quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:. . .
We tend to just think about the battery because that’s the biggest single cost item. GM stated recently that in the last 5 years the battery prices have been cut in half which is pretty incredible. . . .

I think about the battery because current known reserves of the raw materials that go into the battery fall incredibly short of the amounts needed to make all these all EVs in the next 10-20 year wishes come true.

That’s my number one concern. I’m sure the grid has been studied but there’s no way to know what raw materials exist in the world. I personally don’t think EV will be any better for the environment but it’s being forced that direction going that way no matter what any of us think.

Just a slight correction for the sake of accuracy. The overall car buying market is not demanding EV's, but government is hellbent on forcing that market movement.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
When its corporate and/or private investment money investing in tangible, real, innovation, yes. When its government pushing fairy dust and unicorn farts with taxpayer money, then no. Undeniably, government completely screws up everything it meddles in, and as it reaches ever further into pushing EV's it will turn that market into a complete cluster____. The best thing government could ever do for EV and ACE tech is to sty as far as possible from those markets. But unfortunately for everyone, government is too arrogant and too stupid to follow that advice.

I also wish it was just a free market and let the buyers decide. The problem is we have been giving petroleum billions per year and thats been around for over 100 years so it wouldn't be a fair competition if we are giving one propulsion system billions and nothing to the other. I do agree that the government is terrible at everything they do other than getting their hand in your pocket.

To say EV's are fairy dust and unicorn farts is just uniformed. Pushed ahead artificially too soon I could agree with but next year the Model S will do 0-60 in 1.9 seconds, have a top speed over 200mph, run the 1/4 mile in 9.3 seconds and go over 500 miles on a single charge. Those number where unheard of even in the last gen car. It will be the fasted production car in history and still capable of huge range. Just wait for two or three more generations.

Do you need all of that performance? Of course not but it just shows the massive leap in technology in a short time. The price will come down for the masses, especially in a car that doesn't need ridiculous performance.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
If they can build a vehicle that is equal or better in all regards to the ICE truck I drive now, I will happily buy one.

It needs to have similar capabilities not going to happen with current technologies.

fast recharge - Improving, but still far from where it needs to be with no innovations spec'd to solve that issue currently proposed.

equivalent reliability, safety, and convenience, and have equal or lower operating costs. And there's the biggest wall to get over. EV manufacturers can make anything they want, but it will take ten years of on the road data to build enough of a case study for buyers to consider EV trucks over current ICE trucks that have 50+ years of history behind them. Tesla still hasn't overcome this barrier yet with the general population.

It needs to be priced competitively, And that can only come via one of two paths. 1) They manage to sell enough of these EV's to drive down overall costs, and 2) government continues on its current fairy dust and unicorn farts path and simply subsidizes the hell out of EV's with [b]our money while demonizing and killing the ICE industry.[/b]

quote:

Teslas are extraordinary vehicles. Expensive, but they show what can be done with today's technology, and are very impressive.

Yet they're rated at the bottom of the JD Power Quality standings. They rate super high in terms of Tesla owner loyalty, yet rather low with the remainder of vehicle buying consumers. Tesla has made some significant inroads into the vehicle market, but they haven't managed to significantly change the vehicle buyer paradigm much so far.

I'm not anti-EV or even anti-technology, but I fully recognize that current EV tech is no where near where it needs to be to fully change the paradigm for most vehicle buyers. And unfortunately, short of possibly solid state battery tech which is likely years away before its commercially feasible, there's no EV tech silver bullet currently on the horizon.

quote:

Originally posted by caneau:
What fantasy? 300 miles and 20 minute charges are possible today and weren't 15 years ago.

And was that enough to move even 10% of the American auto buyers to this technology? Nope. And the limitations of lithium are being hit right now, not to mention a finite quantity of it. The batteries can't really get any bigger or store much more energy, and recharging will always face limitations with lithium batteries. Will solid state batteries materialize into viable tech to solve this issue? Don't know, but if they do, it will take ten years for them to mature enough as to be commercially viable.

quote:

In another 15 years what I suggest is completely reasonable.

Wish I had a crystal ball, but 50+ years on this globe has taught me not to be a pessimist or an optimist, but rather, a middle of the road realist. EV's face monumental challenges at the moment which will not be removed because government decrees it. Innovation comes at its own speed regardless of the money thrown at it.

quote:

Originally posted by caneau:
Let me put in another way. I don't care what powers my car. I really don't. It can be gas. It can be electric. It can be a Mr. Fusion unit or ground up unicorn horn. Makes no difference. I have no fond memories of big blocks and I've never owned a V8 in my life. I don't work on my car and have no desire to do so. My car is an emotionless appliance and if it said Maytag on the side I wouldn't notice.

Oh my god, its the anti-Christ! Be gone spirit of darkness, be gone!

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
When its corporate and/or private investment money investing in tangible, real, innovation, yes. When its government pushing fairy dust and unicorn farts with taxpayer money, then no. Undeniably, government completely screws up everything it meddles in, and as it reaches ever further into pushing EV's it will turn that market into a complete cluster____. The best thing government could ever do for EV and ACE tech is to sty as far as possible from those markets. But unfortunately for everyone, government is too arrogant and too stupid to follow that advice.

