(08-26-2023 04:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 02:16 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 02:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 09:09 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 05:44 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  As long as you can charge at home, and when you do travel away from home the Tesla supercharger network covers you they are great. Ford will be changing the MachE to the Tesla supercharger plug and getting access in 2025

My work has chargers in the parking lots. Not enough, but enough to cover the people that do use electric vehicles, and they are free to use. Some smart people that have worked there a long time only ever charge their vehicles at home or at work, and it's pennies compared to what they would be spending on gas. If you live in a state with friendly solar panel incentives, you could cut your local commute costs down to nothing but maintenance.

Bear in mind this is today while there are incentives to induce people to buy EVs. Consumers are being shielded from the true costs.

The sad part about all of this is if the EV cars were clearly technically superior and a true logical next step - no subsidies would be needed since people would be moving into them of their own accord to get something clearly superior to what we have today.

Subsidies tell me that these are not technologically superior or cost effective. What it tells me is the government is trying to use the carrot approach to forcing me to switch. If not enough of us switch at a fast enough rate...then we'll be getting the stick soon. IOW, subsidies tell us that the product is not for your betterment but to push someone else's agenda - whether that is because these people get kick backs or to stroke their egos - it matters not. What matters is the government involvement is going to make this an unnecessarily horrible experience.

The U.S. spends $20B a year in oil subsidies.

Yes, but not going directly to consumers. These EV subsidies are going directly to consumers in an attempt to make EVs competitive with ICE cars. But...subsidies for renewables are comparable to those received by the oil companies. And ironically, the renewables make up a small, small percentage of market share for power generation.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/...023-08-02/

Quote:U.S. subsidies for renewable energy producers more than doubled between 2016 and 2022, forming nearly half of all federal energy-related support in that period, a U.S. government report released on Tuesday showed.

Renewable subsidies jumped to $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2022 from $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2016, according to the Energy Information Administration's Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy report.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/elec...the-us.php

Quote:Renewable energy sources provide an increasing share of U.S. electricity
Many renewable energy sources are used to generate electricity and were the source of about 22% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2022. In 1990, renewable resources provided about 12% of utility-scale electricity generation.

Renewables generate roughly 20% of the total power as of 2022 yet get subsidies that are 75% of what the fossil fuels companies get.

What's your point? Electric vehicles get tax incentives and fuel vehicles don't, therefore EV tech is uncompetitive? These are the same means the US has always leveraged to incentivize industry.

I don't think you and I arguing the same things. You seem to be under the assumption that the technology won't be getting better from here, with or without the government speeding up the process through subsidy, because that's the only way your arguments make sense.

(08-26-2023 04:37 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 04:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 02:16 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 02:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 09:09 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  My work has chargers in the parking lots. Not enough, but enough to cover the people that do use electric vehicles, and they are free to use. Some smart people that have worked there a long time only ever charge their vehicles at home or at work, and it's pennies compared to what they would be spending on gas. If you live in a state with friendly solar panel incentives, you could cut your local commute costs down to nothing but maintenance.

Bear in mind this is today while there are incentives to induce people to buy EVs. Consumers are being shielded from the true costs.

The sad part about all of this is if the EV cars were clearly technically superior and a true logical next step - no subsidies would be needed since people would be moving into them of their own accord to get something clearly superior to what we have today.

Subsidies tell me that these are not technologically superior or cost effective. What it tells me is the government is trying to use the carrot approach to forcing me to switch. If not enough of us switch at a fast enough rate...then we'll be getting the stick soon. IOW, subsidies tell us that the product is not for your betterment but to push someone else's agenda - whether that is because these people get kick backs or to stroke their egos - it matters not. What matters is the government involvement is going to make this an unnecessarily horrible experience.

The U.S. spends $20B a year in oil subsidies.

Yes, but not going directly to consumers. These EV subsidies are going directly to consumers in an attempt to make EVs competitive with ICE cars. But...subsidies for renewables are comparable to those received by the oil companies. And ironically, the renewables make up a small, small percentage of market share for power generation.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/...023-08-02/

Quote:U.S. subsidies for renewable energy producers more than doubled between 2016 and 2022, forming nearly half of all federal energy-related support in that period, a U.S. government report released on Tuesday showed.

