House is offgrid solar (too far from lines, could have put five systems in including backup generators for the cost of pulling wire) with enough extra juice to charge an EV most of the year. An EV might work well for the occasional run to town. Heck, my ‘03 Taco work truck might be a great candidate to be an EV given its usage pattern (Almost always on the ranch, not a lot of miles, occasionally to town for parts or gas.). Oddly enough though, I am perfectly happy to stick with an ICE. Perhaps they’ll make sticking with ICE painful enough that I’ll reconsider at some point, but right now they can fuggedaboutit.

Maybe it is just the stubborn in me, but just like the jab, the harder they push it the more my answer becomes “<Bleep> no!”.

quote:

Originally posted by SevenPlusOne:
with a V8 out of spite.

{vthoky pounds the Like button}.

I want a nuclear truck. Now, if someone would just invent a reactor that'll fit under the hood....

Brace for the Wind and Electric-Vehicle Bailouts

Ford assured investors last week that its generous deal with the United Auto Workers wouldn’t threaten its profitability. Maybe. The same can’t be said of its electric vehicles, which lost $3.1 billion during the first nine months of this year.

Those losses will doubtless grow, and anyone who thinks Washington won’t give auto makers another bailout should think again. Last week Munich-based Siemens Energy, one of the world’s top wind manufacturers, said the German government is prepared to extend as much as €16 billion (or $16.9 billion) in state guarantees to rescue it.

Government has invested too much politically and financially in renewables and electric vehicles to let the companies go bust.
In June Siemens blamed a “substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components” for its mounting losses—about $4.8 billion this year—and warned that its financial problems could drag on for years as it repairs and replaces faulty equipment. The company has a backlog of orders from wind developers chasing government subsidies, but banks won’t extend credit because of its financial troubles. Siemens wants Berlin to issue loan guarantees on the faulty premise that its failure could endanger the country’s economy and national security. Wind is the new too-big-to-fail enterprise.

German leaders worry that Chinese manufacturers will take over wind manufacturing as they did solar-panel production a decade ago and are now doing with electric vehicles. China boasts 10 of the world’s 15 largest turbine manufacturers and can sell turbines at half the price of European manufacturers, owing largely to its cheap coal power.

“These technologies will be produced anyway, and the question is whether Europe will have to import them,” German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck said Friday. That may be true, but developers in Europe and the U.S. are scotching wind projects as rising costs and interest rates are making them unprofitable.

American companies are also pleading for government help. Large offshore wind developers in September importuned New York’s Public Service Commission to increase contractual payments by an average of 48% to cover their costs. Regulators rejected their requests.

Now developers are mulling whether to cancel the projects if they can’t coax more corporate welfare out of the Biden administration. Denmark’s Orsted, the world’s top offshore wind developer, and U.S. governors in the Northeast are lobbying the White House to boost subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act to cover 50% of wind project costs.

Taxpayers and electricity customers will inevitably have to pay more to support wind energy, Orsted CEO Mads Nipper said last month. “And if they don’t, neither we nor any of our colleagues are going to build more offshore,” he warned. “It’s very simple.” Other wind executives are handing down similar ultimatums. One of the largest U.K. power generators, RWE, told the British government last week that its payments to wind developers would have to rise 70% if it wanted more projects built.

The European Commission got the message, and on Oct. 24 it announced more financial support for wind developers. How long before auto makers start begging for bailouts as they struggle to sell government-mandated EVs?

For now, auto makers are simply pumping the brakes on their electric-vehicle investments. Tesla recently paused plans for a new factory in Mexico. General Motors CEO Mary Barra last week scrapped the company’s electric-vehicle production goals, citing flagging demand.

Honda on Oct. 25 scuttled plans to manufacture low-cost electric vehicles with GM. EVs are “a pretty brutal space,” Mercedes CFO Harald Wilhelm said the next day. “I can hardly imagine the current status quo is fully sustainable for everybody.”

Ford joined the pileup and postponed $12 billion in planned electric-vehicle investment, stating that buyers weren’t willing to pay a premium over gasoline cars—even with a $7,500 federal tax credit and hefty state subsidies. “The customer is going to decide what the volumes are,” Ford CFO John Lawler said. Has the company checked with its regulators about that?

Perhaps auto executives are looking at recent poll numbers, which show Donald Trump leading Joe Biden in key swing states. If Mr. Trump or another Republican wins the White House in 2024, he will no doubt scrap the Biden administration’s electric-vehicle mandate and California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act that lets it set its own.

On the other hand, if Mr. Biden prevails, auto makers will need more government support—on top of the hundreds of billions in the Inflation Reduction Act—to meet his administration’s aggressive mandates. Even if auto makers succeed in building lower-cost electric vehicles, there’s no guarantee customers will buy them.

Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford observed in an interview with the New York Times this month that electric vehicles have become collateral damage in a broader culture war: “Some of the red states say this is just like the vaccine, and it’s being shoved down our throat by the government, and we don’t want it.”

