EVs can't work, and are just stepping stones to banning all personal transportation

[CaptUSA]

The fact of the matter is this:

If EVs were in all ways superior to and better than ICE vehicles, the marketplace would have responded accordingly.

But it has not.

New subsidies of over $7000 per vehicle are in the new bloated spending package and even with that market share is not exploding.

Government fatwas and handouts are not the way to build a transportation system.

There are many small EV designs that make sense for an inner city/short haul commuter vehicle, that would make zero sense for a long haul heavy hauler.

Weather, weight, availability, cost...there are hundreds of factors to consider in which to choose one or the other.

Only an informed driver, in a free market, could make these decisions.

Central planning by government dicktat will be a disaster.

But, since we've turned into the USSR, I guess that is exactly how it's going to be.

Exactly. All of that!

 

[CaptUSA]

This one gives you 40 miles of charge every day...

https://aptera.nu/?p=67

Not in the UP, it won’t. Lol

 

[pcosmar]

The fact of the matter is this:

If EVs were in all ways superior to and better than ICE vehicles, the marketplace would have responded accordingly.

Musk faced and DEFEATED a lot of resistance bringing the Tesla to market.

I have wanted one for years before Tesla was available.. since the first Oil Embargo.

and the FACT that his product is sold out as fast as they are built,,proves there is interest.

I'm still waiting for Hydrogen to REPLACE Petroleum as a fuel. Should have been 40 years ago.

 

[pcosmar]

Not in the UP, it won’t. Lol

Perhaps not,, will still give you some.

I don't live in the UP and have no reason to visit there.

Right now I an sitting at my laptop,next to a fridge, and warmed by a space heater.
ALL powered by the Sun.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Musk faced and DEFEATED a lot of resistance bringing the Tesla to market.

I have wanted one for years before Tesla was available.. since the first Oil Embargo.

and the FACT that his product is sold out as fast as they are built,,proves there is interest.

I'm still waiting for Hydrogen to REPLACE Petroleum as a fuel. Should have been 40 years ago.

Musk cornered the market on them no doubt.

He did it many ways because of government mandates, subsidies, "green credits" and so forth.

Prior to his actions on Twatter, I didn't care for the man much at all, considering his vast fortune was mostly acquired by government rent seeking.

All that said, all he did was corner a market that was only two percent of all vehicle sales as of 2019.

 

[pcosmar]

Musk cornered the market on them no doubt.

The guy is smart..He used the "Rules" to beat the road blocks.
There are several Start-ups,, that have gone to production..and they use the "Green bla bla bla" to sell them,,to the Believers.

Aptera started before the "Green Agenda" as an exercise in Efficiency.. Been up and down,,mostly crowd funded till now.
They have a well developed vehicle,,with Efficiency in every aspect of design and construction..

Not the car for Everyone.. but a most perfect personal conveyance for many.

Lightyear Just went into Production,, delivering vehicles.. Rivan Has a Truck..another start up.

All major Manufactures are developing their own.. because people are tired of paying evermore Increasing prices for Gas. Especially in Europe where Fuel was already expensive.

I have wanted one since 1976.

 

[pcosmar]

as a side note,,

the Aptera uses Petroleum Products,,Carbon Fiber Frame,Fiber Glass Body, Insulation. etc.

Just a more lasting use of the Products..Efficiency.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Especially in Europe where Fuel was already expensive.

There is no better argument regarding the "costliness" of petroleum based fuels being a function of government intervention than Europe.

 

[pcosmar]

There is no better argument regarding the "costliness" of petroleum based fuels being a function of government intervention than Europe.

The only reason ours was "cheaper" was Because of Oil Subsidies,, and Fighting Wars for the Saudis.

END that.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The only reason ours was "cheaper" was Because of Oil Subsidies,, and Fighting Wars for the Saudis.

END that.

I've heard so much about these "subsidies". Can you tell me how the oil industry is "subsidized"? Because if you are, as the left often does, talking about tax breaks, then you are not talking about "subsidies". (And please feel free to note here that I didn't take this opportunity to irrationally tie you to leftist positions broadly because of one distinct correlation with what is often one of their talking points, explicitly. You know, like you did to me earlier...)

If you want to talk about subsidies, you should be talking about the renewable industries, and ESPECIALLY EV's.

ETA: And the middle eastern wars "on behalf of the Saudis" are a petrodollar subsidy, which props up the entire American economy and not just oil.