Renewable subsidies jumped to $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2022 from $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2016, according to the Energy Information Administration's Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy report.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/elec...the-us.php

Quote:Renewable energy sources provide an increasing share of U.S. electricity
Many renewable energy sources are used to generate electricity and were the source of about 22% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2022. In 1990, renewable resources provided about 12% of utility-scale electricity generation.

Renewables generate roughly 20% of the total power as of 2022 yet get subsidies that are 75% of what the fossil fuels companies get.

What's your point? Electric vehicles get tax incentives and fuel vehicles don't, therefore EV tech is uncompetitive? These are the same means the US has always leveraged to incentivize industry.

I don't think you and I arguing the same things. You seem to be under the assumption that the technology won't be getting better from here, with or without the government speeding up the process through subsidy, because that's the only way your arguments make sense.

This isn’t a generic incentive program promoting industry- this is the government picking winners and losers to create a specific outcome. Even that is understandable- though far from ideal - if EVs provided obvious advantages to us over ICE vehicles. They don’t. Do they get us from point A to B faster compared to current vehicles? Do they get clearly superior distance until energy replenishment compared to ICE engines? Is EV turnaround to fully recharge faster than completely refueling an ICE vehicle? Seriously, where are the Eureka style breakthroughs from EVs that make the technology deserving of getting pushed by the government in favor of the current vehicles?

This is nothing like adopting automobiles in favor of horsepower, diesel locomotives over steam locomotives, jet engines over propeller engines, etc…. EV over ICE isn’t the same over what I mentioned immediately prior. So why the huge push?

I will say that prior to the last few months I might see one Tesla a month. Lately I see multiple ones every day. I'd even think about buying one if the prospect of a 15k bill to replace batteries, coupled with the prohibitive initial price tag, wasn't looming on the short horizon. I actually like the concept of EV's. But I also want to be able to buy and operate a classic muscle car if I so desire.

(08-27-2023 07:08 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I will say that prior to the last few months I might see one Tesla a month. Lately I see multiple ones every day. I'd even think about buying one if the prospect of a 15k bill to replace batteries, coupled with the prohibitive initial price tag, wasn't looming on the short horizon. I actually like the concept of EV's. But I also want to be able to buy and operate a classic muscle car if I so desire.

Agreed and that should be the attitude of everyone. EV's are a great option but punishing or eliminating ICE is just wrong on multiple levels and counter productive.

We don't even know for sure this will have any tangible impact on the climate at all.

(08-26-2023 11:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 04:37 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 04:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 02:16 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 02:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Bear in mind this is today while there are incentives to induce people to buy EVs. Consumers are being shielded from the true costs.

The sad part about all of this is if the EV cars were clearly technically superior and a true logical next step - no subsidies would be needed since people would be moving into them of their own accord to get something clearly superior to what we have today.

Subsidies tell me that these are not technologically superior or cost effective. What it tells me is the government is trying to use the carrot approach to forcing me to switch. If not enough of us switch at a fast enough rate...then we'll be getting the stick soon. IOW, subsidies tell us that the product is not for your betterment but to push someone else's agenda - whether that is because these people get kick backs or to stroke their egos - it matters not. What matters is the government involvement is going to make this an unnecessarily horrible experience.

The U.S. spends $20B a year in oil subsidies.

Yes, but not going directly to consumers. These EV subsidies are going directly to consumers in an attempt to make EVs competitive with ICE cars. But...subsidies for renewables are comparable to those received by the oil companies. And ironically, the renewables make up a small, small percentage of market share for power generation.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/...023-08-02/

Quote:U.S. subsidies for renewable energy producers more than doubled between 2016 and 2022, forming nearly half of all federal energy-related support in that period, a U.S. government report released on Tuesday showed.

Renewable subsidies jumped to $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2022 from $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2016, according to the Energy Information Administration's Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy report.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/elec...the-us.php

Quote:Renewable energy sources provide an increasing share of U.S. electricity
Many renewable energy sources are used to generate electricity and were the source of about 22% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2022. In 1990, renewable resources provided about 12% of utility-scale electricity generation.

Renewables generate roughly 20% of the total power as of 2022 yet get subsidies that are 75% of what the fossil fuels companies get.

What's your point? Electric vehicles get tax incentives and fuel vehicles don't, therefore EV tech is uncompetitive? These are the same means the US has always leveraged to incentivize industry.

I don't think you and I arguing the same things. You seem to be under the assumption that the technology won't be getting better from here, with or without the government speeding up the process through subsidy, because that's the only way your arguments make sense.

