[Air and water do mix]

Your great state of Indiana isn't alone though, the majority of states are in the same boat with a few thousand in EV sales.. So if you believe your state will be the last, the rest of the country is the same. No volume, no pressure from demand, no money for infrastructure, no investment.

And yet there are more than there used to be here and elsewhere. You think that the only reason they're selling is because they're subsidized, but they're subsidized only to a point. People are still buying/leasing them because they want them, subsidies or not. Those subsidies will go away over time. See also subsidies for oil.

I've never proclaimed to know the future. That's your bag. Will there be a bigger mix of EVs in the future? You could cobble together evidence and legitimate arguments that go either way. So claiming things WILL go one way or another definitively is ridiculous.

And your whole "well XYZ happened so EVs will happen too" is a classic false cause fallacy. ICEV cars are cheaper and better than they've ever been. OK. Completely unrelated tech has got cheaper and better too. Great stuff. What does any of that have to do with EVs? TVs being cheaper today than before has absolutely no bearing on whether or not EVs will catch on. And even if EVs get cheaper, there's no guarantee that they'll get cheap enough, or that one of the various other hurdles to market adaptation will go away. Short of govts basically forcing people into EVs by gunpoint there are absolutely no guarantees, and it's idiotic to enact policy that treats EV viability as a foregone conclusion. If that makes me a caveman or luddite w/e, I've been called much worse.

You have indeed claimed to know the future just by saying that they won't sell/take over the fleet/whatever. What I'm saying is that nothing is stagnant. Nothing. Certainly not tech. And EVs are viable for a huge swath of the population now. What they aren't is cheap, but that is constantly changing too.

The fact that you don't understand how mass manufacturing, research into new processes and materials, scale and competition doesn't make things cheaper is on you.

 

[CTK]

Fine, lets stop EV subsidies, and tax breaks. So long as we ALSO end all oil subsidies, tax breaks and wars for oil that keep it's price artificially low and also line the pockets of oil company execs, and kill people just so we can "get the oil."

Trump on the Kurds: "We have taken the oil. I've taken the oil. We should have done it in other locations, frankly, where we were. I can name four of them right now, but we've taken the oil ... our great soldiers are right around the oil where we've got the oil."

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1201905571324149760

I'd have no problem with that. Now what?

 

[CTK]

You have indeed claimed to know the future just by saying that they won't sell/take over the fleet/whatever. What I'm saying is that nothing is stagnant. Nothing. Certainly not tech. And EVs are viable for a huge swath of the population now. What they aren't is cheap, but that is constantly changing too.

The fact that you don't understand how mass manufacturing, research into new processes and materials, scale and competition doesn't make things cheaper is on you.

Of course of course. Anyone who doesn't believe in the EV future with all their heart just isn't smart enough to understand. Ironclad logic.

 

[Silver_arrow12!]

Obviously it's impossible to foresee the future and we could be hit with a massive asteroid causing our world to regress.

But there is a certain inevitability to EV's, whether that ends up being hydrogen fuel cells powering an electric motor, hybrid EV, or pure EV. With almost every major manufacturer finally devoting development dollars to solving the shortcomings of EV's and multiple governments going all in on EV, I don't see any other obvious path forward for automobiles.

To not recognize the obvious means you just enjoy pedantic arguments or you're trolling. Seems I was wrong and TCL comments fall mostly into the former, rather than the latter.

Either way, it's pointless to argue.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[BlackMiata]

Of course of course. Anyone who doesn't believe in the EV future with all their heart just isn't smart enough to understand. Ironclad logic.

EVs in an urban environment make sense, EVs in the rural environment it's questionable.

In the urban environment you typically have public transportation to fall back on, in the country typically not an option. During a natural disaster damaged electrical infrastructure is going to be fixed in the urban areas first, due to people density, in the rural areas, repairs are going to take much longer. If your EV is low on charge you are trapped at home. Look at the power outages in California, they shut of power for days to avoid wildfires, which means no charging of your EV.

In the rural environment I can have extra gas stored in case of emergencies, we don't have a way to store electricity at home yet. yes we can install a generator, and have extra gas to run it, but at what cost of efficiency? Likely can go further with the gas in a ICE vehicle, than use it to charge the EV.

 

[CTK]

Obviously it's impossible to foresee the future and we could be hit with a massive asteroid causing our world to regress.

But there is a certain inevitability to EV's, whether that ends up being hydrogen fuel cells powering an electric motor, hybrid EV, or pure EV. With almost every major manufacturer finally devoting development dollars to solving the shortcomings of EV's and multiple governments going all in on EV, I don't see any other obvious path forward for automobiles.