 

[pcosmar]

https://dangerousminds.net/comments...eople_were_really_hostile_to_the_introduction
https://www.weirduniverse.net/blog/comments/farmers_anti_automobile_society_of_arkansaw

https://concordhist.org/history-unlocked-august-2017-early-auto-laws/

The negative sentiment toward automobiles was so strong that around 1910, a group called the Farmers Anti Automobile Society (FAAS) formed in Pennsylvania. They were troubled by the rapid increase of automobiles on the road and sought to protect their horses and livelihood in any way possible. The FAAS drafted a number of laws they wished to see ratified, and the text of these still exists as part of the historical record. To any modern person, the demands seem rather extreme. The group of farmers wanted automobiles traveling on a country road at night to send up a rocket every mile, then wait ten minutes for the road to clear (presumably, of livestock). The driver could then proceed, with caution, blowing his horn and shooting off Roman candles (a type of rocket), as before. The FAAS also wanted the driver of an automobile, who sees a team of horses approaching, to stop, pull over to one side of the road, and cover the car with a blanket or dust cover which is painted or colored to blend into the scenery, and render the machine less noticeable. The rule did not mention where one could buy such a blanket, or how much it would cost. And in the event that the horse was still too spooked to pass the automobile, the driver of the car must take the machine apart as rapidly as possible and conceal the parts in the bushes. I must admit, I would have no idea where to begin taking apart my car in the event that a horse could not bring itself to pass me. It was also recommended that a man with a red flag walk in front of an automobile to clear the way, which defeated the purpose of having an automobile in the first place. It is not clear whether these requests made it into law.

You can thank these jackholes for Licensing and Registration.

 

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/RULYGEM0097/status/1609018368119406592

 

[TheCount]

Nope. I do NOT ignore those costs. It's just that if you want to include the costs of getting the fuel to the vehicle's engine, you also have to include the costs of getting the fuel to the power plant turbines. Then, you have to include the costs of extracting the fuel... It goes on and on. And if you include the costs of extracting the fuel, you also have to include the costs of extracting the battery materials which will eventually store the energy that was generated.

Yeah, and that includes all of that.

This is why I say that EV's have their uses. They can be a very useful tool if you use it right. But if you're not, then the opposite is true. Best use case for an EV is to trickle charge it at Level 1 to replace your daily commute miles and use your ICE vehicle for everything else. Worst case for an EV would be towing on a long trip.

Definitely. They are not an all purpose tool (yet). As technology improved, they have gone from being very narrowly useful only in certain circumstances to more broadly useful in more circumstances. That trend will continue but it'll never hit 100%.

That link is entirely irrelevant to the conversation here. We're talking about efficiency - not emissions. Even when the article tangentially gets to the efficiency question, it repeats the same tired mistakes mentioned above. Trust me, I'm in the industry. It's a pandemic of BS.

The article covers both topics and uses sources for each. They're right there to be clicked on.

EV's need MORE energy to move them; not less. The vehicles weigh more, so there needs to be more energy to move them the same distance. Simple physics that the special interests choose to ignore.

Cars use energy to do a whole bunch of shit that has nothing to do with moving the vehicle. For example, ICEs have to either directly or indirectly power fans and a water pump to deal with all the completely inefficient waste heat that they generate. How many amps do you think a pair of 14-inch fans draw as they're sucking air through a radiator?

Also, EVs can recover energy through regenerative braking, which a conventional vehicle cannot.

As a counterpoint, accessories can actually draw more power on an electric vehicle, as for example you have to electrically generate heat to warm the interior in the winter since you're not wasting 1/3rd of your fuel generating useless heat.

There are plenty of other points, I'm not going to go through an exhaustive list. On the whole it seems an EV translates more of its energy into propulsion than a ICE-driven vehicle does, leading to that efficiency claim.

"Green energy" is even MORE inefficient! Solar and wind have lower capacity factors than coal and hydro is almost identical. Yes, those are sources of energy that are easily acquired, but we're not very good at converting them. So to suggest that we would "reduce the mount of energy needed" by using a less efficient source and moving a heavier vehicle is JUST A LIE.

A train is heavier than a car and yet it is more efficient.

Efficiency in this case of energy primarily comes down to how expensive it is to produce a given amount of electricity. If "green energy" can produce energy at a lower price per unit, that makes its own argument without even without taking into account all of the external costs of coal or fossil fuels.

Maybe try using some discretion before believing nonsense. That's a propaganda piece - not a scientific piece.

Maybe try clicking the underlined words that link to the scientific pieces.

 

[acptulsa]

There are plenty of other points, I'm not going to go through an exhaustive list. On the whole it seems an EV translates more of its energy into propulsion than a ICE-driven vehicle does, leading to that efficiency claim.

How could they not? They're heavier.

