The Two Faces Of EVs: Brilliant In Town, Hopeless In The Fast Lane

[progressive hunter]

A direct application always Trump's a two stage application.

EVs will always be two stage. A hydrogen combustion engine is direct application. EVs will remain as a peripheral but I fear can never become the main. It's becoming obvious now.

I dont see a time where EVs will be a viable replacement,,

although I see a lot of cases where they are a more than viable option,,

like in LA where smog is such a problem,, or in the southwest where a solar panel system can provide all the energy needed to use one for daily use,,

and with this new work from home thing going on a car can sit all day charging and only used for personal errands,,

other than a few occasions we havent driven more than 50 miles in one day in yrs,,

 

[justoffal]

I dont see a time where EVs will be a viable replacement,,

although I see a lot of cases where they are a more than viable option,,

like in LA where smog is such a problem,, or in the southwest where a solar panel system can provide all the energy needed to use one for daily use,,

and with this new work from home thing going on a car can sit all day charging and only used for personal errands,,

other than a few occasions we havent driven more than 50 miles in one day in yrs,,

I love my EV....2020 leaf. I have changed my entire lifestyle including working 2 miles from home to make it work. We still own a gas powered vehicle for trips out of state and the occasional trot to Boston.

 

[progressive hunter]

I love my EV....2020 leaf. I have changed my entire lifestyle including working 2 miles from home to make it work. We still own a gas powered vehicle for trips out of state and the occasional trot to Boston.

I totally understand the anger from some by being forced into EVS and having their ICE cars taken away,,

but to say they have no place or a long way to go before they are even an option is just a childish tantrum,,

 

[Crick]

I dont see a time where EVs will be a viable replacement,,

although I see a lot of cases where they are a more than viable option,,

like in LA where smog is such a problem,, or in the southwest where a solar panel system can provide all the energy needed to use one for daily use,,

and with this new work from home thing going on a car can sit all day charging and only used for personal errands,,

other than a few occasions we havent driven more than 50 miles in one day in yrs,,

How about an EV with a thousand mile range using a battery with no rare earth elements that charges from zero to full in 10 minutes all at a price equivalent of a gasoline powered version of the same vehicle? Would that be a viable replacement?

 

[progressive hunter]

How about an EV with a thousand mile range using a battery with no rare earth elements that charges from zero to full in 10 minutes all at a price equivalent of a gasoline powered version of the same vehicle? Would that be a viable replacement?

I would love to see that,,

but its a long way off,,

even if it can be done doesnt mean we outlaw ICE cars,,
in my life theres a place for both,, more so for the ICE,,

 

[westwall]

I remember back in the olden days when cell phones were the size of bricks and didnt work worth a shit,,



all new tech has to go through growth to where its ready for everyday use,,

EV's are technologically at almost the same place they were 50 years ago. The range has increased a bit. The comfort is much better, the performance is vastly superior, but overall, there has been little change in range for affordable EV's.

That's a simple fact. The cell phone enjoyed incredibly rapid development and shrinking sizes.

 

[westwall]

I totally understand the anger from some by being forced into EVS and having their ICE cars taken away,,

but to say they have no place or a long way to go before they are even an option is just a childish tantrum,,

No, it isn't. EV's are a niche option. They are great, but not outstanding for local use. The amount of pollution created in their manufacture is greater than the pollution they are supposed to remove. That too is a fact. So, after over 100 years of development, the ICE option pollutes less, travels further on less energy, and has better resale value long term.

 

[progressive hunter]

EV's are technologically at almost the same place they were 50 years ago. The range has increased a bit. The comfort is much better, the performance is vastly superior, but overall, there has been little change in range for affordable EV's.

That's a simple fact. The cell phone enjoyed incredibly rapid development and shrinking sizes.