To not recognize the obvious means you just enjoy pedantic arguments or you're trolling. Seems I was wrong and TCL comments fall mostly into the former, rather than the latter.

Either way, it's pointless to argue.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

So just so I'm clear, EVs are inevitable, everything manufacturers pour money into winds up being successful, and anyone who disagrees is being pedantic or trolling? That's interesting.

 

[CTK]

EVs in an urban environment make sense, EVs in the rural environment it's questionable.

In the urban environment you typically have public transportation to fall back on, in the country typically not an option. During a natural disaster damaged electrical infrastructure is going to be fixed in the urban areas first, due to people density, in the rural areas, repairs are going to take much longer. If your EV is low on charge you are trapped at home. Look at the power outages in California, they shut of power for days to avoid wildfires, which means no charging of your EV.

In the rural environment I can have extra gas stored in case of emergencies, we don't have a way to store electricity at home yet. yes we can install a generator, and have extra gas to run it, but at what cost of efficiency? Likely can go further with the gas in a ICE vehicle, than use it to charge the EV.

It is a catch 22. I do think for urban areas EVs make sense... it's much easier to add chargers to a dense city power grid than to build out hundreds of miles of lines to cover sparsely populated areas. Plus I'd wager urban folks don't drive as far as rural folk, which makes charging less critical there on a daily basis.

 

[Silver_arrow12!]

So just so I'm clear, EVs are inevitable, and anyone who disagrees is being pedantic or trolling? That's interesting.

Fixed it for you. Nowhere did I claim everything manufacturers spend money on becomes a success.

EV's are already on the road by the millions and being produced by almost every major manufacturer and being suported by multiple governments, so they're already a success.

What's inevitable is that the ranges will increase, charge times decrease, and infrastructure will be built.

Will they eventually become a total market solution for every application? I think there's valid concern that we're nowhere near that and might never get their. Are EV passenger cars becoming the standard in the market? Yes. It's inevitably.



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[AZGolf]

I can't think of any big tech adaptation in the US that was forced by the govt.

Tons and tons of them, but here's one I'm sure everybody has heard of: telephones. Anybody with a landline is still paying taxes to force companies to deliver POTS to rural areas.

 

[Air and water do mix]

Of course of course. Anyone who doesn't believe in the EV future with all their heart just isn't smart enough to understand. Ironclad logic.

So 100 years from now everyone is going to be driving a piston engine car that runs on goop from the other side of the world? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Beanboy]

In the rural environment I can have extra gas stored in case of emergencies, we don't have a way to store electricity at home yet. yes we can install a generator, and have extra gas to run it, but at what cost of efficiency? Likely can go further with the gas in a ICE vehicle, than use it to charge the EV.

CA is going to require solar panels on new home construction starting next year. There's your home electricity source. Solar has made rural off-grid living a bigger reality now than it ever has been before.

Heck, you can get a 18,000BTU mini split designed to run directly off four solar panels. That would have been crazy talk twenty years ago.

 

[Burnette]

We're Close

And yet there are more than there used to be here and elsewhere. You think that the only reason they're selling is because they're subsidized, but they're subsidized only to a point. People are still buying/leasing them because they want them, subsidies or not. Those subsidies will go away over time. See also subsidies for oil.




You have indeed claimed to know the future just by saying that they won't sell/take over the fleet/whatever. What I'm saying is that nothing is stagnant. Nothing. Certainly not tech. And EVs are viable for a huge swath of the population now. What they aren't is cheap, but that is constantly changing too.

The fact that you don't understand how mass manufacturing, research into new processes and materials, scale and competition doesn't make things cheaper is on you.

"And yet there are more than there used to be here and elsewhere".

Ih c'mon, that's not saying anything.

Stay with me bro. EVs aren't selling in six digit numbers outside of one state, California.

Unilateral Phase Detractor in Ohio, pretty big state, that state sold 4,5OO EVs total last year, Sporin in Vermont where only 824 EVs sold, me in North Carolina where only 4,712 sold, turbinepowered in SC where only 1,179 sold. EVs aren't a thing where none of us live.

That's not hope and dreams, it's our shared reality.

And you have to be honest, even EV fans here acknowledge this, without the subsidies EVs would be way more expensive than they are and you would indeed see a further drop in sales.

You have to look at where EVs don't sell, the majority of states and honestly ask yourself why that is.

They only sold 18,019 Chevy Bolts last year. Total. And it's a CUV. Without subsidies, at full price Chevy wouldn't have come near that paltry number.

If I told you that a vehicle in Delaware was going to be huge and there's more than they use to be and that it only sold 627 units, you would say I was crazy.

