Electric Cars: Chev Bolt seems to be the first practical one.

[sd455dan]

And as you point out, that doesn't necessarily mean two cars for one person. My wife and I each have a car, and one of them could easily be electric. On the rare occasions that one of us travels more than 200 miles in a day, that person would use the ICE vehicle. I suspect that is a fairly common demographic.

IMO, the limiting factor for EV sales is still price. The Bolt is getting close, but I think it's still outside of mainstream pricing for the car you get. It looks like a little economy vehicle, but it's priced like a higher end Subaru.

saw an ad for new Bolts for around $28000 yesterday, can that be right?

Started Saving money up for a 1st gen Volt, seems the depreciation makes them a pretty good buy,

Just checked Volt stats Erick Belmers Volt (Sparkie) has now passed 390,000 miles with over 137,000 of them electric miles. Wow

 

[California]

saw an ad for new Bolts for around $28000 yesterday, can that be right?

Started Saving money up for a 1st gen Volt, seems the depreciation makes them a pretty good buy

I think some dealers are using the after-subsidy price in their Bolt advertising. Be cautious about that. Not everyone has a $7,500 federal income tax obligation in the year you buy the Bolt, so you may not be able to claim the full $7,500 reduction to your federal tax obligation when you file your 2017 taxes. And it doesn't roll forward to use the remainder in a future year.

Leasing avoids this tax trap, the leasing company earns the full $7,500 when they buy the car to lease it to you. But of course you are paying something extra for their profit if you lease. I've always bought cars outright, the magic numbers in dealer loans and leases turns me off. "How much shall I tell the credit union to write the check for" cuts through a lot of nonsense.

I wonder if the second-generation Volt is worth its higher cost. For a car you hope to keep for several years, that might be worthwhile.

 

[buickanddeere]

I happened to look over in the Friendly Politics forum and in a thread titled Global Warming - NASA data shows industrialization is the major factor there happens to be today a post that is directly relevant to your misinformation: I'll quote the whole thing here for you. But instead of continuing this side topic in this Electric Car thread, I urge you to take any reply over there, not argue your case here.

====== Quoting Post # 1211 in the Global Warming thread ========

there seems to be a problem:

Morning Mix
Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught.

Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught. - The Washington Post

There was a problem, though. The paper, Grinspoon said, seems to have an agenda.

There was another problem, too. The names Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez are fake.
...

The journal withdrew the paper, as the website Retraction Watch reported earlier in September. In place of the study, a statement now reads: "This article has been withdrawn upon common agreement between the authors and the editors and not related to the scientific merit of the study. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.

As an aside, in the same article where that was reported is thing:


NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies mapped five-year global temperature averages. 2014 now ranks as the warmest year on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists. (YouTube/NASA Goddard)

Yes, that is weather but added to all the other "warmest ever" reports over the past years it adds to the GW climate info.

Bottom line. As long as you read only denialist type stuff you will remain stupidly denialist.

=====end quote ======

Care to deny the Medieval Warming Trend and the Little Iceage ? What was the cause ?

 

[buickanddeere]

I don't think HS saw that recent video from Norway where a Tesla pulled a 5,000 lb boat up a mountain pass. The owner said he was within Tesla's rated towing capacity and the cooling system didn't work as hard as it does on his high speed autobahn trips. The future has arrived, its real, this tow wasn't unsupported hype.

What was the distance and time frame ? That climb cost 10 plus level road miles for every mile up that mountain pass. Just how close together do you want the public to place "free" charging stations so the do gooder greenies can feel holy about saving the plant with their status giving hobby ?

 

[IslandTractor]

not even germane to my point...there is no further argument...AGW has been debunked...period...(some of you just haven't realized it yet...LoL)

There is a remarkable association between far right political views and denialism. The people who blather on about AGW being "debunked" only read trash science published on Breitbart and similar rightwing political, not scientific sites. Show us a peer reviewed article that " debunks" AGW written by a bonafide scientist rather than by some retired ex oil executive or funded by the same politicos that fund Breitbart. Good luck.

For extra credit, find us even one tenured professor of science in any of the 100 top universities in the US who believes your assertion that AGW has been "debunked".

 

[houstonscott]

There is a remarkable association between far right political views and denialism. The people who blather on about AGW being "debunked" only read trash science published on Breitbart and similar rightwing political, not scientific sites. Show us a peer reviewed article that " debunks" AGW written by a bonafide scientist rather than by some retired ex oil executive or funded by the same politicos that fund Breitbart. Good luck. For extra credit, find us even one tenured professor of science in any of the 100 top universities in the US who believes your assertion that AGW has been "debunked".

Peer-reviewed papers by climate skeptics List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia Oh, no, now what? Your eyes open now.... Google it, spend next year reading them all....
If you spend a few minutes you'll discover the 97% is fake, it's 97% of a group of 20 scientists hand selected from a government group. You'll also discover that the actual data has all be adjusted in the models (which are not evidence) and NASA temperatures taken from space show cooling.



HS

 

[IslandTractor]

Peer-reviewed papers by climate skeptics

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia

Oh, no, now what? HS

Did you read any of the papers that you claim are evidence against AGW? I did. They are NOT arguing against AGW. The two I looked at were simply papers looking at questions regarding the how best to analyze data. VERY different than arguing against AGW. (But typical of the halfazzed crap from alt right websites).

Haven't had a chance to look at your list of scientists yet.

 

[houstonscott]

Did you read any of the papers that you claim are evidence against AGW? I did. They are NOT arguing against AGW. The two I looked at were simply papers looking at questions regarding the how best to analyze data. VERY different than arguing against AGW. (But typical of the halfazzed crap from alt right websites). Haven't had a chance to look at your list of scientists yet.

Google it there are tens of thousands. What's funny is how a supposedly educated man would be so clueless and so uninformed.

 

[IslandTractor]

Google it there are tens of thousands.

Seriously dude, do you EVER read what you link to?? Here is a quote from the first paragraph:

"The great majority of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[3][4] hence this list represents a minority viewpoint."

You just shot yourself in the foot again.

 

[houstonscott]

Seriously dude, do you EVER read what you link to?? Here is a quote from the first paragraph: "The great majority of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[3][4] hence this list represents a minority viewpoint." You just shot yourself in the foot again.

Seriously dude, you said there were none, good luck, I've shown you there are literally thousands. Besides that it's your pier reviewed scientists who've been caught lying and altering data.