Today, would you buy an EV vehicle.

[nickfank]

My wife and I have 2 cars, and we keep them for 15 years and have it timed so we replace one every 7-8 years. Currently have a 2014 Chevy Malibu and just replaced our 2006 Chevy Trailblazer with a 2022 Chevy Silverado. When it comes time to replace the Malibu in 7 years, I fully expect to buy an EV. EV costs will come down, range will go up. I was interested in getting a Ford Lightning this year, but my $100 reservation with Ford won't let me buy one for several years due to the high demand and limited initial production. So I bought the Silverado instead. The recently announced Chevy EV pickup has an estimated range of 400-500 miles, much better than the 200-300 miles of the Lightning. I have plans to add two lines of 50 amp 220 volt electric service to my garage so it will be EV ready. I added a South facing lean to onto my barn last year, and have 900 sq ft of roof that I built to be able to support a solar array. Give EV a few more years, and the technology will mature and be a viable option for many drivers.

Good plan. That's roughly what we did 2 years ago, and it's working. In our case, it's 800 sqft, which worked out to a 16kW array. The production isn't quite as good as predicted, but our payback period will be just shy of 9 years, and the equipment warranty is 30 years. It's enough to run the house & 2 EVs. (one commuter & one grocery-gitter)

I was already happy with the savings last year. This year as gas nudges $5/gallon, I'm downright smug.

 

[bvanek]

I agree with you that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is small relative to other gasses. The actual number is currently 0.26%. But that's all it takes. The volume that of your car that is occupied by the glass in the windshield is less than 1% of the total material in a car... But I think we can all agree that a car gets pretty hot in the sun. Do you disagree about that clear demonstration of the greenhouse effect?

I am merely providing the known science.....the bottom line for how much C02 affects global warming is probably not "settled" as the claim insists. So I stand with continuing the science and not using skewered modeling that has political motives with hysterical hype designed to extract money out of our country. So why should we blow up our economy and support a theory yet to be proven?

graphs do show that CO2 increases in the atmosphere follow the warming of the planet, but the supposed global consensus says man made Co2 is causing it to warm. I consider myself a conscious environmental citizen so I don't deny global warming I just question the impact of reducing these very small quantities of man-made c02 make a difference in climate change. Right now that just doesn't seem logical.

The 0.26 % is the rounded data after the "forcing affect" of C02 gets factored in.....Water vapor is quite variable and C02 is pretty constant and so they (the real scientists) pretty much conform to Co2 driving this effect but just how much this plays depends on a man made formula with the science still on going. This may never be known?

some interesting info; Back in the 1930's C02 levels were approximately 250 ppm. Science says that anything below 200 PPM plant life on earth begins to suffer. Oddly enough we are greener today in spite of deforestation than we were back them...current C02 levels are at approx. 420 PPM. I suppose that might trigger the alarmists as it once did me. But given what I now know about how much is man made vs natural I take a step back. The oceans and land masses are sinks for C02 and plant life thrives on it. (they pump as much as 1200 ppm into greenhouses artificially bumping up the plants photosynthesis process=fast growing and more vibrant results.

So science in progress is where I am at. Remember it was suppossed to be past the point of no return in 2005, then they shifted from global warming to climate change (it actually cooled for several years and is still below levels in the 1930's).......I am not ignorant to the fact that man can alter the natural order of things IE the carbon cycle, but I don't like political interference calling the shots. as for the car-earth comparison. Well the only thing natural in the car version is the sun itself and that's a pretty massive disproportionate item of comparison. You open the windows and it will cool it down or you drive down the road and add some circulation, things change quite a bit. The global climate is much more complex and has a natural occurring carbon cycle, and weather, so I'm not denying a hot car sitting in the sun, just think the comparison is a reach.

 

[Fixastuff]

No I won't buy and ev right now but I did buy stock in an ev company(tesla).

 

[southerniltractor]

An EV wouldn't work given the distances we drive in the midwest. In addition, the entire "green" narrative is a complete falsehood when you do just a bit of research on the mining/mineral extraction requirements, pollution in mining and disposing of these machines, and then, where does all the electricity come from to charge these cars? Our energy grid is unable to to support significant numbers of EVs without major upgrades AND more power generation from....fossil fuels.

 

[Torvy]

Not quite... If you live in the US, your gas stations are supported by part of the annual $5.9 Trillion fossil fuel subsidy from our taxes. (That was the subsidy on 2020- don't know what it is this year.) That's about 500 times the subsidy for renewables.

Not quite. That so-called subsidy has been debunked.

I've got no issue with someone choosing to use whatever works for them to cut coats, but stop pretending you are saving the world or that your tiny operation can be used by everyone. Population densities in the cities means that there is not enough area to gather solar or wind energy to be self-reliant.

 

[milkman636]

Saw my first ford lightening truck today. It’s a lot of money to replace gas. Plus the battery warranty says 30% reduction is allowed within the 100,000 mile battery warranty, and I saw a towing test where the extended range version only did 135 miles on a full charge while towing a 6000 lb trailer. It wasn’t cold enough out to need the electric resistance heaters either. The charge times are long if you don’t have the monster charger too. Yep, that’s a big no thank you for me until they get the cost further down.

 

[JasperFrank]

Everything I had read, over 20 years, about Europe going to zero emission, all their great expense and Hi-tech to get there is pretty much been a BS show, now that they are trying their best to back peddle their dependence on Russian Oil. Putin did more in 100 days than Greta Thunberg could have ever said.

 

[lman]

No, seriously, it's saving me money. The return is so clear that if you want to do the same thing, you'll have banks lining up to loan you the money because you can pay them back with the savings and still have money left.

The facts are simple enough- The solar array will pay for itself in 9 years. The warranty on the equipment is 30 years. That's 21 years of free electricity.

The two cars cost $40K for both. My neighbor spent more than that for one car that burns $5/gallon gas.

I agree that one person can't change the world, but the people who actually try stand a better chance of changing the world than those who sit on the sidelines and scoff.

Where can you buy an EV for $20,000?
Who's trying to change the world? I just want to go back to 2020.

 

[Hay Dude]

Europe and the US can go to “zero emissions” all they want.
Problem is, China, India and Mexico will crank out even more pollution.

The industrial base that left the USA didnt just go away. It resurfaced in other countries with less taxation and regulation. They have almost ZERO pollution regulations.

So in the end, the worlds water, soil and atmosphere will be just as polluted. Maybe more-at least we had some regulations here.

Bravo environmentalists.

 

[wolc123]

No