 

[BlackMiata]

CA is going to require solar panels on new home construction starting next year. There's your home electricity source. Solar has made rural off-grid living a bigger reality now than it ever has been before.

Heck, you can get a 18,000BTU mini split designed to run directly off four solar panels. That would have been crazy talk twenty years ago.

The assumption is all this solar works when the grid is down, it doesn't, as many folks in CA have found out the hard way. Most solar installation on homes works in conjunction with the grid, when the power goes off, the solar panels become decoration, by law. When the power is off, they don't want the solar to back feed the grid risking the lives of the workers fixing the grid.

A solar installation that works in conjunction with the grid, but also can be used off-grid is ideal, but this is not your typical solar installation sold to the masses.

 

[Air and water do mix]

"And yet there are more than there used to be here and elsewhere".

Ih c'mon, that's not saying anything.

Stay with me bro. EVs aren't selling in six digit numbers outside of one state, California.

Unilateral Phase Detractor in Ohio, pretty big state, that state sold 4,5OO EVs total last year, Sporin in Vermont where only 824 EVs sold, me in North Carolina where only 4,712 sold, turbinepowered in SC where only 1,179 sold. EVs aren't a thing where none of us live.

That's not hope and dreams, it's our shared reality.

And you have to be honest, even EV fans here acknowledge this, without the subsidies EVs would be way more expensive than they are and you would indeed see a further drop in sales.

You have to look at where EVs don't sell, the majority of states and honestly ask yourself why that is.

They only sold 18,019 Chevy Bolts last year. Total. And it's a CUV. Without subsidies, at full price Chevy wouldn't have come near that paltry number.

If I told you that a vehicle in Delaware was going to be huge and there's more than they use to be and that it only sold 627 units, you would say I was crazy.

You're missing the fact that we're at the beginning of the adoption curve and all of those states aren't exactly early adopters, nor is mine. You can also look at it like this: They sold 18,000 of those expensive (even with the subsidy) Bolts last year? Wow!

They don't have the Tesla... whatever it is that makes people want Tesla, they're not really CUVs, they're hatchback economy cars that are electric and yes, they're still way too expensive, but that is changing.

Now imagine that car being $25,000 or less, no subsidy involved and having the same running costs that it does now (much less than a gasser in both "fuel" costs and maintenance). The desirability goes up, the number of people who can afford it goes up and the prices of used ones become more reasonable. Now do that and have it actually be a good looking car and it'll sell more still! :laugh:

It isn't "hopes and dreams", it's how technology evolves and is adopted. It becomes cheaper and is more widely adopted. Now people scrounging for their next meal have cell phones, but 50 years ago you had radio phones with operators that were operated via radio relays and only the very rich, who were chauffeured had them. 30 years ago they were semi-exotic, 10 years ago everyone had a flip phone and now everyone has a computer in their pocket and watches movies at the airport if they wish. Technology moves along, dragging the late adopters with it - unless they're Amish.

 

[Air and water do mix]

The assumption is all this solar works when the grid is down, it doesn't, as many folks in CA have found out the hard way. Most solar installation on homes works in conjunction with the grid, when the power goes off, the solar panels become decoration, by law. When the power is off, they don't want the solar to back feed the grid risking the lives of the workers fixing the grid.

A solar installation that works in conjunction with the grid, but also can be used off-grid is ideal, but this is not your typical solar installation sold to the masses.

It should be, but it takes storage ($) to do that. Add in some batteries and a relay and you can run on minimal electricity at least. Solar panels by themselves rely on the grid as their battery, which works pretty well since the highest draw time is during the day when A/C is running in summertime, which is what the state and utility companies want (and that makes sense out there).

It would just need a relay to cut the connection and batteries for when the power is out and could run as many LED lights as one wanted, keep the fridge and at least some fans and such running. I'm sure there are regulations on how that's done so it indeed doesn't back feed the lines and potentially kill people working to get the power back on, but it should be easy enough to do.

 

[Burnette]

Not Reality

You're missing the fact that we're at the beginning of the adoption curve and all of those states aren't exactly early adopters, nor is mine. You can also look at it like this: They sold 18,000 of those expensive (even with the subsidy) Bolts last year? Wow!

They don't have the Tesla... whatever it is that makes people want Tesla, they're not really CUVs, they're hatchback economy cars that are electric and yes, they're still way too expensive, but that is changing.

