[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

I was initially interested in the F150 Lightning but the range gets destroyed with any kind of towing, load or cold and I fear the same will be true for the RAM.

I think this is why GM is still planning to make V8's. Can't design your way around the physics of energy density and the load needs of the end users.

I wonder how they will dance around this when 2035 comes an no good options exist for work trucks, large passenger haulers (vans), and large SUV's.

GM tried to solve this with a 3000# battery in the Hummer EV, providing an un-loaded range less than a Tesla model 3 LR.

The Tesla Semi battery is estimated to weigh 10,000 pounds and is struggling to meet rated range now that a few have been released (shock).

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

So i guess this has become a "let's bitch about what we can't control" thread.

We can control the when, where, and how, and a lot of that is predicated on the "why?" part.

[BGM-M3COMP]

You guys can't control shit lol

But it'll be amusing to see you guys try.

Let's monitor this in 1 year increments. See the progress.

[SoCal_NSX]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Why believe any of them? They are all biased.



Do what? shift the carbon generation to a power plant where we can't see it?




Sounds like what gets said about climate change. Remember, we only have 8 years left : "The world will end in 12 years if climate change is not addressed" AOC January 2019 < sensationalism.

That's ^ an actual hyperbolic statement, vs just questioning the necessity of mandates, which is not a statement, nor hyperbolic.

Calling that questioning "they call it some sort of tyranny" is an example of actual hyperbole.

all biased? No, just the conspiracy theorists and oil execs...others just follow the science and actual data

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

all biased? No, just the conspiracy theorists and oil execs...others just follow the science and actual data

I love how people always use the word science when it’s convenient. Because it’s not convenient when there’s a heartbeat, but you get a consensus of scientists who are all funded by the same organizations to say carbon emissions from fossil fuels will kill us all you’re just fine with that. All from the same people who are very comfortable with death already.

[SoCal_NSX]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I love how people always use the word science when it’s convenient. Because it’s not convenient when there’s a heartbeat, but you get a consensus of scientists who are all funded by the same organizations to say carbon emissions from fossil fuels will kill us all you’re just fine with that. All from the same people who are very comfortable with death already.

yes, cuz the old "they're all funded by the same evil empire" theory is always convenient

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

yes, cuz the old "they're all funded by the same evil empire" theory is always convenient

This conversation is stupid. I could cut and paste two dozen videos from scientists contradicting each one of these two nerds, YouTube videos. Actually, you did a poor job for your side. You could’ve found much better videos than these.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

all biased? No, just the conspiracy theorists and oil execs...others just follow the science and actual data

I'm an electrical engineer and work for a major utility where I support a major part of the countries power grid. Our science says we aren't ready to embrace these EV's at the rate proposed, and the supply side is going to need to add a lot of additional carbon generation if we try, which kind of misses the whole point of going green with EV's.

As it is, most EV's are charged at night when the grid has the least amount of green energy in it. You will notice this fact is missing from both your videos, as well a almost all other similar comparisons, I wonder why? Some might wonder if there is a bias in play

The grid is not an "average", it's very dynamic. If your grid is 90% solar on average and you charge at night, how much solar energy is getting in to that battery? You ever wonder where that "darkness" power comes from? Hint; it's not "the wall outlet", there is a whole dynamic system connected to the other end of that wall outlet. You can't go green by charging a car with carbon generated electricity, you are just moving the problem to where you can't see or smell it. That is science with the data to back it. It's not a conspiracy, nor a theory.

[SoCal_NSX]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I'm an electrical engineer and work for a major utility where I support a major part of the countries power grid. Our science says we aren't ready to embrace these EV's at the rate proposed, and the supply side is going to need to add a lot of additional carbon generation if we try, which kind of misses the whole point of going green with EV's.

As it is, most EV's are charged at night when the grid has the least amount of green energy in it. You will notice this fact is missing from both your videos, as well a almost all other similar comparisons, I wonder why? Some might wonder if there is a bias in play

The grid is not an "average", it's very dynamic. If your grid is 90% solar on average and you charge at night, how much solar energy is getting in to that battery? You ever wonder where that "darkness" power comes from? Hint; it's not "the wall outlet", there is a whole dynamic system connected to the other end of that wall outlet. You can't go green by charging a car with carbon generated electricity, you are just moving the problem to where you can't see or smell it. That is science with the data to back it. It's not a conspiracy, nor a theory.

not according to most studies....
Also, this is not happening tomorrow, there will still be plenty of gas powered cars on the road well past 2050 even if every car manufacturer stopped making them in 2035.

