TForan52
Active Member
- Region
- USA
I would certainly consider one but there are zero cars in stock ,regardless of the manufacturer.
Electric Car thread
- Thread starter WattsUpDude
- Start date
I don't drive ecar, but my grandma uses a mobility scooter https://www.seniorfitness.net/best-folding-mobility-scooter/ it's also electrical. Her only complaint is that there are not enough chargers for this in the city. So if you buy a ecar, see if you have enough chargers in the town.
Taylor57
Well-Known Member
I've never seen a mobility scooter at a charging station. Not sure if they are compatible...
This guy doesn't come across that well but he makes valid points that some people just want to ignore.
I think that I'd give it at least 10 years to see how it goes for current electric vehicle owners and what is done regarding the currently woefully inadequate electricity generating and transmission infrastructure. When I see nuclear plants pop up and transmission upgrades (and people willing to pay for it) I'll believe it, not holding my breath in the meantime.
PS
US has 5x the population of France but only about 1.5x the nuclear electricity generation
We have wind farms all over the hills here but they only account for 3% of electricity generated, you can only go so far with "green" sources and there are plenty environmental problems with those too. Sorry, no easy answers or magic solutions to the energy problems we face.
Taylor57
Well-Known Member
I have 2 ICE cars and 1 EV. Range anxiety is a real deal with the EVs but so far I have always been able to find a charging station. It's just that I have seen broken charging stations and ICE cars parked in the charging stations amongst other problems associated with getting charged back up. Also, when you need gas, it takes 5 minutes and away you go. With EV, it can take an hour to get back up to 90 %.
I would be concerned about durability and longevity of EVs. How long does a battery pack last and how much does it cost to replace etc. I'm not a car guy, only interested in practical transportation and other uses so I usually keep my vehicles until they aren't reliable anymore. Last car (Dodge minivan) I got rid of had 250,000 miles on it (and saw it driving around the area for another few years), current F350 diesel is 18 years old and has over 250,000 miles on it and it still runs (and looks) pretty much like new. Also a 12 year old SUV with almost 120,000 miles that runs flawlessly. I could easily afford new vehicles but I'm just not interested. How will EVs compare, only time will tell. Also my truck has over 500 mile range on a single tank of fuel, gets around 20mpg and can haul a camper or pull a tree stump (I've done that), no EV can come close - for some they seem to make a lot of sense but not a complete replacement for ICE.
Taylor57
Well-Known Member
I have a Hyundai and they appear to have a pretty good warranty program. Will my EV outlast my Audi? I don't know. If it breaks I get it fixed. Not going to lose too much sleep over vehicles at this stage in my life. Just kinda nice now to not have to go to a gas station...
Spending 5 minutes once or twice a month filling my truck with fuel isn't an inconvenience to me and I have definitely used the 500+ mile range on more than one occasion. Anyway, everyone has their preferences but some people who promote that EV is the only way to go for everyone have a very narrow field of experiences. Not worried about it in any case.
Mulezen
Well-Known Member
EV’s offer considerable advantages over ICE (lower maintenance is one), and the tech is rapidly improving.
So too alternative energy. Nuclear in its present iteration in the US is uneconomic. I do think the SME (?) small modular units might be viable, but are still in development. I have posted a variety of new wind and solar tech articles…and there are new ones every day such as horizontal wind and bifacial Perskovite spray on layers for solar that eliminates silicon. And new approaches to wave and geothermal energy production as well as battery tech. All these avenues, and others, are necessary today. We must implement the change from a carbon economy yesterday. The self-interested foot dragging by entrenched interests has placed society on the brink of dissolution (Florida). We should have proceeded when we lead the world in this tech with Carter behind it before Reagan in response to oil interests took down the WH solar panels.
In regards to HB, I blocked him long ago and would be surprised if he has ever made a valid point in his life
So too alternative energy. Nuclear in its present iteration in the US is uneconomic. I do think the SME (?) small modular units might be viable, but are still in development. I have posted a variety of new wind and solar tech articles…and there are new ones every day such as horizontal wind and bifacial Perskovite spray on layers for solar that eliminates silicon. And new approaches to wave and geothermal energy production as well as battery tech. All these avenues, and others, are necessary today. We must implement the change from a carbon economy yesterday. The self-interested foot dragging by entrenched interests has placed society on the brink of dissolution (Florida). We should have proceeded when we lead the world in this tech with Carter behind it before Reagan in response to oil interests took down the WH solar panels.
In regards to HB, I blocked him long ago and would be surprised if he has ever made a valid point in his life
California and Washington state are planning to ban sales of gasoline powered new cars in 12 years and 3 months and ticking. It takes 10 to 15 years to build a new nuclear plant (2 years if you are China, not sure that is a good thing). Waiting for some utopian new technology doesn't seem feasible, they need to start now with currently available technology. Plus all of the transmission infrastructure. So when exactly is this massive (and massively expensive) project starting? And where is the money coming from in a country that is currently $31,000,000,000,000 in debt and growing. Sorry, I'll believe it when I see it.