MY ASS,,

the first EVs I saw were one back in the early 70s that a guy near me built in his garage and it could go about 40 mph and had a range of under 40 miles,, the next was in the 80s that a pizza delivery guy had that used a jet engine starter,, he also had a business converting small cars,,
it topped out at maybe 50 and had a range of about 40 miles,,

today EVs are about the fastest cars on the road and have ranges up to 400 miles,,

now if you could point to something specific instead of making a claim you cant back up with anything we can talk,,

until then youre just background noise,,

it took 50 yrs to get portable phones to where they are now and they are the size,, but phones have been around for 100 yrs,
and they have fewer parts and problems to solve to compare them to cars,,

 

[progressive hunter]

No, it isn't. EV's are a niche option. They are great, but not outstanding for local use. The amount of pollution created in their manufacture is greater than the pollution they are supposed to remove. That too is a fact. So, after over 100 years of development, the ICE option pollutes less, travels further on less energy, and has better resale value long term.

thanks for your opinion,,

it took 100 yrs to perfect the battery,, the concept has always worked,,

 

[westwall]

thanks for your opinion,,

it took 100 yrs to perfect the battery,, the concept has always worked,,

The battery hasn't been perfected. There is still loads of development to be done.

If you want EV's to be truly viable, hell, revolutionary, then you need to develop a broadcast energy system like that envisioned by Nicola Tesla.

Build a car that uses no battery other than a short range, lightweight, backup battery, and gets its energy from an antenna and you have a vehicle that will instantly supplant the internal combustion engine.

Efficiency is the name of the game. EV's aren't efficient. Not by a long shot. Fix that issue and you have a game changer.

That too is a simple fact.

 

[justoffal]

How about an EV with a thousand mile range using a battery with no rare earth elements that charges from zero to full in 10 minutes all at a price equivalent of a gasoline powered version of the same vehicle? Would that be a viable replacement?

Maybe better than Gas....

 

[justoffal]

No, it isn't. EV's are a niche option. They are great, but not outstanding for local use. The amount of pollution created in their manufacture is greater than the pollution they are supposed to remove. That too is a fact. So, after over 100 years of development, the ICE option pollutes less, travels further on less energy, and has better resale value long term.

Ahhh..... ultimately people will roll with their wallets. The idea of synthetically expanding the price of hydrocarbon use to make EVs more attractive only creates anger not results.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I think very few people purchasing new EVs or hybrids spend the money to replace their batteries. They sell them or trade them in and let someone else deal with it. And battery maintenance is not always that expensive. Toyota hybrid batteries can have individual cells replaced with fairly easy access to the battery. Cost is much lower than on, say, a Tesla.

Second hand EV sales plummet -

Used electric cars have nosedived in value in 2023

Exclusive figures shared with This is Money show that all 20 second-hand cars that have deflated in price across all fuel types are EVs - while not a single one appears in the list of the 20 biggest risers.

www.thisismoney.co.uk

According to the article, "....means some second-hand EVs are now cheaper to buy than their petrol equivalents". Would I buy one? Never, the battery will invariably need replaced and that will cost more than the EV. And the majority of people will think the same.

 

[progressive hunter]

The battery hasn't been perfected. There is still loads of development to be done.

If you want EV's to be truly viable, hell, revolutionary, then you need to develop a broadcast energy system like that envisioned by Nicola Tesla.

Build a car that uses no battery other than a short range, lightweight, backup battery, and gets its energy from an antenna and you have a vehicle that will instantly supplant the internal combustion engine.

Efficiency is the name of the game. EV's aren't efficient. Not by a long shot. Fix that issue and you have a game changer.

That too is a simple fact.

so EVs will only be viable when they meet your standards,,

theres no way I can argue with that,,

 

[westwall]

MY ASS,,

the first EVs I saw were one back in the early 70s that a guy near me built in his garage and it could go about 40 mph and had a range of under 40 miles,, the next was in the 80s that a pizza delivery guy had that used a jet engine starter,, he also had a business converting small cars,,
it topped out at maybe 50 and had a range of about 40 miles,,

today EVs are about the fastest cars on the road and have ranges up to 400 miles,,

now if you could point to something specific instead of making a claim you cant back up with anything we can talk,,

until then youre just background noise,,

it took 50 yrs to get portable phones to where they are now and they are the size,, but phones have been around for 100 yrs,
and they have fewer parts and problems to solve to compare them to cars,,

Then you haven't really researched them. EV's were winning the power supply option from the invention of the car up until about 1915 when the ICE was developed to a point where they were reliable, and gave superior range.