I also wish it was just a free market and let the buyers decide. The problem is we have been giving petroleum billions per year and thats been around for over 100 years so it wouldn't be a fair competition if we are giving one propulsion system billions and nothing to the other. I do agree that the government is terrible at everything they do other than getting their hand in your pocket.

To say EV's are fairy dust and unicorn farts is just uniformed. Pushed ahead artificially too soon I could agree with but next year the Model S will do 0-60 in 1.9 seconds, have a top speed over 200mph, run the 1/4 mile in 9.3 seconds and go over 500 miles on a single charge. Those number where unheard of even in the last gen car. It will be the fasted production car in history and still capable of huge range. Just wait for two or three more generations.

Do you need all of that performance? Of course not but it just shows the massive leap in technology in a short time. The price will come down for the masses, especially in a car that doesn't need ridiculous performance.

One, 'claimed' range is never the same as 'actual' range so color me a bit apprehensive about those 'claimed' numbers. And the Model S that gets that higher range costs how much? Yeah, that car is not going to win over much of the general car buying public. I personally wish Tesla would re-focus some of their attention on build quality. One of our church members owns a local body shop and he constantly talks about how abysmal the build quality is on Tesla's when he pulls them apart.

And all those high performance claims alway crack me up. Of course I also laugh at the same claims made by Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, and McClaren. Are their spec's impressive? Absolutely. Are they utterly absurd when it comes to a vehicle used on public roads that are 50 years beyond the point they should have been repaired or replaced? Yep. Eventually, if we can't find a way to take care of our road's infrastructure, we all may be driving monster trucks at 20 mph powered by who knows what.

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k: . . . The problem is we have been giving petroleum billions per year and thats been around for over 100 years . . .

Could you provide a source and some detail for that data, subsidizing oil firms $$Billions per year for 100 years? What do they call a "subsidy", where do the numbers come from to quantify such??

I looked up some "oil industry subsidy" reports, seems much of the things called "subsidies" were ordinary business deductions: allowing LIFO inventory method, allowing an expense deduction for intangible costs (rather than capitalize-the difference is in timing), allowing a deduction for taxes paid to foreign nations. Seems most of the reports came from environmental entities. Bias??

A principle comes to mind (taught in auditing, applicable to many things): Confirmation Bias - select, process, present data to fit the picture you want to see, or that you want others to see.

And if the US didn't have a domestic oil industry, relied on foreign nations for our supply, I wonder how much the cost per gallon (or kwh) would be? The US consumer could be quite a bit better off with such "subsidies" (which I think is a misleading description) than they would be without such. Somehow I don't see that happening with EV's.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k: . . . The problem is we have been giving petroleum billions per year and thats been around for over 100 years . . .

Could you provide a source and some detail for that data, subsidizing oil firms $$Billions per year for 100 years? What do they call a "subsidy", where do the numbers come from to quantify such??

I looked up some "oil industry subsidy" reports, seems much of the things called "subsidies" were ordinary business deductions: allowing LIFO inventory method, allowing an expense deduction for intangible costs (rather than capitalize-the difference is in timing), allowing a deduction for taxes paid to foreign nations. Seems most of the reports came from environmental entities. Bias??

A principle comes to mind (taught in auditing, applicable to many things): Confirmation Bias - select, process, present data to fit the picture you want to see, or that you want others to see.

And if the US didn't have a domestic oil industry, relied on foreign nations for our supply, I wonder how much the cost per gallon (or kwh) would be? The US consumer could be quite a bit better off with such "subsidies" (which I think is a misleading description) than they would be without such. Somehow I don't see that happening with EV's.

Look into ethanol blending subsidies to refineries

The once largest non ethanol refinery on the Gulf coast in Chalmette, LA put in a blender a few years back... why? Because they get a 25cent per gal subsidy/kickback/tax incentive (call I what you will) to do so

They getting it, one way or another,

quote:

Originally posted by snwghst:
Look into ethanol blending subsidies to refineries

The once largest non ethanol refinery on the Gulf coast in Chalmette, LA put in a blender a few years back... why? Because they get a 25cent per gal subsidy/kickback/tax incentive (call I what you will) to do so

They getting it, one way or another,

And why are those refineries doing that... could it be that the gov't is basically making them do it via mandates (just like EV mandates), and if they don't they'll be essentially penalized? If the gov't is making you do it, I wouldn't call that a subsidy.

It would be interesting to know if the refinery didn't add a blender, would the Feds sic the EPA and other agencies on them. I'm sure that would NEVER happen.

quote:

Originally posted by snwghst:. . . Look into ethanol blending subsidies to refineries

The once largest non ethanol refinery on the Gulf coast in Chalmette, LA put in a blender a few years back... why? Because they get a 25cent per gal subsidy/kickback/tax incentive (call I what you will) to do so

They getting it, one way or another,

Well, the gov't mandated "ethanol" in gasoline, likely to support the agricultural industry. Ethanol gas does produce less pollutants per gallon burned, but, it takes more gallons to get from point A to point B, ie, more pollutants per mile driven. So the gov't tells you must put in ethanol, then helps pay for the facility to do so. The consumer would be better off if the gov't backed off.

