And we thought diesels had torque

[kscherzi]

Since EV's are so much cheaper to operate, you just made the case to tax EV's at a higher rate than gas cars for road maintenance! [emoji1]

[franklyfrank]

Originally Posted by wulfraat

Well what I can say is that after 1 year and 15k miles on our 2017 Tesla model 3 our “all in” cost to operate (maintenance, energy, etc) was $0.04/mile.

My “all in” cost for the same mileage over similar period on my 2017 GMC 2500 tow vehicle was $0.25/mile.

If I had to pay a whopping $120 road tax per year that would increase my all in EV OPX to ~$0.055/mile.

$120 is less thank the cost of a single oil change on an ICE vehicle.

We operate both ICE and EV vehicles in our household - but the EV is absolutely the go-to vehicle for daily driving and associated expense management. GMC is for towing and other business related activities.... when needed.

The problem with EV in general is that at 40 grand for a decent one for the large segment of the urban population that could use one is too expensive compared to any number of small cars under 20 grand. That also get relatively decent milage at close to 30 mpg.
Driving less than 100 miles per day it is cheap transportation over all.
Tesla is a rich man's toy , the Nissan Leaf and GM Volt are at 40 grand.
That EV industry has got a challenge on their hand.

[wulfraat]

I paid $44k after tax for my model 3 long range. But your right, I compare to my alternatives with BMW 3 series etc. and was not looking for a $20k car or what have you.

One could argue any car is a toy. Airstreams are toys. A house vs an apartment is a toy. Etc.

Prices will continue to come down. Frankfurt auto show has some new entries in the market too.

[wulfraat]

Originally Posted by kscherzi;

Since EV's are so much cheaper to operate, you just made the case to tax EV's at a higher rate than gas cars for road maintenance! [emoji1]

If be fine with that. Roads need to be paid for somehow.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by franklyfrank

The problem with EV in general is that at 40 grand for a decent one for the large segment of the urban population that could use one is too expensive compared to any number of small cars under 20 grand. That also get relatively decent milage at close to 30 mpg.
Driving less than 100 miles per day it is cheap transportation over all.
Tesla is a rich man's toy , the Nissan Leaf and GM Volt are at 40 grand.
That EV industry has got a challenge on their hand.

A decent car is $40k. Even a Kia is $30k.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by wulfraat

If be fine with that. Roads need to be paid for somehow.

The solution to waste is always more taxes. 45% of the population gets all their taxes refunded, and they drive too. Flat tax.

[new2trailer]

Originally Posted by StephiesNana

It's not just the production of electricity that's dirty, but the manufacturing of all those batteries is extremely unfriendly to the environment.

Currently air pollution as it relates to global warming is the major concern. Batteries may never be considered a pollution problem. In 20 years solar panels will also be a major pollution source but still be considered benign compared to tail pipe exhaust.

Mike

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by new2trailer

Currently air pollution as it relates to global warming is the major concern. Batteries may never be considered a pollution problem. In 20 years solar panels will also be a major pollution source but still be considered benign compared to tail pipe exhaust.

Mike

Everyone keeps repeating “battery production is bad for the environment” because they heard it somewhere. Just like “the power comes from dirty power plants”. I’m sick of hearing this parroting. Lithium mines have been around for over 100 years. Power plants are already running to power your 75” TV and giant central air conditioning units. If you really care (and no one does) about what will happen 100 years from now, shut all that stuff off and quit driving.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

Everyone keeps repeating “battery production is bad for the environment” because they heard it somewhere. Just like “the power comes from dirty power plants”. I’m sick of hearing this parroting. Lithium mines have been around for over 100 years.

Fully agree. I don't know how many have actually been to a lithium mine. This one, SQM, is in northern Chile, in the Atacama desert close to Antofagasta. They have been around since the late 1800s in various guises. World's largest lithium producer, or at least it was when I worked in Chile. Very little environmental impact, particularly compared to the coal mines or oil production sites that I also travelled to for work. That is my Expedition in the second shot. I didn't tow there.

[franklyfrank]

Originally Posted by new2trailer

Currently air pollution as it relates to global warming is the major concern. Batteries may never be considered a pollution problem. In 20 years solar panels will also be a major pollution source but still be considered benign compared to tail pipe exhaust.

Mike

Where do you people get this kind of nonsense?
Natural " air pollution" is far more extreme than anything humans could ever do.
The whole notion of air pollution is nonsense.
If it has human origins it pollution. If its natural phenomenon its nature doing its thing. How absurd.

[DKB_SATX]

Totally natural. Nothing to do with human activities. Right?

[out of sight]

The idea that carbon dioxide is pollution is even greater nonsense. CO2 is the primary building block of life on earth. Without it all life ends.

[wulfraat]

Originally Posted by franklyfrank

The whole notion of air pollution is nonsense.

Wow. Travel internationally much? Yikes! But hey, what does the world health organization know anyways...

[wulfraat]

Originally Posted by out of sight;

The idea that carbon dioxide is pollution is even greater nonsense. CO2 is the primary building block of life on earth. Without it all life ends.

Yeah makes sense. I am for CO2. I think we need more of it. If the atmosphere was 100% saturated with CO2 we’d all be super strong!

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by DKB_SATX

Totally natural. Nothing to do with human activities. Right?

Not sure. Is that from fog, or a California forest fire nearby? I’ve seen both.

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

Not sure. Is that from fog, or a California forest fire nearby? I’ve seen both.

It's a high-smog-day photo from the 70s. Peak ozone (smog) levels there have dropped almost in half with the California's tightening emissions regulation even as human and vehicle populations have grown. But of course there are those who would have you believe that's entirely coincidental and has nothing to do with the vastly cleaner-operating vehicles of today and we should all be driving '71 Caprices.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by out of sight

The idea that carbon dioxide is pollution is even greater nonsense. CO2 is the primary building block of life on earth. Without it all life ends.

This claim is so ridiculous, and yet repeated so often by those who would deny science, that corrections are published and easily accessible.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

Reading can be hard, so there is a video version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quU3bG7lVfY

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by DKB_SATX

It's a high-smog-day photo from the 70s. Peak ozone (smog) levels there have dropped almost in half with the California's tightening emissions regulation even as human and vehicle populations have grown. But of course there are those who would have you believe that's entirely coincidental and has nothing to do with the vastly cleaner-operating vehicles of today and we should all be driving '71 Caprices.

Still looks that way some days due to weather and forest fires. Terrain traps pollution in some places like California. Same thing happens in the front range of Colorado. Yet they still rely heavily on single-passenger vehicles. The real problem out there has never been fixed.

[Roadtech]

Originally Posted by jcl

This claim is so ridiculous, and yet repeated so often by those who would deny science, that corrections are published and easily accessible.

Skeptical Science website founded by Dr. John Cook, PhD in Cognitive Science, the study of thought, learning, and mental organization...hmmmm...

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Roadtech

Skeptical Science website founded by Dr. John Cook, PhD in Cognitive Science, the study of thought, learning, and mental organization...hmmmm...

That would seem to be great training for someone researching how people process information, how denial works as a defence mechanism, how logic is used to process new ideas, and so on. Science denial is worth trying to understand IMO. One issue is that some don’t understand the science and so pronounce it to be false, and try to sway others by elevating their opinions above research and conclusions based on facts. Others understand it fully, but want to promote a political position. And so on.

Cook’s research isn’t in climate science, but in why some can’t seem to process it. The scientific climate research content is presented by others.