He’s right. Progressives aren’t only force-feeding the green-energy transition. They are pushing their supposedly superior cultural values on a public that doesn’t share them. If government mandates backfire on auto makers, taxpayers will be made to pay for repairing the industry’s wreckage.

Link

I never thought I would buy an EV.

I'm retired and don't drive much so it works for my needs.

Already had solar on the house and a charge station in the garage.

I think my Mustang Mach E looks and drives great.

Not saving the planet or anything...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PR64,

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

OP's problem is, he has limited time for his ICE vehicle, CA is banning the sale of ICE by 2035, there is a movement to stop that by R in the house but it's going nowhere, the senate will never ratify it and Two Scoops won't sign it.

Still unlikely unless he’s very young. So he has 12 years until the last ICE car is available for purchase if nothing changes for the better. Then it’s pretty easy to get 13 years out of an ICE car unless you drive a crazy amount of miles. Thats an easy 25 more years to be driving an ICE vehicle and that’s not even including the option of buying a low mileage used one if he’s still against EV’s in 25 years.

My guess is that with the billions being poured into EV technology the EV’s will be so much better than the ICE vehicles in 25 years that he won’t feel the same way. Very little money is being put into improving ICE cars so what you have now will essentially be pretty similar to the quality you will have available in 25 years. If that’s not the case then there has been a big shift back to ICE and the OP will have nothing to worry about anyhow.

I guess I'm not so much of a petrolhead as to say never ever to an EV. I really like driving the Lucid Air Sapphire a LOT; if it weren't so spendy I could easily see myself owning one. Its acceleration will make your passengers piss on themselves. I've also ridden in the Porsche Taycan and again it makes a rather damn compelling argument for itself.

I'm not as concerned about range anxiety as many of you are. I look at EVs in the same light as any high strung performance car, rather than as a car that will replace the dinosaur drinker 24/7 for everyday use, even though cars like the Lucid claim over 500 miles of range, something my Porsche 993 would have wet dreams over. The major gripes I have about the EVs I've driven is the lack of a soundtrack...and no gears to grind. And that they're HEAVY; modern auto engineers can be damn cagey and outright brilliant, but there's only so much they can do in trying to outsmart the laws of physics.

Then there's the one HUGE problem I have with EVs and it's the one that does give me pause; its unavoidable planned obsolescence. Unlike internal combustion cars who's tech is more or less at its plateau right now and has been for some time now, the definitive EV and hybrid tech has yet to be written and created. What's done in EV as state of the art in 2013 is now considered quaint and outdated ten years on; you just don't see that kind of quantum shift with ICE technology. One point I see made over and over is how used EVs don't have much resale value because buyers want what's the latest and supposedly greatest tech, and in the auto world EVs are the embodiment of bleeding-edge tech. It's like buying a used smartphone; some might do it but the vast majority won't simply because it's old and outdated.

Considering how much of an investment any new car purchase will be, the idea that the future value of that EV will definitively crash as bad if not worse than that of a BMW (sorry BMW owners, but it's true about the slap-dash engineered nature of your engines) is the major no-deal reason for me.

quote:

Originally posted by SevenPlusOne:
I just bought an Audi RS5 with a V8 out of spite.

I love it! A man after my own heart!

Suck it greenies!!

RMD

I won't be buying one. I don't want to burn my house down.
I garage my cars and I know they don't all catch on fire, but there are enough stories of fires that I won't take that chance.

Besides, I like my ICE vehicles.

quote:

Originally posted by KevH:
I can hop in my gas-powered truck and drive across the country using cash to pay. I can hop on a gas powered motorcycle and do the same. We "hot-seated" Ford Crown Vic's at work for years often driving the same car nearly 24 hours a day without issue. My gas vehicles last 20+ years without issue. There is no way these EV vehicles will last even 10 years.

It feels like EV is being crammed down my throat.

They want to limit and track our movement and that is why they are pushing these down our throats. It goes along with closing of trails in Moab. They want people to have less mobility and freedom in vehicles.

I personally like the EV technology and would love to have a plug in hybrid with a 75-100 mile full electric range and a gas motor for when I need to go farther or can’t charge.
I like the technology and the possibilities. I could not care less about the “green initiative.”
I still think EV stuff is still a novelty for the most part.

quote:

Wonder if the EV chargers will sustain themselves as long as ICE fuel pumps do, cold, hot, rain, hurricanes, stupid people.

It already is a large problem with the infrastructure being so small. I ran into a guy driving a Rivian the other day (I really like the Rivian) so I chatted him up a bit.
Turns out he works for Rivian. He was traveling and loves the truck but traveling is a pain because of charging.
Many broken and non functioning chargers and the built in GPS app based on charging does not take this into account. He had a secondary app on his phone that gives pretty good real time info on chargers currently functionally at each station.