Here is an in-depth article on the subject from US News

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/...-electric-cars

[chassis]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

#1: Alex, I'll go with $202B, includes a shit load of robots, housing for illegal aliens (assembly techs), and chip foundry.

#2: Alex, I'll go with assinate Elon Musk for buying Twitter.

Good estimate, it’s likely a lower bound of required investment.

Any other takers on question 1: how much investment is needed for Tesla to achieve 14% market share in the US?

Any comments on the competitive response from Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, VW, MB, BMW and others if Tesla attempted a $200b+ investment campaign?

New math question:

What is the strategic math related to price cuts which Tesla has recently enacted?

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

lol BGM ran away from the other tesla thread and now is in this one

[wdb]

Originally Posted by Patton250

This conversation is stupid.

You can say that again.

Originally Posted by Patton250

This conversation is stupid.

Ah. Thanks.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

Great, so then an EV doesn't work FOR YOU. If road tripping is part of your monthly thing? How often do you do this? once a month? Do you not work and just cross country the entire year? If so yeah, don't get an EV, get a honda civic and do all that and get max MPG.

Everyone else is adapting and there are tons of people already road tripping their teslas and other EV's that are available now.

You wanna know the crazy part of our discussion? It doesn't side with you. I keep parroting that.

We're moving close and closer and technology is getting better and better so time isn't on your side. You're judging results of what you know of in the past and today.

If an iphone 30 comes out TODAY, apple is already making their iphone 31 tomorrow. Innovation comes at a price. It means you're never up to date with technology. You can only dwell on the past.

My story hasn't changed since 2 months since i started to kill all of your guys arguments. I don't do it in a way as if i have anything against any of you. We're having a discussion.

But you're fighting an uphill battle that will inevitably result in a defeat.

This is happening. You can nitpick the flaws now. But as i said time is on EV's side and not on your side. This will get better and everyone WILL ADAPT TO THIS.

Have fun bro.

bro do you always get so sensitive when someone just points out some flaws in your grandiose claims.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

the rise of the internet has allowed for very average people to think they are intelligent. Whereas all these little shifts and propaganda just cause you to invest your money while the intelligent make money off your short sighted thinking. see TSLA and bTC....oil has been going steady for ages but no one here it tooting their horn lol

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

not according to most studies....
Also, this is not happening tomorrow, there will still be plenty of gas powered cars on the road well past 2050 even if every car manufacturer stopped making them in 2035.

Here is an in-depth article on the subject from US News

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/...-electric-cars

Where is all that extra power going to come from? What I seem to keep seeing is that the answer is : "don't worry, it will come from the power company"

Ok, where is the power company going to get it from? nobody in these articles seems to know, or even care, and few address "time of day" or "peak" usage, the stuff that makes it an actual problem. The one you linked does.

From your own new article:
There's a simple solution. By incentivizing electric vehicle operators to charge their cars when demand is low, such as in the middle of the night, they can remove demand at peak times and move it to an hour when the grid has a surplus.

How do you incentivize buyers to charge late at night?: Simply by making it cheaper for them to do so. Time of use (TOU) rates make it more expensive to run electricity gobbling EV chargers (along with appliances such as clothes dryers) when electricity demand is high. They make it super-cheap to run them when power demand is low.

It's saying what I said, they charge at night when there is almost no green power, and are incentivized to do so .

The choice becomes : overload the grid, or charge your battery with carbon.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Where is all that extra power going to come from? What I seem to keep seeing is that the answer is : "don't worry, it will come from the power company"

Ok, where is the power company going to get it from? nobody in these articles seems to know, or even care, and few address "time of day" or "peak" usage, the stuff that makes it an actual problem. The one you linked does.

From your own new article:
There's a simple solution. By incentivizing electric vehicle operators to charge their cars when demand is low, such as in the middle of the night, they can remove demand at peak times and move it to an hour when the grid has a surplus.

How do you incentivize buyers to charge late at night?: Simply by making it cheaper for them to do so. Time of use (TOU) rates make it more expensive to run electricity gobbling EV chargers (along with appliances such as clothes dryers) when electricity demand is high. They make it super-cheap to run them when power demand is low.