You can't be serious, can you? There is nothing "ideological" about my posts, do you even know what that word means?
Simple facts based on current reality, not "challenges" that may or may not be met in your clearly ideological responses. The only difference between your posts and Handlebar are opposing "ideological" perspectives rather than current "scientific, economic and technological" reality. Well over a million cars are currently sold in California and Washington state combined each year, by 2035 that number plus any growth in new car sales in the interim is to be entirely transitioned to non-gasoline, essentially electric powered. There isn't much time to transition into the predictable electrical energy requirements - what is the achievable plan? Other than the hope for some nearly instantly developed new technology that isn't on any current realistic timeline? It often takes years to develop technological advances into practical applications.
Simple facts based on current reality, not "challenges" that may or may not be met in your clearly ideological responses. The only difference between your posts and Handlebar are opposing "ideological" perspectives rather than current "scientific, economic and technological" reality. Well over a million cars are currently sold in California and Washington state combined each year, by 2035 that number plus any growth in new car sales in the interim is to be entirely transitioned to non-gasoline, essentially electric powered. There isn't much time to transition into the predictable electrical energy requirements - what is the achievable plan? Other than the hope for some nearly instantly developed new technology that isn't on any current realistic timeline? It often takes years to develop technological advances into practical applications.
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
Nice try. You argue the challenges but what is being enacted is driven by ideology- which just by chance happens to be yours.
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
Hypocritical much? Why not try some honesty one day soon?
Sparky731
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
Question to EV owners: Do tire wear and tire replacement costs compare to IC cars? I am thinking that the significant weight difference will lead to early tire, and brake, wear. (Similar to ebikes vs. acoustic.) How about insurance? What is your experience?
Readytoride
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Virginia
In my experience tire wear and tear and replacement costs are about the same. There isn't that much of a weight difference between comparable size cars if one is an EV and the other is an ICE. The ICE will vary in weight depending upon the size of the gas tank and the amount of gas in it at various times. The EV never changes it's gross weight whether the battery is charged 100% or down to zero.( joke here!)
Almost all EVS come with regenerative braking which means that your brake pads will last upwards to hundreds of thousands of miles if you set your car at a high regenerative brake level. My EV is already at 67,000 miles and when I had my tires rotated last time the mechanic told me that my brake pads (mfr original equipment) looked brand new. That's because I rarely have to touch my brakes to slow or stop the car. The automatic regenerative braking does that for me much better than I would/could do myself manually. Honestly, I don't anticipate having to change my brake pads, ever. Another big plus for the regenerative braking is it that it feeds energy back into the battery to recharge. A win-win.
I don't think that my insurance was any higher for the EV principally because they are new enough to have the newest technology which makes them safer and that's something that insurance companies look at first. Insurance tends to also factor in the cost of the car in replacement. The more expensive cars, whether they are EV or ICE, are always going to cost more to insure.
Hope this helps!
mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
do the math. the only scenario where EVs suddenly overwhelm the grid is if everyone depletes their batteries and decides to charge all at once at the peak on a warm summer evening. this will never happen, because in the 10+ years between now and a truly huge number of EVs being on the road there are very simple adjustments to the cars and the grid which would stagger charging over the many off peak hours at night, in the morning, etc. people already do this because it’s stupid to pay peak energy prices to charge a car that you can charge at night, off peak.
there are 13 million households in California. 50 miles per household per day. (I’ve seen numbers as low as 30, this varies a lot but 50 is very conservative.) 650 million miles a day. .25kwh/mile. 160 million kWh per day, or 160 gWh. California generates more than that much every day today (+/- 185 gWh) from renewables in-state alone. the state can and easily will build that much more in the next couple decades.
the bigger impact is actually the switch to all electric buildings, which is already here for many new buildings. it will take much longer transition since buildings last so much longer than cars, but it’s about an order of magnitude bigger impact.
Sparky731
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
You were convincing up to,“the state can and easily will build that much more in the next couple decades.” You may be giving too much credit to the EPA and everyone else who says, “not in my back yard.”
U.S. power consumption increased more than 9% over the past 2 years. This growth will only increase with more EVs and electric buildings as you note.
Transmission lines alone take many decades for approvals — if they are even granted before decades of building. EVs may make sense for CA, but the cart is way ahead of the horse regarding energy generation and expansion when the environment is concerned. Even for green energy.
mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
i was speaking of california, not the US at large, and the situation is a bit different. california energy consumption per capita has been flat or down for the past several decades:
at the same time, a very significant amount of renewables have come online in the very negative approvals climate you reference. that momentum is building as more and more state law is created to eliminate barriers to renewable construction at all scales. for example, in california local governments are no longer allowed to reject solar panel installations because they’re over height limits.
the transmission grid is already sized for peak loads way beyond what would happen if everyone charged their EVs at night, and while upgrades are absolutely needed for various reasons, they aren’t monumental relative to the revenue generated by tens of millions of ratepayers.
Similar threads