He was telling me how these batteries charge at different speeds based upon the amount of charge on the battery. And that you want to keep it between a certain level when traveling so you are only taking charger breaks for 15-30 minutes.
He said the built in app takes this into account when choosing your GPS stops but it does not take into account for broken chargers so one really needs to stop well before so you don’t run into a dead charger when you have very little charge left.

Seems like a huge pain in the but for traveling. Which is why I like the plug in hybrid idea.
I’d rarely use gas except on trips as we are well under 50 miles a day even on our most travelled day. Plug it in each evening and be good to go in the morning.

quote:

Originally posted by SevenPlusOne:
I just bought an Audi RS5 with a V8 out of spite.

Pics or it didn't happen...

Here's my contribution of Audi 4.2L V8 hotness!

I remember not wanting a cell phone.

They just aren’t ready for prime time. Too heavy, because batteries don’t have anywhere near the energy density of petrochemicals. Electricity costs too much, and the price never goes down. Recharge takes too long. Cold saps the range and heat kills the life of batteries. Not enough range. Less net energy efficiency. Not enough generation, transmission and distribution to support wide usage. More resources needed to make them and power them than ICE. Too easy to track and disable them.

Hell. I won’t buy an ICE from a company that has stated they will be EV by 2030 (Audi).

I’m with ya, I have no interest in an EV. It’s been a long time since Car and Driver had anything more than two paragraphs that I was interested in.

None in my future plans.

quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear:
They just aren’t ready for prime time. Too heavy, because batteries don’t have anywhere near the energy density of petrochemicals. Electricity costs too much, and the price never goes down. Recharge takes too long. Cold saps the range and heat kills the life of batteries. Not enough range. Less net energy efficiency. Not enough generation, transmission and distribution to support wide usage. More resources needed to make them and power them than ICE. Too easy to track and disable them.

Hell. I won’t buy an ICE from a company that has stated they will be EV by 2030 (Audi).

Buying new cars, and buying used cars are two entirely different things in that context...Especially since the way things are going, it's unlikely I'll ever want to buy, or be able to buy/afford a new car ever again!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nhracecraft,

Just seen on reddit:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

It already is a large problem with the infrastructure being so small. I ran into a guy driving a Rivian the other day (I really like the Rivian) so I chatted him up a bit.
Turns out he works for Rivian. He was traveling and loves the truck but traveling is a pain because of charging.
Many broken and non functioning chargers and the built in GPS app based on charging does not take this into account. He had a secondary app on his phone that gives pretty good real time info on chargers currently functionally at each station.

I think the Rivian is a great design and execution. I'm really looking forward to the Lucid SUV....more than 500 mile range would cover most of my needs, although I understand the "range anxiety" goes away pretty quickly in everyday use

Part of their problem is that they aren't able/willing to use the Tesla Supercharging system. It is importunate that Electrify America and other charging systems aren't good about making sure that their charging stations are functioning

quote:

He was telling me how these batteries charge at different speeds based upon the amount of charge on the battery. And that you want to keep it between a certain level when traveling so you are only taking charger breaks for 15-30 minutes.
He said the built in app takes this into account when choosing your GPS stops but it does not take into account for broken chargers so one really needs to stop well before so you don’t run into a dead charger when you have very little charge left.

The most efficient charging process for an EV is between 20-80%. Above and below those levels really slows down the rate of charging.

That's Tesla's reason for having you use their navigation system, rather than Waze or Google. Their system calculates when and where you'll need to charge for the least down time. You arrive at each functioning station with a more than 20% charge and only charge enough to get you to your next stop...usually enough time to go use the rest room and get something to drink/eat

Good grief. The rationalization of having to stop repeatedly to charge and it taking way more time than fueling up an ICE vehicle and being a positive is hilarious. How often do you pee and eat on a road trip? Goodness sake, just admit they suck on any trip that’s even remotely long. Nobody enjoys stopping every 150-200 miles for fuel. Even a shitty car can double or triple that and still take 5 minutes to fuel up.

You like they are fast, you like they are great around town, you like they cost a ton more than a gas version. Ok, maybe not the last one. They make road trips hell. A 500 mile battery will help a lot but you still have a 30 minute refuel stop. Which gets you to 80%. Which is now 400 mile battery. Which now makes you stop in 320 miles to have your 20% reserve. The math on this is atrocious. Stop rationalizing that’s it’s great to stop constantly. It’s not.

Tesla is opening up their chargers to other vehicles in 2024.

By 2025 or so most cars will have the NACS (North American Charging Standard) ports. This is the Tesla charging head. In the meantime they will have adapters for those that have early models of EV’s.

Tesla has already begun to rollout super chargers that have the adapters built into their chargers.

This will be a great thing because the current public fast chargers are not ready for prime time.

Road trips will be better and will have a positive effect on range anxiety.

image upload site