This isn’t a generic incentive program promoting industry- this is the government picking winners and losers to create a specific outcome. Even that is understandable- though far from ideal - if EVs provided obvious advantages to us over ICE vehicles. They don’t. Do they get us from point A to B faster compared to current vehicles? Do they get clearly superior distance until energy replenishment compared to ICE engines? Is EV turnaround to fully recharge faster than completely refueling an ICE vehicle? Seriously, where are the Eureka style breakthroughs from EVs that make the technology deserving of getting pushed by the government in favor of the current vehicles?

This is nothing like adopting automobiles in favor of horsepower, diesel locomotives over steam locomotives, jet engines over propeller engines, etc…. EV over ICE isn’t the same over what I mentioned immediately prior. So why the huge push?

You're comparing two snapshots of technology and trying to keep them as apples to apples. One apple has reached it's technological apex and one has decades of maturity to go

Here's a better question: why would many multiple billion dollar profit OEM vehicle manufacturers uproot a mature, known, profitable business model in pursuit of (what you apparently assume to be) nothing more than a green marketing gimmick?


I'll reiterate what I've said before. Electric vehicle technology will make ICE obsolete in the next decade. In the next decade: vehicles will increase their average range from 250 miles today, to 500-750 on a single charge, charging times will be reduced if not eliminated, and the investment from both national governments and OEM manufacturers will make infrastructure arguments moot, AND most importantly, cost parity between EV and ICE materials will be neutral. These are not uninformed guesses.

(08-27-2023 07:23 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 11:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 04:37 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 04:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 02:16 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  The U.S. spends $20B a year in oil subsidies.

Yes, but not going directly to consumers. These EV subsidies are going directly to consumers in an attempt to make EVs competitive with ICE cars. But...subsidies for renewables are comparable to those received by the oil companies. And ironically, the renewables make up a small, small percentage of market share for power generation.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/...023-08-02/

Quote:U.S. subsidies for renewable energy producers more than doubled between 2016 and 2022, forming nearly half of all federal energy-related support in that period, a U.S. government report released on Tuesday showed.

Renewable subsidies jumped to $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2022 from $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2016, according to the Energy Information Administration's Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy report.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/elec...the-us.php

Quote:Renewable energy sources provide an increasing share of U.S. electricity
Many renewable energy sources are used to generate electricity and were the source of about 22% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2022. In 1990, renewable resources provided about 12% of utility-scale electricity generation.

Renewables generate roughly 20% of the total power as of 2022 yet get subsidies that are 75% of what the fossil fuels companies get.

What's your point? Electric vehicles get tax incentives and fuel vehicles don't, therefore EV tech is uncompetitive? These are the same means the US has always leveraged to incentivize industry.

I don't think you and I arguing the same things. You seem to be under the assumption that the technology won't be getting better from here, with or without the government speeding up the process through subsidy, because that's the only way your arguments make sense.

This isn’t a generic incentive program promoting industry- this is the government picking winners and losers to create a specific outcome. Even that is understandable- though far from ideal - if EVs provided obvious advantages to us over ICE vehicles. They don’t. Do they get us from point A to B faster compared to current vehicles? Do they get clearly superior distance until energy replenishment compared to ICE engines? Is EV turnaround to fully recharge faster than completely refueling an ICE vehicle? Seriously, where are the Eureka style breakthroughs from EVs that make the technology deserving of getting pushed by the government in favor of the current vehicles?

This is nothing like adopting automobiles in favor of horsepower, diesel locomotives over steam locomotives, jet engines over propeller engines, etc…. EV over ICE isn’t the same over what I mentioned immediately prior. So why the huge push?

You're comparing two snapshots of technology and trying to keep them as apples to apples. One apple has reached it's technological apex and one has decades of maturity to go

Here's a better question: why would many multiple billion dollar profit OEM vehicle manufacturers uproot a mature, known, profitable business model in pursuit of (what you apparently assume to be) nothing more than a green marketing gimmick?


I'll reiterate what I've said before. Electric vehicle technology will make ICE obsolete in the next decade. In the next decade: vehicles will increase their average range from 250 miles today, to 500-750 on a single charge, charging times will be reduced if not eliminated, and the investment from both national governments and OEM manufacturers will make infrastructure arguments moot, AND most importantly, cost parity between EV and ICE materials will be neutral. These are not uninformed guesses.

