FAIL- Electric Car Sales Plunge To 4 Year Lows

[Papageorgio]

I'd buy an electric car voluntarily, but if it was mandated, fuck that!

 

[JoshuaZ]

Yes, they are. And if CO2 were a problem that would be a big deal. However it is not.

Yes, it is, and improving efficiency of use of fossil fuels also has many other benefits, such as making the US less dependent on foreign sources of oil and less vulnerable to shocks. It also is the sort of thing that would make dealing with countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia much easier both for the US and its allies. How different do you think the unfolding Ukrainian situation would have been if so many NATO countries weren't reliant so heavily on Russian oil?

As far as the technology goes EV's have only improved range wise 100% in 100 years. ICE vehicles on the other hand have improved over 700% and that is going up. All the while they are getting cleaner and more reliable.

Yes, the range problem is a serious one, but it isn't everything: note for example that most Americans don't travel more than 40 miles by car daily.

Also note that hybrid automatically beats ICE in this regard, since they get essentially most the benefits of both.

In Paris, where they actually have some applicability, they still don't get a tremendous amount of use simply because the majority of the people can't afford them.

Yes, affordabiltiy is a huge problem.

If they could ever get Nicola Tesla's energy broadcast system to work then EV's would instantly become THE vehicle to have as range would no longer be an issue.

The inverse square law basically rules out any such system.

But the claim that they are such a new technology is not born out by fact.

Has anyone here claimed otherwise?

The only thing different between a 100 year old EV and a Tesla, is the Tesla is much more comfortable and has twice the useful range.

And can be charged at home or at work, and can do city miles more efficiently, and has much better acceleration which is almost as good as a high-end conventional car.

 

[westwall]

Yes, they are. And if CO2 were a problem that would be a big deal. However it is not.

Yes, it is, and improving efficiency of use of fossil fuels also has many other benefits, such as making the US less dependent on foreign sources of oil and less vulnerable to shocks. It also is the sort of thing that would make dealing with countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia much easier both for the US and its allies. How different do you think the unfolding Ukrainian situation would have been if so many NATO countries weren't reliant so heavily on Russian oil?

As far as the technology goes EV's have only improved range wise 100% in 100 years. ICE vehicles on the other hand have improved over 700% and that is going up. All the while they are getting cleaner and more reliable.

Yes, the range problem is a serious one, but it isn't everything: note for example that most Americans don't travel more than 40 miles by car daily.

Also note that hybrid automatically beats ICE in this regard, since they get essentially most the benefits of both.

In Paris, where they actually have some applicability, they still don't get a tremendous amount of use simply because the majority of the people can't afford them.

Yes, affordabiltiy is a huge problem.

If they could ever get Nicola Tesla's energy broadcast system to work then EV's would instantly become THE vehicle to have as range would no longer be an issue.

The inverse square law basically rules out any such system.

But the claim that they are such a new technology is not born out by fact.

Has anyone here claimed otherwise?

The only thing different between a 100 year old EV and a Tesla, is the Tesla is much more comfortable and has twice the useful range.

And can be charged at home or at work, and can do city miles more efficiently, and has much better acceleration which is almost as good as a high-end conventional car.

No, it's not. CO2 is the fundamental building block of ALL life on this planet. Thus it CAN'T be a pollutant. A pollutant harms life. If you remove pollutants life blossoms. If you were to remove CO2 ALL multi-cellular life would end. Do you understand that?

And no, hybrids don't get the best mileage out there. Turbo diesels lead the way in terms of mileage and are far cheaper to produce and cause less pollution in their manufacture. That being said I actually like hybrids and would like to see more research invested in them.

However, my personal belief is that hydrogen or fuel cell technology is going to be the true breakthrough technology that will get us away from ICE powered vehicles. And that would be a good thing.

 

[WinterBorn]

I want to see a electric car do two things
1. Go 250 mph
2. Go a 1,000 miles before recharging!

I got to take a test drive in a Tesla Model S P85D.

No, it won't go 250 mph. But then, I can't imagine where you would drive a car 250 mph.

But it will do 0-60 in 3.2 seconds. It doesn't accelerate, it LAUNCHES. It feels like a ride at Six Flags, but you are never out of control. It is an amazing car.

Why not do the same in a combustion engine car?

First, because I don't know many four door luxury cars that will do 0-60 in 3.2 seconds.
Second, because I can do that without burning a bit of fossil fuel.
Third, I can do that in a car loaded with Space Shuttle-like technology.
And lastly, I can do that and help a new American car company grow.