It's saying what I said, they charge at night when there is almost no green power, and are incentivized to do so .

The choice becomes : overload the grid, or charge your battery with carbon.

The province of Ontario installed "Smart Meters" to monitor TOD usage as they were instituting peak usage and off peak usage pricing to reduce energy. The cost of these smart meters was in the billions that was of course passed on to the users. The idea being folks would do their laundry/dishwasher etc after 8pm, for a minor savings. What happens when every single household is charging their EV overnight? I suspect that will no longer be off peak.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Where is all that extra power going to come from? What I seem to keep seeing is that the answer is : "don't worry, it will come from the power company"

Ok, where is the power company going to get it from? nobody in these articles seems to know, or even care, and few address "time of day" or "peak" usage, the stuff that makes it an actual problem. The one you linked does.

From your own new article:
There's a simple solution. By incentivizing electric vehicle operators to charge their cars when demand is low, such as in the middle of the night, they can remove demand at peak times and move it to an hour when the grid has a surplus.

How do you incentivize buyers to charge late at night?: Simply by making it cheaper for them to do so. Time of use (TOU) rates make it more expensive to run electricity gobbling EV chargers (along with appliances such as clothes dryers) when electricity demand is high. They make it super-cheap to run them when power demand is low.

It's saying what I said, they charge at night when there is almost no green power, and are incentivized to do so .

The choice becomes : overload the grid, or charge your battery with carbon.

In FL (my state), the breakup is 75% Natural Gas, 11% Nuclear and every other source is almost irrelevant... which in the end means, you are getting your power from fossil fuels one way or another.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY

bro do you always get so sensitive when someone just points out some flaws in your grandiose claims.

Yes he does, you can tell by the CAP LOCK TYPING!

[Schn3ll]

I suspect EV demand tapers off; most likely due to:

- all potentially interested buyers (who have the ability to charge at home and only take short trips) already owning one

- tax credits cease (we shouldn't be funding this via taxpayer $ anyway)

- over-saturation of the market with sameness (why pay $100k for the same experience you can get from a $40k Kia/Tesla?) this will hurt the luxury car manufacturers the most

- Bitter enthusiasts who don't want/care about EV's and maintain the value of pure gas sports cars on the used market

- buyers feeling f'ed over with price cuts (see recent Tesla) or better tech that makes their car "the old iphone"

- many buyers return to gas after a short EV ownership stint due to poor range in winter, crappy charging infrastructure (other than Tesla) and buggy, poor towing capability, bleeding edge electronics (lots to go wrong)

Once this cauldron of issues creates reduced demand (I believe manufacturers are already seeing it - see GM's new V8's), there will be a walk-back on the insane 2035 mandate by the chauffeured, insane politicians who think they are "saving the planet".

I owned a Taycan up until recently - OK car, pretty buggy electronics, not "fun" and couldn't wait to get rid of it and back into a manual sports car.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY

bro do you always get so sensitive when someone just points out some flaws in your grandiose claims.

Flaws in what?

Ev is coming and that’s all I’m siding with.

Everyone talking about politics which doesn’t help them.

I’m all for ev and it’s happening so if you think about it, I already won the argument lol

Sorry not sorry.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by Schn3ll

I owned a Taycan up until recently - OK car, pretty buggy electronics, not "fun" and couldn't wait to get rid of it and back into a manual sports car.

I just read where ~20% of EV buyers in California go back to ICE. Charging hassles is the overwhelming reason. It goes back to the lack of infrastructure.

[Schn3ll]

Originally Posted by wdb

I just read where ~20% of EV buyers in California go back to ICE. Charging hassles is the overwhelming reason. It goes back to the lack of infrastructure.

100%, plug in hybrids where charging is optional are the best solution right now. And most companies felt the need to skip that step. My wife's Panamera ehybrid does 40+mpg and she has a 50 mile round trip commute everyday. That's with a 450+hp all wheel drive car that weighs 4,600lbs. That's the answer, not full EV.

I don't think I'll go back, the tech is evolving so rapidly it's like catching a falling knife. It will inevitably go to the rental formula and there are people who are going to trade one in every year like the latest iphone and wonder why they stay poor...