And you are on the wrong side of every issue

:coffee3:

(08-27-2023 07:32 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 07:23 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 11:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 04:37 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 04:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Yes, but not going directly to consumers. These EV subsidies are going directly to consumers in an attempt to make EVs competitive with ICE cars. But...subsidies for renewables are comparable to those received by the oil companies. And ironically, the renewables make up a small, small percentage of market share for power generation.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/...023-08-02/


https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/elec...the-us.php


Renewables generate roughly 20% of the total power as of 2022 yet get subsidies that are 75% of what the fossil fuels companies get.

What's your point? Electric vehicles get tax incentives and fuel vehicles don't, therefore EV tech is uncompetitive? These are the same means the US has always leveraged to incentivize industry.

I don't think you and I arguing the same things. You seem to be under the assumption that the technology won't be getting better from here, with or without the government speeding up the process through subsidy, because that's the only way your arguments make sense.

This isn’t a generic incentive program promoting industry- this is the government picking winners and losers to create a specific outcome. Even that is understandable- though far from ideal - if EVs provided obvious advantages to us over ICE vehicles. They don’t. Do they get us from point A to B faster compared to current vehicles? Do they get clearly superior distance until energy replenishment compared to ICE engines? Is EV turnaround to fully recharge faster than completely refueling an ICE vehicle? Seriously, where are the Eureka style breakthroughs from EVs that make the technology deserving of getting pushed by the government in favor of the current vehicles?

This is nothing like adopting automobiles in favor of horsepower, diesel locomotives over steam locomotives, jet engines over propeller engines, etc…. EV over ICE isn’t the same over what I mentioned immediately prior. So why the huge push?

You're comparing two snapshots of technology and trying to keep them as apples to apples. One apple has reached it's technological apex and one has decades of maturity to go

Here's a better question: why would many multiple billion dollar profit OEM vehicle manufacturers uproot a mature, known, profitable business model in pursuit of (what you apparently assume to be) nothing more than a green marketing gimmick?


I'll reiterate what I've said before. Electric vehicle technology will make ICE obsolete in the next decade. In the next decade: vehicles will increase their average range from 250 miles today, to 500-750 on a single charge, charging times will be reduced if not eliminated, and the investment from both national governments and OEM manufacturers will make infrastructure arguments moot, AND most importantly, cost parity between EV and ICE materials will be neutral. These are not uninformed guesses.

And you are on the wrong side of every issue

#alGore-ismDisciple

(08-27-2023 07:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 07:32 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 07:23 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 11:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 04:37 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  What's your point? Electric vehicles get tax incentives and fuel vehicles don't, therefore EV tech is uncompetitive? These are the same means the US has always leveraged to incentivize industry.

I don't think you and I arguing the same things. You seem to be under the assumption that the technology won't be getting better from here, with or without the government speeding up the process through subsidy, because that's the only way your arguments make sense.

This isn’t a generic incentive program promoting industry- this is the government picking winners and losers to create a specific outcome. Even that is understandable- though far from ideal - if EVs provided obvious advantages to us over ICE vehicles. They don’t. Do they get us from point A to B faster compared to current vehicles? Do they get clearly superior distance until energy replenishment compared to ICE engines? Is EV turnaround to fully recharge faster than completely refueling an ICE vehicle? Seriously, where are the Eureka style breakthroughs from EVs that make the technology deserving of getting pushed by the government in favor of the current vehicles?

This is nothing like adopting automobiles in favor of horsepower, diesel locomotives over steam locomotives, jet engines over propeller engines, etc…. EV over ICE isn’t the same over what I mentioned immediately prior. So why the huge push?

You're comparing two snapshots of technology and trying to keep them as apples to apples. One apple has reached it's technological apex and one has decades of maturity to go

Here's a better question: why would many multiple billion dollar profit OEM vehicle manufacturers uproot a mature, known, profitable business model in pursuit of (what you apparently assume to be) nothing more than a green marketing gimmick?


I'll reiterate what I've said before. Electric vehicle technology will make ICE obsolete in the next decade. In the next decade: vehicles will increase their average range from 250 miles today, to 500-750 on a single charge, charging times will be reduced if not eliminated, and the investment from both national governments and OEM manufacturers will make infrastructure arguments moot, AND most importantly, cost parity between EV and ICE materials will be neutral. These are not uninformed guesses.

