to "clean" energy is the nuclear option. That we can build all the wind turbines and solar farms we want and still will not be able to meet demands. The Green Energy movement is really little more than a marketing plan.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

The lunacy of making EVs a right/left thing is stupid. EVs are not for everyone, depending on your lifestyle it can be difficult to charge (condo/apartment).  I'm right of center guy (not the full "R") and a true car guy (built my 76 MGB V8) and was an early adopter to EVs. The first one (a VW e-golf) while a great car took power management driving styles to a new level. The new one (Kia Nero) with 240-280 miles per charge is a dream. 70 miles a day @ 25mpg = 3 gallons a day x 5 days, 15 gallons. 15 gallons @ $4/gal = $60/wk x 4wks = $240/month for gas. My EV for the same mileage is $70/month in electricity. Add to that solar power and It's a no brainer. Then when you add up the service costs of an ICE car it just gets better for the EV. And yes they are super quick, not the giggle you get with an over powered MG but almost any Tesla will do the same thing. I didn't choose a Tesla due to the horrid build quality and fit for so much money. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, quod umbra said:

What I find curious is the push by some, including Mercedes Benz, to develop synthesized diesel that burns "clean". I makes one wonder if the better solution in the near term is to clean up the fuel used to generate power, fuel vehicles, etc.

As may here know or have heard me say in the past, live in the NYC metro area. Driving around here at time challenging. I often wonder why there are not more turning lanes, smart traffic signals and roads improved to handle the volume of traffic experienced. You may argue that would be a drop in the bucket in co2 emissions, but when you are trying to reduce GHG, you really should focus on efficiencies first.

Was reading this morning about the only road to "clean" energy is the nuclear option. That we can build all the wind turbines and solar farms we want and still will not be able to meet demands. The Green Energy movement is really little more than a marketing plan.......

That "clean" diesel wasn't to reduct CO2, it was to reduce smog,etc.

I have one hybrid, one gasser. Next ride will be the kids, and it''ll be an older gasser as that's what's available. Any new car would be E for sure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, quod umbra said:

What I find curious is the push by some, including Mercedes Benz, to develop synthesized diesel that burns "clean". I makes one wonder if the better solution in the near term is to clean up the fuel used to generate power, fuel vehicles, etc.

As may here know or have heard me say in the past, live in the NYC metro area. Driving around here at time challenging. I often wonder why there are not more turning lanes, smart traffic signals and roads improved to handle the volume of traffic experienced. You may argue that would be a drop in the bucket in co2 emissions, but when you are trying to reduce GHG, you really should focus on efficiencies first.

Was reading this morning about the only road to "clean" energy is the nuclear option. That we can build all the wind turbines and solar farms we want and still will not be able to meet demands. The Green Energy movement is really little more than a marketing plan.......

Yup 

clean up the internal combustion engine give the best bang for the buck 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, slug zitski said:

Yup 

clean up the internal combustion engine give the best bang for the buck 

What the world needs is a clean coal-burning car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Yup 

clean up the internal combustion engine give the best bang for the buck 

You should chat with Hertz about that, buying 100k units of E-cars.

Since they have math guys in charge, let's say it's likely a combo of lower maintenance costs + higher residual value. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Yup 

clean up the internal combustion engine give the best bang for the buck 

fkg 'stupid', and it's willful.  smh

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

You should chat with Hertz about that, buying 100k units of E-cars.

Since they have math guys in charge, let's say it's likely a combo of lower maintenance costs + higher residual value. 

Or maybe, just maybe they are trying to offer a product that will appeal to potential customers that will rent from them, rather the rental folks down the road?

Green is a marketing plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slug zitski said:

Yup 

clean up the internal combustion engine give the best bang for the buck 

What technology exists to capture and store the carbon emissions?  Inquiring minds want to know.  

Technology won't save the ICE, unfortunately.  Unless you intended to use purple font for this, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Or maybe, just maybe they are trying to offer a product that will appeal to potential customers that will rent from them, rather the rental folks down the road?

Green is a marketing plan.

Rent a Tesla?  Cool.  Probably the only way I will ever get to drive one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

What technology exists to capture and store the carbon emissions?  Inquiring minds want to know.  

Technology won't save the ICE, unfortunately.  Unless you intended to use purple font for this, of course.

Educate yourself 

 

5890E38A-FD76-40BE-A1A3-0FA385398454.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Educate yourself 

 

5890E38A-FD76-40BE-A1A3-0FA385398454.png

Did you read this?

My question was "What technology exists...." This article describes a theoretical model.  From the article:

"This study is an initial effort for capturing CO2 from vehicles, and it may require several years to realize such system in practice. "

Kinda like fusion, a few years away from practical designs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, and lets add more stuff to an already complex ICE to capture carbon. 

Or, a simple electric motor, a battery, and a controller. Goes like stink, fun to drive. Zero maintenance. Ok, I lied, my car says to change the engine/battery coolant at 150K miles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

 

Green is a marketing plan.

Why do you big gov't control type always hate the free market?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

You should chat with Hertz about that, buying 100k units of E-cars.

Since they have math guys in charge, let's say it's likely a combo of lower maintenance costs + higher residual value. 

I'd wager resale value was a major consideration.    The CoViD crises showed how important car turnover was to their cash flow.   On the other hand, the logistics of pulling a car out of the rental pool, paying somebody to drive it to the shop and time the car wasn't generating revenue likely far exceeded their discounted service fee.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Lark said:

I'd wager resale value was a major consideration.    The CoViD crises showed how important car turnover was to their cash flow.   On the other hand, the logistics of pulling a car out of the rental pool, paying somebody to drive it to the shop and time the car wasn't generating revenue likely far exceeded their discounted service fee.     

Yep, resale (residual) is a massive item for rental firms. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, slug zitski said:

Yup 

clean up the internal combustion engine give the best bang for the buck 

What I don't understand is why you and Q are so afraid of EV's.  No one is forcing you at gunpoint you to buy one,  and gassers will be around for years.  Meanwhile EV tech will improve almost exponentially as time goes by and more and more people will choose it because.... capitalism.  Just don't be surprised when we laugh at all of you paying $7/g at the pump.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

What I don't understand is why you and Q are so afraid of EV's.  No one is forcing you at gunpoint you to buy one,  and gassers will be around for years.  Meanwhile EV tech will improve almost exponentially as time goes by and more and more people will choose it because.... capitalism.  Just don't be surprised when we laugh at all of you paying $7/g at the pump.  

 

60F7B3CB-13D5-4EC4-9B2E-28A93F2EB2F4.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rain Man said:

Rent a Tesla?  Cool.  Probably the only way I will ever get to drive one.

My first thought is the charging infrastructure would have to be significantly more robust than it is now.  People who rent a Tesla are not going to have the luxury of charging up at home.  It will limit their choices somewhat for hotels too.  When I go on a road trip, I look for Hotels near a Supercharger, otherwise it will be a bit of a PITA to have to plan your charging times  to correspond with your driving plans.  

If more hotels and restaurants figure this out, they will get the lion's share of the tourist business who will rent those teslas for Avis.  I think it's a great marketing plan on Avis's part in addition to the boost to reducing GHGs.  If I travel anywhere and need a rental, I will definitely look at where I could rent a Tesla.  Driving a regular car now is so meh.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

 

60F7B3CB-13D5-4EC4-9B2E-28A93F2EB2F4.png

I shut off my car from charging between 4-9pm.  (it's easy peasy, you set the timer in the car. Teslas are better, they can do it wirelessly AIUI)

Why? One, the grid operator asks us too, and 2, I pay "time of use" rates, and my panels are pumping E back into the grid at high price to me, and I fill the car/drag from the grid at low-price, to me, time of day rates. 


Win Win baby!

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Fine, don't buy a Tesla in the UK.  Problem SOLved.

There are currently 31.5 million cars on the UK roads, covering 252.5 billion miles per year.

If we wanted to replace all these with electric vehicles today (assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries), it would take the following:

  • 207,900 tonnes of cobalt - just under twice the annual global production
  • 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE) - three quarters the world's production
  • at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium - nearly the entire world production of neodymium
  • 2,362,500 tonnes of copper - more than half the world's production in 2018
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

There are currently 31.5 million cars on the UK roads, covering 252.5 billion miles per year.

If we wanted to replace all these with electric vehicles today (assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries), it would take the following:

  • 207,900 tonnes of cobalt - just under twice the annual global production
  • 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE) - three quarters the world's production
  • at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium - nearly the entire world production of neodymium
  • 2,362,500 tonnes of copper - more than half the world's production in 2018

why do you all hate capitalism, and think it doesn't work?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

There are currently 31.5 million cars on the UK roads, covering 252.5 billion miles per year.

If we wanted to replace all these with electric vehicles today (assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries), it would take the following:

  • 207,900 tonnes of cobalt - just under twice the annual global production
  • 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE) - three quarters the world's production
  • at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium - nearly the entire world production of neodymium
  • 2,362,500 tonnes of copper - more than half the world's production in 2018

3 words.  Solid state batteries.  We are in the infancy of battery technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

There are currently 31.5 million cars on the UK roads, covering 252.5 billion miles per year.

If we wanted to replace all these with electric vehicles today (assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries), it would take the following:

  • 207,900 tonnes of cobalt - just under twice the annual global production
  • 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE) - three quarters the world's production
  • at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium - nearly the entire world production of neodymium
  • 2,362,500 tonnes of copper - more than half the world's production in 2018

Sluggo's great-grand-pappy in 1905

That Motorwagon will never go anywhere! There are no roads! There's only so many rubber trees to make the rubber for the tyres! The fuel is very expensive and very rare! They only run for 30 minutes, my horse will walk all day! What will happen to the jobs of the shit shovelers and the buggy-whip makers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slug, as usual, that's a stupid argument.

Nobody is going to replace all the cars in the UK at once.  It will happen gradually, just like ICE cars are replaced as they wear out. Currently in the US it's about 2% of the fleet/year converting to EV.

And battery technology is very much a moving target.  So the elements required will change too.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

1st one is paywalled, read the second one. 

There is no question that replacing all/most of our ICE vehicles with EV's will have a significant environmental impact.  It would also be quite stupid to do that - we need to replace automobile transportation with better mass transportation systems.  Lithium mining is just part of the problem - a lot of ICE cars will be scrapped early once gas prices get very high.  

On balance, though, we are faced with a looming climate change deadline to stop adding more carbon into the atmosphere.  Will lithium mining issues eclipse the impact of climate change?  I don't think so.  Consumers can demand that lithium and cobalt mines operate in such a way that the environment is not damaged.   We have yet to start demanding that.  It is good to promote the issue so that process can start.

The impact of changing home heating from natural gas to electricity is also going to have a big environmental impact given the need for additional electrical generation to run heat pumps, and the production of those heat pumps as well.  We are just scratching the surface on that problem. Maybe we can turn all those scrap gas furnaces into Teslas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y

23 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Slug, as usual, that's a stupid argument.

Nobody is going to replace all the cars in the UK at once.  It will happen gradually, just like ICE cars are replaced as they wear out. Currently in the US it's about 2% of the fleet/year converting to EV.

And battery technology is very much a moving target.  So the elements required will change too.

 

 

IMHP the emissions standards that our set such as Euro 6 and the soon Euro 7  and whatever American standards our about equal  were driving the change nicely as it just makes sense to go electric at Euro 7 point 

The sudden rush to mandate things by 2030 and outlaw things rather than have it meet a goal such as Euro 7 just don’t give the supply chain time to adjust to such as drastic change and it’s just going take time and money to change the infrastructure 

Link to post
Share on other sites