The range for an EV in 1915 was 100 miles. They cost about the same as the ICE powered option. Guess what, if you want to buy an EV that costs about the same as a mid cost ICE powered car, it has a range of 40 to 100 miles.

So, over 100 years of development, and you have no increase in range for the same cost.

That's a simple fact.

It's all about efficiency. EV's don't have it.

If you want to see a legit comparison of where EV's are compared to other technologies you have to look at the bleeding edge. That's racing.
F1 has an EV alternative. Formula E. They aren't as fast. They go 2/3rds the race distance, and they have to use TWO cars, per competitor, to do a race. They race half the distance in the first car, then jump out of the dead car, and hop into the fresh car to finish the race.

That is a fact. I calculated years ago what it would take for an EV team to compete at Le Man's, the results were silly. I can't remember the exact numbers but the team would need over 40 cars, fast chargers for all of them, and require ALL of the electricity generated by a city of around 500,000 population for a week. All to finish one 24 hour race.

That's ridiculous. But factual.

 

[westwall]

so EVs will only be viable when they meet your standards,,

theres no way I can argue with that,,

Not my standards, the standards of those you want to buy them. Here's the deal, if a vehicle technology is awesome, EVERYONE will want it. EV tech is so bad people are being FORCED to buy it.

Do you see a problem there?

 

[Crick]

Not my standards, the standards of those you want to buy them. Here's the deal, if a vehicle technology is awesome, EVERYONE will want it. EV tech is so bad people are being FORCED to buy it.

Do you see a problem there?

I see a problem with your honesty. No one has been forced to buy EVs yet there are several million on US roadways.

 

[progressive hunter]

Then you haven't really researched them. EV's were winning the power supply option from the invention of the car up until about 1915 when the ICE was developed to a point where they were reliable, and gave superior range.

The range for an EV in 1915 was 100 miles. They cost about the same as the ICE powered option. Guess what, if you want to buy an EV that costs about the same as a mid cost ICE powered car, it has a range of 40 to 100 miles.

So, over 100 years of development, and you have no increase in range for the same cost.

That's a simple fact.

It's all about efficiency. EV's don't have it.

If you want to see a legit comparison of where EV's are compared to other technologies you have to look at the bleeding edge. That's racing.
F1 has an EV alternative. Formula E. They aren't as fast. They go 2/3rds the race distance, and they have to use TWO cars, per competitor, to do a race. They race half the distance in the first car, then jump out of the dead car, and hop into the fresh car to finish the race.

That is a fact. I calculated years ago what it would take for an EV team to compete at Le Man's, the results were silly. I can't remember the exact numbers but the team would need over 40 cars, fast chargers for all of them, and require ALL of the electricity generated by a city of around 500,000 population for a week. All to finish one 24 hour race.

That's ridiculous. But factual.

blah blah blah,,

I get it they dont meet your standards so the rest of the world can go fuck themselves,,

 

[westwall]

blah blah blah,,

I get it they dont meet your standards so the rest of the world can go fuck themselves,,

Not what I said at all. I asked you a question, and you dodged it. If EV's were great, everyone would want them. They don't, so government is forcing people to buy them.

Seems to me a "progressive hunter" wouldn't like progressive governments FORCING the people to buy stuff they don't want.

Maybe you should change your name because you sure seem to love progressives.

 

[progressive hunter]

Not what I said at all. I asked you a question, and you dodged it. If EV's were great, everyone would want them. They don't, so government is forcing people to buy them.

Seems to me a "progressive hunter" wouldn't like progressive governments FORCING the people to buy stuff they don't want.

Maybe you should change your name because you sure seem to love progressives.

if you got the cock out of your mouth long enough you would have read where I said I am against forcing people to buy one,,

and why are you switching to falsely claiming what I think instead of pushing your standards on the rest of us??

didnt that work out for you??

the tech and government mandates are two different things,,