And you are on the wrong side of every issue

#alGore-ismDisciple

Excellent call amigo.. maybe the tards should be working on electric boats

(08-27-2023 07:08 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I will say that prior to the last few months I might see one Tesla a month. Lately I see multiple ones every day. I'd even think about buying one if the prospect of a 15k bill to replace batteries, coupled with the prohibitive initial price tag, wasn't looming on the short horizon. I actually like the concept of EV's. But I also want to be able to buy and operate a classic muscle car if I so desire.

Model 3 RWD standard range comes out to like 32.7k after tax incentive as long as you qualify for the 7500 rebate (under like 330k MAGI).

Battery warranty is 8 year / 100k new.

Look for a glut of 7 year old EV vehicles that nobody wants to buy unless they are really cheap.

Go ahead, buy yours. I'll pass.

(08-27-2023 09:15 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Look for a glut of 7 year old EV vehicles that nobody wants to buy unless they are really cheap.

Go ahead, buy yours. I'll pass.

They will. People are stupid.

(08-27-2023 07:23 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 11:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 04:37 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 04:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 02:16 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  The U.S. spends $20B a year in oil subsidies.

Yes, but not going directly to consumers. These EV subsidies are going directly to consumers in an attempt to make EVs competitive with ICE cars. But...subsidies for renewables are comparable to those received by the oil companies. And ironically, the renewables make up a small, small percentage of market share for power generation.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/...023-08-02/

Quote:U.S. subsidies for renewable energy producers more than doubled between 2016 and 2022, forming nearly half of all federal energy-related support in that period, a U.S. government report released on Tuesday showed.

Renewable subsidies jumped to $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2022 from $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2016, according to the Energy Information Administration's Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy report.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/elec...the-us.php

Quote:Renewable energy sources provide an increasing share of U.S. electricity
Many renewable energy sources are used to generate electricity and were the source of about 22% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2022. In 1990, renewable resources provided about 12% of utility-scale electricity generation.

Renewables generate roughly 20% of the total power as of 2022 yet get subsidies that are 75% of what the fossil fuels companies get.

What's your point? Electric vehicles get tax incentives and fuel vehicles don't, therefore EV tech is uncompetitive? These are the same means the US has always leveraged to incentivize industry.

I don't think you and I arguing the same things. You seem to be under the assumption that the technology won't be getting better from here, with or without the government speeding up the process through subsidy, because that's the only way your arguments make sense.

This isn’t a generic incentive program promoting industry- this is the government picking winners and losers to create a specific outcome. Even that is understandable- though far from ideal - if EVs provided obvious advantages to us over ICE vehicles. They don’t. Do they get us from point A to B faster compared to current vehicles? Do they get clearly superior distance until energy replenishment compared to ICE engines? Is EV turnaround to fully recharge faster than completely refueling an ICE vehicle? Seriously, where are the Eureka style breakthroughs from EVs that make the technology deserving of getting pushed by the government in favor of the current vehicles?

This is nothing like adopting automobiles in favor of horsepower, diesel locomotives over steam locomotives, jet engines over propeller engines, etc…. EV over ICE isn’t the same over what I mentioned immediately prior. So why the huge push?

You're comparing two snapshots of technology and trying to keep them as apples to apples. One apple has reached it's technological apex and one has decades of maturity to go

Here's a better question: why would many multiple billion dollar profit OEM vehicle manufacturers uproot a mature, known, profitable business model in pursuit of (what you apparently assume to be) nothing more than a green marketing gimmick?


I'll reiterate what I've said before. Electric vehicle technology will make ICE obsolete in the next decade. In the next decade: vehicles will increase their average range from 250 miles today, to 500-750 on a single charge, charging times will be reduced if not eliminated, and the investment from both national governments and OEM manufacturers will make infrastructure arguments moot, AND most importantly, cost parity between EV and ICE materials will be neutral. These are not uninformed guesses.

EVs could very well be the next step. They aren’t today. The technology is not mature enough to scale it up yet OEMs and the government are treating it like it’s a serious alternative - today. EVs can’t be recycled to the same extent ICE cars can be - specifically the batteries. It will take a lot of energy to separate the materials inside these batteries. Today’s EVs are not good reliable as used vehicles. ICE engines are modular so it’s easy enough to replace parts to allow for resale and potentially over a couple of decades. You can’t do that for an EV due to the expense of a battery vs the total cost of the vehicle.