And now I see Josey beat me to it.

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:

quote:

Originally posted by snwghst:
Look into ethanol blending subsidies to refineries

The once largest non ethanol refinery on the Gulf coast in Chalmette, LA put in a blender a few years back... why? Because they get a 25cent per gal subsidy/kickback/tax incentive (call I what you will) to do so

They getting it, one way or another,

And why are those refineries doing that... could it be that the gov't is basically making them do it via mandates (just like EV mandates), and if they don't they'll be essentially penalized? If the gov't is making you do it, I wouldn't call that a subsidy.

It would be interesting to know if the refinery didn't add a blender, would the Feds sic the EPA and other agencies on them. I'm sure that would NEVER happen.

PBF bought it from ExxonMobil/Petrobas. They decided not to buy/use excess RINs.. Renewable Identification Number..s (as previously done) and take the blending subsidies

RINs explained

I'm in no hurry for the EV revolution to take place. When the government is pushing hard for something, that something will lead to the fleecing of the people, loss of freedom for the people, growth and empowerment of government and the enrichment of politicians.

GM ‘Aspires’ to Sell Only EVs by 2035. Here’s How to Understand What That Really Means

"If you heard any news about General Motors on Thursday, you may have come away thinking the automaker will sell only electric vehicles by 2035. GM didn’t say that at all, but reporting on EVs has never been a strong point for most media outlets.

GM said in its press release it “aspires” to eliminate tailpipe emissions and sell only zero-emission light-duty vehicles by 2035, in a press release headlining its plans to be fully carbon-neutral by 2040. That’s a goal, not a commitment. The New York Times got it wrong, headlining the story “GM will only sell zero-emission vehicles by 2035.” The technology site TechCrunch said GM “committed to have a fully electric fleet of vehicles by 2035.” And so on. To his credit, Reuters’ longtime auto correspondent David Shepardson nailed it from the start, saying GM “aims to” end sales of gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2035..."

"...GM’s release included other implicit caveats: The aspiration applies only to light-duty vehicles, meaning passenger cars and trucks up to 6,000 pounds. It does not include “heavy-duty” versions of full-size pickup trucks, for instance, whose luxury versions have proven surprisingly popular and very profitable. Also, it may not include just electric cars but also hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, though it shows no signs of developing cars in the latter category for personal transport... "

"...Still, most people see or hear or view something, assume it’s true without thinking too much or checking sources, and then react. On Thursday some of them heard GM wouldn’t make vehicles with engines anymore, and the usual clamorous alarm went off—especially among truck bros. (That’s a wholly different story.)

GM executives very much want Wall Street analysts and the public to believe the company is resetting itself to become a global leader in the EV transition of the 2020s and 2030s. That transition was kicked off in 2012 by a brash upstart California company that’s now the world’s most valuable automaker."

Alas, the sky is NOT falling. I'll still buy GM.

quote:

Originally posted by snwghst:

PBF bought it from ExxonMobil/Petrobas. They decided not to buy/use excess RINs.. Renewable Identification Number..s (as previously done) and take the blending subsidies

RINs explained

That's just confirmation of the gov't putting their thumb on the scale for their enforced mandates vs market forces. Refineries aren't choosing to blend because they or the customers want to do it, the EPA is forcing them to do it.
Like I said, it's not a subsidy if the gov't is forcing you to do it.

This is all been hyped by headline readers. They aspire to be all EV by then. It isn't firm. And most companies that make this claim if you read between the lines you'll realize "no gas" basically means there is at least a hybrid option.

In other words in fifteen years if you buy an electric car your power bill will go ski high, and kalifornia buyers will be driving to neighboring states to get the car charged. And when you renew your license plates you’ll be taxed for the miles you drove the previous year.Something to look forward to.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
There was a time members of congress were exempt from insider trading laws. Then their exemption was cancelled. 

They quietly gave themselves the exemption back a short time after they removed it.

quote:

Originally posted by nukeandpave:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
There was a time members of congress were exempt from insider trading laws. Then their exemption was cancelled. 

They quietly gave themselves the exemption back a short time after they removed it.

The key word there is "quietly". Just one more mile marker in the road to socialism, "rules for thee but not for me".

I can't wait to hear the dead silence when you push the pedal on the 2035 Corvette...

Meh. Things change year to year. Think how it was in 2019 vs 2020. I'll believe it when I see it. Especially since the dumb ass dems are pushing the agenda. They are so far on the south side of reality... well let that be and let's see what happens. I've got my popcorn.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I can't wait to hear the dead silence when you push the pedal on the 2035 Corvette...

Dead silence because you live in CA, the gov't run power grid is down, your Tesla hasn't had power for two weeks?