A train is heavier than a car and yet it is more efficient.

No, a train is more efficient than cars or trucks largely because it's heavier. The key is, they're heavier with cargo, all being moved by the same internal combustion engine(s) and all traveling through the same hole punched in the air, not heavier because their energy storage is heavier. Payload, not tare weight, creates efficiency. Get it? Did I do a good enough job explaining it like you have a Ukrainian flag in your profile?

Maybe try clicking the underlined words that link to the scientific pieces.

Maybe check your arrogance at the door before assuming the man doesn't know how to find Teh Science™. What he was saying to you is, he prefers actual science. You know. Engineering, not excuses.

 

[acptulsa]

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Maybe check your arrogance at the door before assuming the man doesn't know how to find Teh Science™. What he was saying to you is, he prefers actual science. You know. Engineering, not excuses.

Kind of funny that CU is supposed to click through links in an article posted here, instead of - you know - the article TC claims makes his "actual" point being posted here...

 

[CaptUSA]

Maybe try clicking the underlined words that link to the scientific pieces.

FFS.

How about a credential check? My focus is on electrification. I'm an active member of SEPA (Smart Energy Power Alliance), EEI (Edison Electric Institute), EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute, where I won a 2022 Tech Transfer award for leading a detailed analysis on Efficient Electrification for industry, buildings and transportation), ATE (Alliance for Transportation Electrification), and I'm a founding member of the NEHC (National Electric Highway Coalition). I've participated in research studies with RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute), NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), SECC (Smart Energy Consumer Collaborative) and countless independent studies. I currently sit on electrification working groups in 5 states sponsored by state agencies as well as many other industry working groups on the topic. I've read dozens of University studies from Stanford to MIT to Berkeley and everything in between from just about every angle your could imagine.

You are a jackwad on the internet pretending you know something. You do NOT.

The idea that electric vehicles are more efficient is completely and utterly false. Yes, you gain some economies of scale by generating that much power in one place as opposed to having each vehicle generate it internally, but those gains are more than lost on transmission across the lines, storage in an expensive battery, and the fact that you need MORE energy to move the vehicles due to their weight. The ideologues dominate the industry, but when you ask the right questions, you get the correct answers.

While I try to offer education, you offer nothing but propaganda. You either know that and have your motives, or you are entirely ignorant and foolishly susceptible to the propaganda yourself.

 

[tod evans]

FFS.


While I try to offer education, you offer nothing but propaganda. You either know that and have your motives, or you are entirely ignorant and foolishly susceptible to the propaganda yourself.

I don't know if they're mutually exclusive.........

 

[TheCount]

How could they not? They're heavier.

Let me say it another way.

For a given amount of energy in either battery or fuel, the ICE wastes more of that energy doing non-productive things.

No, a train is more efficient than cars or trucks largely because it's heavier. The key is, they're heavier with cargo, all being moved by the same internal combustion engine(s) and all traveling through the same hole punched in the air, not heavier because their energy storage is heavier. Payload, not tare weight, creates efficiency. Get it? Did I do a good enough job explaining it like you have a Ukrainian flag in your profile?

Slava Ukraini! Let me explain like you have a Z in your profile.

@CaptUSA mentioned capacity factor, which is clearly a term that you didn't understand. That's the thing compared to weight in this case. You need a lot more total generating capacity if you're using "green energy," because that generating capacity is basically never going to be generating at 100% output. At any given time, winds will be low in some places, it's going to be cloudy in some other places, and so on. And so you need a bunch of "extra" production capacity to cover that shortfall. That's the inefficiency that Capt mentioned.

However, if the per-kwh price of "green energy" is less than fossil-fueled alternatives even when the cost of that extra capacity is included, then the "inefficiency" doesn't much matter. Like the fact that the weight of the train doesn't matter when payload-to-weight is considered.

Maybe check your arrogance at the door before assuming the man doesn't know how to find Teh Science™. What he was saying to you is, he prefers actual science. You know. Engineering, not excuses.

Do you think that Motor Trend should start hiring PhDs to write car reviews? The actual Science™ is linked throughout.


As for arrogance, I respond in the same tone that's directed toward me.

 

[TheCount]

The idea that electric vehicles are more efficient is completely and utterly false. Yes, you gain some economies of scale by generating that much power in one place as opposed to having each vehicle generate it internally, but those gains are more than lost on transmission across the lines, storage in an expensive battery, and the fact that you need MORE energy to move the vehicles due to their weight. The ideologues dominate the industry, but when you ask the right questions, you get the correct answers.

What's the transmission loss of a gallon of crude?