Simple question- why not wait to do all of this until the OEMs had tangible prototypes of multiple types of vehicles capable of traveling 800 - 1000 miles on a single charge? Why introduce them today when it’s obvious that at least a couple of components currently in the vehicles have to be technological dead ends given observable performance today? One can only conclude that we are being forced to subsidize the development of these vehicles. That’s a very different from every other true blue technological innovations that companies built organically and brought to market a largely developed product easily scalable to fit into our markets. The government didn’t have to force us to subsidize the development and sales of personal computers or smartphones.

(08-27-2023 07:23 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  I'll reiterate what I've said before. Electric vehicle technology will make ICE obsolete in the next decade. In the next decade: vehicles will increase their average range from 250 miles today, to 500-750 on a single charge, charging times will be reduced if not eliminated, and the investment from both national governments and OEM manufacturers will make infrastructure arguments moot, AND most importantly, cost parity between EV and ICE materials will be neutral. These are not uninformed guesses.

There is absolutely zero reason to believe any of that, particularly the infrastructure part. What there clearly will not be, barring some truly incredible development, is sufficient electric supply to support a large number of EVs.

(08-27-2023 07:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 07:32 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 07:23 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 11:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 04:37 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  What's your point? Electric vehicles get tax incentives and fuel vehicles don't, therefore EV tech is uncompetitive? These are the same means the US has always leveraged to incentivize industry.

I don't think you and I arguing the same things. You seem to be under the assumption that the technology won't be getting better from here, with or without the government speeding up the process through subsidy, because that's the only way your arguments make sense.

This isn’t a generic incentive program promoting industry- this is the government picking winners and losers to create a specific outcome. Even that is understandable- though far from ideal - if EVs provided obvious advantages to us over ICE vehicles. They don’t. Do they get us from point A to B faster compared to current vehicles? Do they get clearly superior distance until energy replenishment compared to ICE engines? Is EV turnaround to fully recharge faster than completely refueling an ICE vehicle? Seriously, where are the Eureka style breakthroughs from EVs that make the technology deserving of getting pushed by the government in favor of the current vehicles?

This is nothing like adopting automobiles in favor of horsepower, diesel locomotives over steam locomotives, jet engines over propeller engines, etc…. EV over ICE isn’t the same over what I mentioned immediately prior. So why the huge push?

You're comparing two snapshots of technology and trying to keep them as apples to apples. One apple has reached it's technological apex and one has decades of maturity to go

Here's a better question: why would many multiple billion dollar profit OEM vehicle manufacturers uproot a mature, known, profitable business model in pursuit of (what you apparently assume to be) nothing more than a green marketing gimmick?


I'll reiterate what I've said before. Electric vehicle technology will make ICE obsolete in the next decade. In the next decade: vehicles will increase their average range from 250 miles today, to 500-750 on a single charge, charging times will be reduced if not eliminated, and the investment from both national governments and OEM manufacturers will make infrastructure arguments moot, AND most importantly, cost parity between EV and ICE materials will be neutral. These are not uninformed guesses.

And you are on the wrong side of every issue

#alGore-ismDisciple

#rwtbuttbumpinbud

(08-27-2023 09:15 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Look for a glut of 7 year old EV vehicles that nobody wants to buy unless they are really cheap.

Go ahead, buy yours. I'll pass.

The 2016 model S sold for 30k less than the BMW 750 that year for the smaller battery pack, up to the same price as the 750 when the S has the large battery pack. Used today the 750 and the Model S dell in the same price range.

The Lexus LS, the pinnacle of Toyota ICE engineering, also sells used for the same price as the Tesla.

If what you are saying is true the Tesla should be cheaper than peer luxury sedans and it isn’t. The smaller battery pack teslas have depreciated less than other luxury cars.

The statement that EV's are going to make ICE vehicles obsolete in less than 10 years is plausible, but it is going to require massive innovation on the battery front. Modern Lithium Ion batteries have a fraction of the energy density of diesel or gasoline, and until they can reach that level it won't happen. Our entire economy is run on diesel transit, and today there are zero options on the EV front that can meet our shipping needs. Governments can encourage innovation through legislation, but that doesn't mean it will occur. Now, whether EV's are actually more environmentally friendly......That is entirely different argument.

Full disclosure, I'm an engineer, so I have a strong appreciation for the incredible technical accomplishment that is the modern internal combustion engine. IMO, they are the most advanced mass produced electromechanical devices on the planet.