In the meantime, most of us will do what is pragmatic and what we can afford.

Of course. This is the way it always works. I'd love to own a Porsche 911 Turbo. But it is well beyond my financial means and impractical. But it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the Porsche.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'd buy an electric car voluntarily, but if it was mandated, fuck that!

I haven't seen anything to suggest that they will be mandated.

 

[Political Junky]

yesss

I'd buy an electric car voluntarily, but if it was mandated, fuck that!

I haven't seen anything to suggest that they will be mandated.

Nobody has -

 

[WinterBorn]

The range is an issue if you are in a hurry. I think most people only drive any significant distance on vacation. To stop for half an hour ever 125 to 150 miles (especially if the fuel is free) doesn't seem like that much of a big deal.

 

[JoshuaZ]

No, it's not. CO2 is the fundamental building block of ALL life on this planet. Thus it CAN'T be a pollutant. A pollutant harms life. If you remove pollutants life blossoms. If you were to remove CO2 ALL multi-cellular life would end. Do you understand that?

This is an overly simplistic notion of what one means by a pollutant. Water is necessary for all life, and it is necessary for humans, but having too much water can still be fatal. It may help to just avoid using the word "pollutant" and ask "if we had more CO2, what would happen?" No one is advocating for zero CO2 in the atmosphere which would be stupid.

And no, hybrids don't get the best mileage out there. Turbo diesels lead the way in terms of mileage and are far cheaper to produce and cause less pollution in their manufacture.

What I mean is that for any form of conventional engine, making it is a hybrid will be more efficient. We don't have hybrid turbo diesels but if we did they'd function better than turbo diesel, which has also has its own set of problems.

However, my personal belief is that hydrogen or fuel cell technology is going to be the true breakthrough technology that will get us away from ICE powered vehicles. And that would be a good thing.

Fuel cell systems if we ever have them will essentially be hybrids, since we'll be almost certainly using reversible or semi-reversible cells, so the real change there would be essentially replacing the battery. I am however deeply skeptical that this will ever work on a large scale: the sheer chemistry problems involved are massive.

That being said I actually like hybrids and would like to see more research invested in them.

I think we're in agreement here.

 

[HenryBHough]

In California, they're budgeting for the addition of rest areas alongside all numbered highways.

Places for people to pull over and wind up their eco-friendly clockwork cars.

 

[JoshuaZ]

In California, they're budgeting for the addition of rest areas alongside all numbered highways.

Places for people to pull over and wind up their eco-friendly clockwork cars.

This sort of thing is going to be very difficult for a lot of people to adjust to and it could be a real problem at peak vacation time.

By the way, I noticed your signature about Hillary, do you mean you expect her not to be the Democratic candidate or do you just mean you hope she won't be?

 

[westwall]

No, it's not. CO2 is the fundamental building block of ALL life on this planet. Thus it CAN'T be a pollutant. A pollutant harms life. If you remove pollutants life blossoms. If you were to remove CO2 ALL multi-cellular life would end. Do you understand that?

This is an overly simplistic notion of what one means by a pollutant. Water is necessary for all life, and it is necessary for humans, but having too much water can still be fatal. It may help to just avoid using the word "pollutant" and ask "if we had more CO2, what would happen?" No one is advocating for zero CO2 in the atmosphere which would be stupid.

And no, hybrids don't get the best mileage out there. Turbo diesels lead the way in terms of mileage and are far cheaper to produce and cause less pollution in their manufacture.

What I mean is that for any form of conventional engine, making it is a hybrid will be more efficient. We don't have hybrid turbo diesels but if we did they'd function better than turbo diesel, which has also has its own set of problems.

However, my personal belief is that hydrogen or fuel cell technology is going to be the true breakthrough technology that will get us away from ICE powered vehicles. And that would be a good thing.

Fuel cell systems if we ever have them will essentially be hybrids, since we'll be almost certainly using reversible or semi-reversible cells, so the real change there would be essentially replacing the battery. I am however deeply skeptical that this will ever work on a large scale: the sheer chemistry problems involved are massive.

That being said I actually like hybrids and would like to see more research invested in them.

I think we're in agreement here.

No, CO2 is not a pollutant. Your arguments are sophomoric at best. CO2 will kill you if you replace all O2 with it. We have ample evidence of what life was like when CO2 levels were much higher than the present day and conditions on this planet were much better due to increased plant growth. That's a fact.

The reason why the morons at the EPA want to classify CO2 as a pollutant is so they can regulate it. In other words they wish to regulate the very air that you breath. Just think about that for a minute. YOU emit CO2.


