Yesterday. Would you buy and EV?

[hornett22]

The boys over at Youtube's Fast Lane Truck flew into Detroit from Colorado to pick up their new Ford F150 Lighting and have chronicled their travel from Michigan back home. What is most interesting is the sea of issues recharging the vehicle on the way home and is worth the watch to get a feel of real-world recharging issues.

This is one in the series of videos, this illustrates their first day on the road.

Ford can't get normal vehicles right after decades and decades. I'm definitely not buying this technology from them.

 

[CloverKnollFarms]

Are EVs really “green” considering the materials they use, and the fact that we need to use fossil fuels to create the electricity to power them?

I’m not an expert. Just curious.

How would they play into the already mounting warnings about rolling blackouts?

Im no expert.

 

[bnold]

Still doesn’t solve greenhouse gasses one bit since hydrocarbon emitting power plants recharge the cars.

Trillions wasted to transfer the hydrocarbons from millions of tailpipes to thousands of power plant exhaust stacks.

Sign me up!!!

You do comprehend the efficiency difference between KW produced by a power plant and by a small ICE correct?

And not all electricity is hydrocarbon derived.

20k+ mikes on my EV, never a public station required to charge.

 

[Hay Dude]

You do comprehend the efficiency difference between KW produced by a power plant and by a small ICE correct?

And not all electricity is hydrocarbon derived.

20k+ mikes on my EV, never a public station required to charge.

Counting the mining & manufacturing costs of EV’s with lithium batteries and the dramatically increased output of hydrocarbon burning power plants to repeatedly charge them, that EV’s are not much better than existing ICE vehicles.
Also, EV’s batteries and parts are mainly produced in China, which has little to zero pollution regs. They don’t care how many millions of tons of hydrocarbons they release into the air to make their billions in EV profits.
One could also see that a tremendous amount of additional mining for copper & aluminum for infrastructure improvements will be needed to upgrade our electrical grid, just to charge EV’s without collapsing the electric grid.
This will release millions more tons of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.

I won’t even talk about the storage of spent lithium batteries and that impact on the enviroment.

Comprehend on all that a while…..

 

[AndyMA]

4 Years & 60,000 miles on my Tesla Model 3. Never an issue charging.
Usually at home from solar.
Cost to operate and maintain less than $100 per year.

As i've said earlier I'll never buy an ICE again

Andy

 

[Hay Dude]

4 Years & 60,000 miles on my Tesla Model 3. Never an issue charging.
Usually at home from solar.
Cost to operate and maintain less than $100 per year.

As i've said earlier I'll never buy an ICE again

Andy

Compare & contrast your ownership experience to what the typical American earning a salary less than the average cost of a new EV will experience. Now to that, add the additional cost of a dramatic electricity bill increase (think people who can’t afford or dont have a yard for solar panels). Now to that, add what it will be like 10 years now, if they are mandated and we have to spend trillions to upgrade our infrastructure in additional payroll or EV vehicle taxes.

Thats what it looks like to the average schlub living in “cling to your guns & bibles, USA”.

 

[Torvy]

4 Years & 60,000 miles on my Tesla Model 3. Never an issue charging.
Usually at home from solar.
Cost to operate and maintain less than $100 per year.

As i've said earlier I'll never buy an ICE again

Andy

The entire state of Massachusetts is only 190 miles across. So, it is no surprise that someone in MA can operate that way. I would ask that you take your Tesla and tour the country. See how the rest of us live. 870 miles across Texas alone. I would have to stop for gas once in my car for about 10 minutes or less. Best case in a "long range" Tesla is 2 stops. 30 minutes only gets you from 10%-80% on the fastest charger. A minimum of 50 minutes lost, just across 1 western state.

Your initial outlay for the Tesla and the solar power system is considerably more money than I would spend on gas in 4 years. 20k miles a year, worst case 40mpg., call it 500 gallons at $5 to make the math easy...$2500 in gas per year x 4 years = $10k. The long range model 3 cost $30k more than my Prius. I'm still ahead by $20k not even counting the solar power system.

 

[meackerman]

Counting the mining & manufacturing costs of EV’s with lithium batteries and the dramatically increased output of hydrocarbon burning power plants to repeatedly charge them, that EV’s are not much better than existing ICE vehicles.
Also, EV’s batteries and parts are mainly produced in China, which has little to zero pollution regs. They don’t care how many millions of tons of hydrocarbons they release into the air to make their billions in EV profits.
One could also see that a tremendous amount of additional mining for copper & aluminum for infrastructure improvements will be needed to upgrade our electrical grid, just to charge EV’s without collapsing the electric grid.
This will release millions more tons of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.

I won’t even talk about the storage of spent lithium batteries and that impact on the enviroment.

Comprehend on all that a while…..

not to mention the rare earth minerals needed (not rare like gold). one estimate is with current technology, there's not enough of all the rare earth minerals for every vehicle in England to be an EV. Not to mention the countries that the majority of the minerals come from...which may or may not be friendly with us sometime in the near future.
now technology is improving, lessening the need for some rare earth minerals and switching to more common minerals for somethings. so long term its might not be a problem, but in the next few years if we were to switch everything to EV's it could be huge problem....

 

[ultrarunner]

You may not be an expert, but your instincts are correct. "The consensus" is we need to stop driving ICE vehicles to stop global warming, or pollution, or anxiety, or something. Solar, wind and pixie dust will save the day--coal and natural gas are evil--and nuclear power is off the table, based on a different "consensus".

As you implied, solar energy is so diffuse that it will never provide even 20% of the electricity we need, particularly if 100 million EVs need charging--can you say blackout? Someone will screech "But my house has solar panels and we produce 100% of our power!" If it's true (probably not), the screecher lives in Arizona and he spent $60,000 for panels and batteries for $4000 worth of electricity per year. After 20 years his system is worn out and he spent all that money up front (actual cost $108,000 over 20 years). Dumb. Centralized generation is efficient. Individual systems are primarily toys for those with energy guilt or money to burn. Wind power is even less effective--might produce 20% of our needs with 10 million wind turbines. And they look so nice covering the horizon.

Transitioning to EVs will accomplish exactly zero--except diverting money and natural resources away from other pursuits.

The people who claim "consensus" are environmentalists, not engineers. The environmentalists told the politicians, and off we went. Meanwhile, the engineers are shaking their heads, saying "No No NO!".

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.--Michael Crichton

I do pause as to how quick things change...

In the 70's it was patriotic to install a wood stove even backed by tax credits.

After that Natural Gas was the lovechild as it was seen as clean and abundant and home grown...

As with wood natural gas is now persona non grata...

Solar and wind emerging tech and it does provide payback in the right application...

Guess I'm on borrowed time as my solar is now 14 years old with only 25% life left before it's kaput.

Batteries have been around forever and electric modes such as golf carts viable for a very long time.

Today's EV vehicles are truly remarkable and they don't have to be for everyone as modern ICE is also remarkable too.

Maybe the problem is expecting a single one size fits for all?

I tend to think a mix is the way forward... and if I could afford a steam car I would add one to the collection!

 

[meackerman]

As you implied, solar energy is so diffuse that it will never provide even 20% of the electricity we need, particularly if 100 million EVs need charging--can you say blackout? Someone will screech "But my house has solar panels and we produce 100% of our power!" If it's true (probably not), the screecher lives in Arizona and he spent $60,000 for panels and batteries for $4000 worth of electricity per year. After 20 years his system is worn out and he spent all that money up front (actual cost $108,000 over 20 years). Dumb. Centralized generation is efficient. Individual systems are primarily toys for those with energy guilt or money to burn.

Not Arizona, but Central California and my solar has cut my electricity bills down to almost nothing. Return on investment about 6-7 years. Course California has stupid electricity prices so that helps the ROI. Solar systems are not "worn out" after 20 years.