Now imagine that car being $25,000 or less, no subsidy involved and having the same running costs that it does now (much less than a gasser in both "fuel" costs and maintenance). The desirability goes up, the number of people who can afford it goes up and the prices of used ones become more reasonable. Now do that and have it actually be a good looking car and it'll sell more still! :laugh:

It isn't "hopes and dreams", it's how technology evolves and is adopted. It becomes cheaper and is more widely adopted. Now people scrounging for their next meal have cell phones, but 50 years ago you had radio phones with operators that were operated via radio relays and only the very rich, who were chauffeured had them. 30 years ago they were semi-exotic, 10 years ago everyone had a flip phone and now everyone has a computer in their pocket and watches movies at the airport if they wish. Technology moves along, dragging the late adopters with it - unless they're Amish.

Look what you typed in bold above though, none of that is real and it is indeed a wish.

You can't ignore realities and EV sellers have to figure out how to change where they are losing (practically the whole country) and honestly face it.

 

[Air and water do mix]

Look what you typed in bold above though, none of that is real and it is indeed a wish.

You can't ignore realities and EV sellers have to figure out how to change where they are losing (practically the whole country) and honestly face it.

Well there's the rub, then. Do you honestly believe that isn't changing? That's the thing that is really going to make the difference, much more than charging infrastructure or range.

As I said previously there is no profit in them yet, but as battery prices come down there will be. Once that happens then the prices will start to come down, but of course car companies are going to keep this niche because they don't make any money at it yet. Toyota will get there, but not until they need to. They're happy to take the Japanese government's money on hydrogen cars and most of that tech will switch over to BEVs just fine. The only thing they'll need is the batteries themselves and they're big enough to buy whatever batteries they want when they feel they can make money at it.

 

[Burnette]

You're Good Peeps AAWDM

Well there's the rub, then. Do you honestly believe that isn't changing? That's the thing that is really going to make the difference, much more than charging infrastructure or range.

As I said previously there is no profit in them yet, but as battery prices come down there will be. Once that happens then the prices will start to come down, but of course car companies are going to keep this niche because they don't make any money at it yet. Toyota will get there, but not until they need to. They're happy to take the Japanese government's money on hydrogen cars and most of that tech will switch over to BEVs just fine. The only thing they'll need is the batteries themselves and they're big enough to buy whatever batteries they want when they feel they can make money at it.

The gains are so infinitesimal as to not register. And car companies aren't keeping EVs niche, their price, absence of infrastructure, consumers served by a market saturated with value choices are.

In bold again above, "once that happens" is the same as "if" and "when", it's still hope and dreams in the face of the reality of how little and where EVs sell.

I do have to stop here and say I see parallels in your enthusiasm for EVs and me being a fan of the Detroit Lions. There's nothing wrong with being a fan, Stafford is awesome and if we only had a better defense... but I don't say we're going to the Superbowl at the start of every season :laugh:

 

[Dubveiser]

The gains are so infinitesimal as to not register. And car companies aren't keeping EVs niche, their price, absence of infrastructure, consumers served by a market saturated with value choices are.

In bold again above, "once that happens" is the same as "if" and "when", it's still hope and dreams in the face of the reality of how little and where EVs sell.

I do have to stop here and say I see parallels in your enthusiasm for EVs and me being a fan of the Detroit Lions. There's nothing wrong with being a fan, Stafford is awesome and if we only had a better defense... but I don't say we're going to the Superbowl at the start of every season :laugh:

The Lions won 3 games this season. There have been around 192 matches played thus far this season in the NFL.

That works out to 1.5% of matches won in the NFL by the Lion's.

That kind of market share is irrelevant when you look at the NFL as a whole. Your team is irrelevant in the NFL when you look the numbers and I don't see that changing any time in the foreseeable future. :laugh:

 

[Air and water do mix]

The gains are so infinitesimal as to not register. And car companies aren't keeping EVs niche, their price, absence of infrastructure, consumers served by a market saturated with value choices are.

In bold again above, "once that happens" is the same as "if" and "when", it's still hope and dreams in the face of the reality of how little and where EVs sell.

I do have to stop here and say I see parallels in your enthusiasm for EVs and me being a fan of the Detroit Lions. There's nothing wrong with being a fan, Stafford is awesome and if we only had a better defense... but I don't say we're going to the Superbowl at the start of every season :laugh:

I’ll ask you the same question, then.

In 100 years do you honestly think we’ll be driving piston engine cars powered by goo coming out of the ground?

The only real question is the timeline.

The Lions won 3 games this season. There have been around 192 matches played thus far this season in the NFL.

That works out to 1.5% of matches won in the NFL by the Lion's.

That kind of market share is irrelevant when you look at the NFL as a whole. Your team is irrelevant in the NFL when you look the numbers and I don't see that changing any time in the foreseeable future. :laugh:

:laugh: :beer: