An EV??????`

[Eagle1]

Looking at the Tesla charging map it seems that if you stay on the interstate or in a city you will be fine. If you like to run around the back roads and sight see you are screwed in most states.
Try a driving tour of Ozarks Scenic Riverways, you can drive all day for weeks and discover new magical places but you are a long way from any Supercharger at least half a state away. Yet there is a Casey's gas station or 2 in every little town.

Yes you can plan around interstates but don't expect to see the National forests or true rural areas. But then again we don't have fancy restaurants or hotels either. We did not even have extra traffic for the eclipse, too far from the cities.

 

[DarkBlack]

EV's….A solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[wawajake]

Quite a bit of information missing, as usual.
1) The article doesn't say how far the driver they used for the story traveled. Wakefield, Mass to somewhere in Vermont. Could have been 110 miles or could have been 200 miles.
2) There are 8 supercharger stations in Vermont. Were all the superchargers packed?
3) What was the state of charge that the driver used in the article left his house?
4) Did the Tesla navigation not know the specific supercharger had a long wait?

I made a 700 mile round trip to Austin last year in our Tesla without any issues.
In one of the pictures in the article, people were wearing masks outdoors so that right indicated a lack of common sense.

You are hilarious Trad , the article is quite clear that many Tesla owners were involved. ( So people, by your standards, should be the only ones allowed to have a EV opinion ) Yet on a busy event weekend they had all sorts of charging availability problems using the tools Tesla provides. But you compare it to your round trip to Austin that obviously was on a quiet more typical travel days. So you invalidate their experiences and expectations because they don't meet your narrative. Same as you invalidate anyone that does not own a EV on this TBN site. Wow ! who is left in your world with valid opinions ? Just you ? Hmmmm Now I know I am on your ignore list, but by posting I can at least have the rest of the TBN audience see the holes in your narrative.

 

[CliffordK]

EV's….A solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

The problem is VERY REAL. We live on a warming planet due to what we're releasing into the atmosphere. And, that is having wide ranging long term impacts that we're still having troubles predicting. More heat, and perhaps more sun is good for some things, but devastating for others.

Now, not every storm is "Climate Change", but some are aggravated by it. And that will only get worse over time.

What kind of a planet do you wish to leave for your kids and grandkids?

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Seven percent of Americans, up from 4% a year ago, report that they own an electric vehicle.

Pretty extraordinary numbers. I don't think I'm seeing 7% of the cars on the road being EVs, although I might not recognize all of them. I regularly see Teslas and Rivians with very distinct front ends on the road.

Same story is happening in Canada . This was in this morning's national newspaper the Financial Post. 'Tall order to ask the average Canadian': EVs are twice as hard to sell today

Two very different viewpoints.

The US EV Market is evolving rapidly.

Look at EV pickups,

A couple of years ago, Rivian was the only one on the block.
Now we have Rivian, Hummer, Ford Lightning, and Chevy Silverado EV. Not to forget Tesla CyberTruck. Canoo will release a pickup... soon. And RAM will either have an EV pickup or plug-in hybrid shortly. Add to that several EV delivery vans and EV small and large trucks.

More competition means sales projections have to take into account what other companies are also doing.

It is already becoming obvious that the market is evolving quickly with better and longer range vehicles. And those that don't adapt are left in the dust.

The same plethora of choices is also hitting the passenger vehicle market.

The Financial Post article suggests that Ford was delaying opening a new assembly line as battery technology evolves. That may well be wise.

Set the Ford Lightning with a 320 mile range next to the Silverado with a 450 mile range. It won't make much difference to the Urban Cowboys. However, it will impact those using it as a long distance work truck.

The used Tesla market took a hit when Tesla cut their prices on new vehicles.

The market competition has to be felt throughout the industry from startups to established companies. And also would be impacting their raw materials.

 

[DarkBlack]

The problem is VERY REAL. We live on a warming planet due to what we're releasing into the atmosphere. And, that is having wide ranging long term impacts that we're still having troubles predicting. More heat, and perhaps more sun is good for some things, but devastating for others.

Now, not every storm is "Climate Change", but some are aggravated by it. And that will only get worse over time.

What kind of a planet do you wish to leave for your kids and grandkids?

Pretty extraordinary numbers. I don't think I'm seeing 7% of the cars on the road being EVs, although I might not recognize all of them. I regularly see Teslas and Rivians with very distinct front ends on the road.

Two very different viewpoints.

The US EV Market is evolving rapidly.

Look at EV pickups,

A couple of years ago, Rivian was the only one on the block.
Now we have Rivian, Hummer, Ford Lightning, and Chevy Silverado EV. Not to forget Tesla CyberTruck. Canoo will release a pickup... soon. And RAM will either have an EV pickup or plug-in hybrid shortly. Add to that several EV delivery vans and EV small and large trucks.

More competition means sales projections have to take into account what other companies are also doing.

It is already becoming obvious that the market is evolving quickly with better and longer range vehicles. And those that don't adapt are left in the dust.

The same plethora of choices is also hitting the passenger vehicle market.

The Financial Post article suggests that Ford was delaying opening a new assembly line as battery technology evolves. That may well be wise.

Set the Ford Lightning with a 320 mile range next to the Silverado with a 450 mile range. It won't make much difference to the Urban Cowboys. However, it will impact those using it as a long distance work truck.

The used Tesla market took a hit when Tesla cut their prices on new vehicles.

The market competition has to be felt throughout the industry from startups to established companies. And also would be impacting their raw materials.

Oh boy. A lot of opinion, and conjecture there. It’ll take a while to respond to all of that, one piece at a time. May take me a bit to get in the mood, but I will respond

 

[tradosaurus]

I skipped the last eclipse... to far away.

However, for the last one I rode my bicycle from Eugene OR to Albany OR. The traffic wasn't too bad in the morning, but moments after the eclipse it was just MISERABLE. The freeway became a parking lot, and the back roads where I was riding were just hammered with traffic. I should have jumped onto the freeway and passed all the cars that were going nowhere, of course sucking exhaust fumes isn't my favorite thing to do.

My guess is the East Coast was far worse with more people. The Tesla drivers that planned ahead likely did fine. Drive up the day before. Charge up, view the eclipse. Then go home.

Those that drove up, watched the eclipse, then headed to recharge likely were the ones waiting.

Were any local gas stations also overwhelmed? Did any run out of gas?

We weren't given the round trip mileage of the example used in the article. I would feel comfortable with a 220 mile round trip without charging as long as left the house with 100% SOC.
Personally I don't like crowds and wouldn't have went but being in East Texas we had a perfect view of the full eclipse.

 

[Citydude]

The one in my above post is county-maintained, and the counties do a great job. Unfortunately most of the roads around me are BLM (Federal government) and they do almost no road maintenance. If a road becomes impassable due to washouts or whatever then it is considered closed and the area becomes eligible for "wilderness" designation wherein no vehicles are allowed at all. This is a pic of a BLM road, taken about 30 miles south of the road in the above post:
View attachment 861184

Only a designated employee of the Federal Government is allowed to work on a BLM road. A private individual would be subject to arrest. That policy is a big change that came about some 30 years ago. Up till then, if a rancher or miner had an interest in an area (like a mining claim) he was allowed to maintain the road. No more.

Build back better at work.

 

[tradosaurus]

The problem is VERY REAL. We live on a warming planet due to what we're releasing into the atmosphere. And, that is having wide ranging long term impacts that we're still having troubles predicting. More heat, and perhaps more sun is good for some things, but devastating for others.

Now, not every storm is "Climate Change", but some are aggravated by it. And that will only get worse over time.

What kind of a planet do you wish to leave for your kids and grandkids?

Pretty extraordinary numbers. I don't think I'm seeing 7% of the cars on the road being EVs, although I might not recognize all of them. I regularly see Teslas and Rivians with very distinct front ends on the road.

Two very different viewpoints.

The US EV Market is evolving rapidly.

Look at EV pickups,

A couple of years ago, Rivian was the only one on the block.
Now we have Rivian, Hummer, Ford Lightning, and Chevy Silverado EV. Not to forget Tesla CyberTruck. Canoo will release a pickup... soon. And RAM will either have an EV pickup or plug-in hybrid shortly. Add to that several EV delivery vans and EV small and large trucks.

More competition means sales projections have to take into account what other companies are also doing.

It is already becoming obvious that the market is evolving quickly with better and longer range vehicles. And those that don't adapt are left in the dust.

The same plethora of choices is also hitting the passenger vehicle market.

The Financial Post article suggests that Ford was delaying opening a new assembly line as battery technology evolves. That may well be wise.

Set the Ford Lightning with a 320 mile range next to the Silverado with a 450 mile range. It won't make much difference to the Urban Cowboys. However, it will impact those using it as a long distance work truck.

The used Tesla market took a hit when Tesla cut their prices on new vehicles.

The market competition has to be felt throughout the industry from startups to established companies. And also would be impacting their raw materials.

I didn't buy my EV's to protect the environment because I don't believe in global warming because the major proponents don't, as they fly all over the world leaving a large carbon footprint. It use to be called global warming and when that didn't pan out it is now referred to as climate change.

The real culprits of pollution in general are China and India but good luck grabbing money from them.

Clearly finding renewable energy sources, deploying Earth-friendly technology and discouraging pollution are sensible goals regardless of whether manmade climate change is real. And even the staunchest Climate Change opponent might admit global temperatures are on the rise. The debate is what role, if any, man plays in contributing to this warming.

I like EV's because of the convenience and almost zero noise pollution.

 

[kozal01]

Well, Ford and GM are delaying production of EVs, at least one proposed battery plant has been put on hold (maybe shelved for good, I don't remember).

Those are common sense actions if EVs aren't selling like some thought they would.

Common sense would also suggest that a higher price (no subsidies) would slow the sales down.

Maybe I'm relying too much on common sense, but it does keep me from putting gasoline in a diesel. Which is helpful.

By the way. Haven't verified it, but supposedly the Corolla is the most popular car in the world, not a Tesla. Which makes sense.

I work very closely with OEM's on the manufacturing side and I can confirm that the big 3 that I deal with are in fact pulling back the riens so to speak on the EV stuff. My companies forecast on EV's show the same across the industry. Its not going away by any stretch but they certainly did put the horse before the cart with the massive rollouts of so many EV lines and now they realize that and are pumping the brakes. I know a certain someone wont see this reply but as you know, I dont have to own an EV to know quite a lot about them and the market for them.

 

[Too many Kubotas]

The problem is VERY REAL. We live on a warming planet due to what we're releasing into the atmosphere. And, that is having wide ranging long term impacts that we're still having troubles predicting. More heat, and perhaps more sun is good for some things, but devastating for others.

As mentioned above, I don't think it matters one iota what we do here in the USA as long as China and India are allowed to keep doing things their way.

 

[Eagle1]

Ford delaying start of EV production at Oakville, Ont., plant until 2027. Ford Motor Co. F-N F-N says it will delay by two years the launch of electric vehicles at its plant in Oakville, Ont., as sales of zero-emissions cars falter

 

[DarkBlack]

The concentration of CO2 in air exhaled by humans is around 3.8% or 38,000 parts per million (ppm) This is significantly higher than the normal concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is around 400 ppm. (0.04%) The high concentration of CO2 in exhaled air is due to the process of cellular respiration…

All of earth’s plant life must have CO2 to grow. The more, the better plant life grows.
It’s the circle of life on carbon based earth.

People thinking mining and building millions of battery cars, to possibly, “save the earth” from by reducing 0.044%, to 0.040% concentration of the molecule that supports all life as we know it, are being seriously led astray

Lots of politically connected people getting rich through

 

[shooterdon]

These are the kinds of morons driving the CO2 narrative and Climate Change loonies listen to. From a hearing last year.

senate hearing video of how much co2 in the air - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.

www.bing.com

It is 5 minute video so not too boring...but funny as heck.

 

[Hay Dude]

The concentration of CO2 in air exhaled by humans is around 3.8% or 38,000 parts per million (ppm) This is significantly higher than the normal concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is around 400 ppm. (0.04%) The high concentration of CO2 in exhaled air is due to the process of cellular respiration…

All of earth’s plant life must have CO2 to grow. The more, the better plant life grows.
It’s the circle of life on carbon based earth.

People thinking mining and building millions of battery cars, to possibly, “save the earth” from by reducing 0.044%, to 0.040% concentration of the molecule that supports all life as we know it, are being seriously led astray

Lots of politically connected people getting rich through

I think China and their allies are making out on what’s left of the husk of America.

Manufacturing-wise, this country is a dead carcass, all but picked clean….

 

[Hay Dude]

These are the kinds of morons driving the CO2 narrative and Climate Change loonies listen to. From a hearing last year.

senate hearing video of how much co2 in the air - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.

www.bing.com

It is 5 minute video so not too boring...but funny as heck.

We’re in loony-land and have been for years.

I have zero confidence in our leadership and am completely unsurprised at ships running into bridges, spy balloons flying untouched across our country and spending trillions on stupidity.

It feels like we’re so close to disaster with this debt and clowns running the show.

After I read what Jamie Dimon had to say, let’s just say ”I hope you’re ready!!”

 

[Too many Kubotas]

Sure makes me appreciate I'm not 15 years old at this point...and that we don't have any children.

 

[Too many Kubotas]

My girlfriend just sent me this, and it's funny as can be to me.

Why, you ask? Because she has a donkey named Brandon. No, really.

 

[Fuddyduddy1952]

These are the kinds of morons driving the CO2 narrative and Climate Change loonies listen to. From a hearing last year.

senate hearing video of how much co2 in the air - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.

www.bing.com

It is 5 minute video so not too boring...but funny as heck.

It is funny, and this according to our EPA:

"A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year.
This assumes the average gasoline vehicle on the road today has a fuel economy of about 22.2 miles per gallon and drives around 11,500 miles per year. Every gallon of gasoline burned creates about 8,887 grams of CO2.

8887 grams =19.592 pounds
A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 pounds.

Therefore the average car defies physics! If you burn 6 pounds of gasoline you get over three times weight of CO2!

(The Kia I recently bought manual states: "CO2 emissions are 123g/km for manuals and 127g/km for autos.".)
11,500 miles=18507.456 kilometers
That's 2350 kg/year or 5180.8 pounds or well less half their estimate.

 

[CliffordK]

These are the kinds of morons driving the CO2 narrative and Climate Change loonies listen to. From a hearing last year.

senate hearing video of how much co2 in the air - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.

www.bing.com

It is 5 minute video so not too boring...but funny as heck.

I am a little disappointed that nobody in that group seems to have had a clue about the actual amount of CO2. And thus it is clear that they haven't actually read any of the literature with respect to what they're legislating about.

It doesn't mean that having 0.03%, 0.04%, or 0.05% doesn't make a difference. Likewise the methane in the atmosphere is around 1912 parts per billion. And, of course, chlorofluorocarbons are around 4 parts per billion.

Keep in mind that the atmosphere is about 60 miles thick. Obviously lower density at higher altitudes. And we get a lot of chances for IR emissions to encounter a CO2 molecule or methane molecule, and then get scattered in a random direction. A little makes a big difference. Of course with CO2 being heavier than O2 or N2, and thus it may not spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. I.E. more concentrated near the ground.

The lightweight chlorofluorocarbons were also very good at chewing up our ozone protection, even at seemingly very low concentrations.

Earth has a fine balance of absorbing sunlight, and emitting IR energy. Throw that balance off and we have a mess.

1°C or 2°C (2°F to 4°F) doesn't seem like a lot, but in some cases it could be the difference between snow and no snow. Or perhaps bug infestations or no bug infestations. Or Maple syrup vs bland pancakes. Or you might think of it as 90°F might be comfortable, but 95°F is not.

The impact isn't completely straight forward. While the planet is getting warmer, it is also causing changes in evaporation and rain, and changes in ocean currents. And scientists are struggling to predict the actual effect in each place with some places getting drier, and other places getting more rain. So we're not exactly headed towards a 1930's dustbowl.

Human environmental impact is complex and not isolated to just CO2. Everything from irrigation to destruction of forests. Around here, forest fires seem to be getting worse. Not just a warming planet, but centuries of forest mismanagement.

 

[CliffordK]

Therefore the average car defies physics! If you burn 6 pounds of gasoline you get over three times weight of CO2!

Ummm, maybe defying Physics, but not defying Chemistry.

Consider one's favorite gasoline molecule, OCTANE.

C8H18

Now completely burn one molecule of Octane.

C8H18 + (12.5)O2 --> 8CO2 + 9 H2O

Ok, so ignoring the H2O produced.

The molecular weight of C8H18 is about: 8x12 (Carbon) + 18x1 (Hydrogen) = 114
The molecular weight of 8 CO2 molecules is about 8x12 (carbon) + 16x16 (oxygen) = 96 + 256 = 352

So, 352/114 = 3.09

So, yes, about 3:1 carbon dioxide weight vs octane weight.

There are other molecules in gasoline from Benzine, Toluene, and many others. But, it all ends up about the same.