With developed fuel cell technology you no longer need an ICE so no, they will not still be hybrids.

 

[JoshuaZ]

No, CO2 is not a pollutant. Your arguments are sophomoric at best. CO2 will kill you if you replace all O2 with it. We have ample evidence of what life was like when CO2 levels were much higher than the present day and conditions on this planet were much better due to increased plant growth. That's a fact.

The problem isn't whether plant growth will go up. The problem is that temperature will go up. See the water analogy again. Just because something can be a good thing, and can be good in some aspect

The reason why the morons at the EPA want to classify CO2 as a pollutant is so they can regulate it. In other words they wish to regulate the very air that you breath. Just think about that for a minute. YOU emit CO2.

They already do regulate the air I breath in terms of the ozone levels and the sulfur dioxide levels. So?

It may help to just taboo the word "pollutant" and focus on "can more CO2 have results we'd rather not have?"

With developed fuel cell technology you no longer need an ICE so no, they will not still be hybrids.

Not my point: My point is that a fuel cell car is essentially a battery powered car with a (possibly better) battery. But as I said, the underlying chemistry makes fuel cell cars unlikely.

 

[westwall]

No, CO2 is not a pollutant. Your arguments are sophomoric at best. CO2 will kill you if you replace all O2 with it. We have ample evidence of what life was like when CO2 levels were much higher than the present day and conditions on this planet were much better due to increased plant growth. That's a fact.

The problem isn't whether plant growth will go up. The problem is that temperature will go up. See the water analogy again. Just because something can be a good thing, and can be good in some aspect

The reason why the morons at the EPA want to classify CO2 as a pollutant is so they can regulate it. In other words they wish to regulate the very air that you breath. Just think about that for a minute. YOU emit CO2.

They already do regulate the air I breath in terms of the ozone levels and the sulfur dioxide levels. So?

It may help to just taboo the word "pollutant" and focus on "can more CO2 have results we'd rather not have?"

With developed fuel cell technology you no longer need an ICE so no, they will not still be hybrids.

Not my point: My point is that a fuel cell car is essentially a battery powered car with a (possibly better) battery. But as I said, the underlying chemistry makes fuel cell cars unlikely.

Temperature has both gone up and down when CO2 levels were both high and low. CO2 has NO effect on global temperature as anyone who can read a graph can see. Further, whenever the temperature HAS been higher than the present day the Earth has done better. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Temperature has both gone up and down when CO2 levels were both high and low. CO2 has NO effect on global temperature as anyone who can read a graph can see. Further, whenever the temperature HAS been higher than the present day the Earth has done better. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

This is not accurate. But again, this is really besides the point about the other big reason to care about electric cars and hybrid if one cars a lot about the US: lack of dependence on foreign oil. Also, it is important for keeping the world safe and pure for future generations.

 

[HenryBHough]

This sort of thing is going to be very difficult for a lot of people to adjust to and it could be a real problem at peak vacation time.

By the way, I noticed your signature about Hillary, do you mean you expect her not to be the Democratic candidate or do you just mean you hope she won't be?

I rather expect that California will see a lot less "peak vacation times" as things dry up and burn down. Gas prices are headed back up and California electricity is growing more expensive by the day as new mandates kick in. That'll dent the tourist trade.

As to Hillary? I really DO believe that Democrats will do what Democrats did last time she was Jonesing to be president. Throw her under the bus in favor of their shiny-objet-du-jour. I can't even guess at who that might be. I tend to doubt it will be a woman though a black or hispanic woman who cleaned up nice and was articulate might be enough to float their raft.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, CO2 is not a pollutant. Your arguments are sophomoric at best. CO2 will kill you if you replace all O2 with it. We have ample evidence of what life was like when CO2 levels were much higher than the present day and conditions on this planet were much better due to increased plant growth. That's a fact.

The problem isn't whether plant growth will go up. The problem is that temperature will go up. See the water analogy again. Just because something can be a good thing, and can be good in some aspect

The reason why the morons at the EPA want to classify CO2 as a pollutant is so they can regulate it. In other words they wish to regulate the very air that you breath. Just think about that for a minute. YOU emit CO2.

They already do regulate the air I breath in terms of the ozone levels and the sulfur dioxide levels. So?

It may help to just taboo the word "pollutant" and focus on "can more CO2 have results we'd rather not have?"

With developed fuel cell technology you no longer need an ICE so no, they will not still be hybrids.

Not my point: My point is that a fuel cell car is essentially a battery powered car with a (possibly better) battery. But as I said, the underlying chemistry makes fuel cell cars unlikely.

Temperature has both gone up and down when CO2 levels were both high and low. CO2 has NO effect on global temperature as anyone who can read a graph can see. Further, whenever the temperature HAS been higher than the present day the Earth has done better. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Ah yes, life did so well during the warm spell at the Permian-Triassic boundry.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, they are. And if CO2 were a problem that would be a big deal. However it is not.

Yes, it is, and improving efficiency of use of fossil fuels also has many other benefits, such as making the US less dependent on foreign sources of oil and less vulnerable to shocks. It also is the sort of thing that would make dealing with countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia much easier both for the US and its allies. How different do you think the unfolding Ukrainian situation would have been if so many NATO countries weren't reliant so heavily on Russian oil?

As far as the technology goes EV's have only improved range wise 100% in 100 years. ICE vehicles on the other hand have improved over 700% and that is going up. All the while they are getting cleaner and more reliable.

Yes, the range problem is a serious one, but it isn't everything: note for example that most Americans don't travel more than 40 miles by car daily.

Also note that hybrid automatically beats ICE in this regard, since they get essentially most the benefits of both.

In Paris, where they actually have some applicability, they still don't get a tremendous amount of use simply because the majority of the people can't afford them.

Yes, affordabiltiy is a huge problem.

If they could ever get Nicola Tesla's energy broadcast system to work then EV's would instantly become THE vehicle to have as range would no longer be an issue.

The inverse square law basically rules out any such system.

But the claim that they are such a new technology is not born out by fact.

Has anyone here claimed otherwise?

The only thing different between a 100 year old EV and a Tesla, is the Tesla is much more comfortable and has twice the useful range.

And can be charged at home or at work, and can do city miles more efficiently, and has much better acceleration which is almost as good as a high-end conventional car.

The P85D Tesla S is not almost as good as any high-end conventional car, it's acceleration is better than any high end 5 passenger luxury sedan. At 3.2 0 to 60 mph, with 155 mph top end, and a quarter mile time that is in top end muscle car territory, it is one fast sedan.

 

[Missourian]

No, CO2 is not a pollutant. Your arguments are sophomoric at best. CO2 will kill you if you replace all O2 with it. We have ample evidence of what life was like when CO2 levels were much higher than the present day and conditions on this planet were much better due to increased plant growth. That's a fact.

The problem isn't whether plant growth will go up. The problem is that temperature will go up. See the water analogy again. Just because something can be a good thing, and can be good in some aspect

The reason why the morons at the EPA want to classify CO2 as a pollutant is so they can regulate it. In other words they wish to regulate the very air that you breath. Just think about that for a minute. YOU emit CO2.

They already do regulate the air I breath in terms of the ozone levels and the sulfur dioxide levels. So?

It may help to just taboo the word "pollutant" and focus on "can more CO2 have results we'd rather not have?"

With developed fuel cell technology you no longer need an ICE so no, they will not still be hybrids.

Not my point: My point is that a fuel cell car is essentially a battery powered car with a (possibly better) battery. But as I said, the underlying chemistry makes fuel cell cars unlikely.

Temperature has both gone up and down when CO2 levels were both high and low. CO2 has NO effect on global temperature as anyone who can read a graph can see. Further, whenever the temperature HAS been higher than the present day the Earth has done better. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Ah yes, life did so well during the warm spell at the Permian-Triassic boundry.

Couldn't have been a warm spell at the Permian-Triassic boundary...nothing can cause warming except human activity...everyone knows that...there's a consensus and everything.

 

[Old Rocks]

Whether nature produces them, or man produces them, the physics of what happens when there is a rapid addition of GHGs to the atmosphere remains the same. And statements like you just made, Missouri, reveal an infantile attitude.

 

[Missourian]

Whether nature produces them, or man produces them, the physics of what happens when there is a rapid addition of GHGs to the atmosphere remains the same. And statements like you just made, Missouri, reveal an infantile attitude.

You can only have serious debate on this topic 99 times without becoming hopelessly and incurably facetious. I hit 99 in 2012.

That anyone can believe in man made global warming is a joke...since emerging economies like China and India have been pouring more and more GHG into the atmosphere, and we are still in a two decade long pause, and the warming was not near what was hyped, and the oceans aren't rising, and that there have been rises in temperature WITHOUT man or industry as any part of the equation.

It's over...the global warming hoax has failed.

19 years with no warming. Since reliable climate data only goes back roughly 100 years...the last one sixth of that there has been zero warming.

Scientists have staked their reputations on global warming, and they are going to stick with it until the bitter end.