Cost of Driving an EV

-
LocuMob said:
Not quite the same change in propulsion with a horse vs car, and ic vs ev. The roads are in place, and when cars first came out, they weren't and that was a major hurdle.

As for the mandate, the state just adopted California's ev requirement/law whatever it was we copied. Doesn't make a lot of sense for a state in cold weather half the year.

Yes, ev buying is going up each year, but by how much? Not as fast as laws are being crated, adpoted, copied. Demand is not outpacing market supply. I believe that ev's account for around 2% of total vehicles on the road at the current moment. So we have 14 years before no more ic powered vehicles will be made, if things remain the way they are, and they won't. How many will be on the road by then, 10, maybe 15%?

I think a better example would be diesel replacing steam on the railways, new propulsion mode using existing infrastructure. But that was a demand based change, not a forced decision for the rail industry.
Click to expand...
LocuMob said:
Not quite the same change in propulsion with a horse vs car, and ic vs ev. The roads are in place, and when cars first came out, they weren't and that was a major hurdle.

As for the mandate, the state just adopted California's ev requirement/law whatever it was we copied. Doesn't make a lot of sense for a state in cold weather half the year.

Yes, ev buying is going up each year, but by how much? Not as fast as laws are being crated, adpoted, copied. Demand is not outpacing market supply. I believe that ev's account for around 2% of total vehicles on the road at the current moment. So we have 14 years before no more ic powered vehicles will be made, if things remain the way they are, and they won't. How many will be on the road by then, 10, maybe 15%?

I think a better example would be diesel replacing steam on the railways, new propulsion mode using existing infrastructure. But that was a demand based change, not a forced decision for the rail industry.
Click to expand...
I think you are comparing the modern car to a horse as propulsion units. The cars that were available at that time were not the obvious winners of the horse vs horseless carriage contest. We also have the benefit of hind site knowing the outcome of this contest for consumers pocketbooks. At that time in the past the outcome was not so obvious. Roads at that time were not well suited for horse and carriage or horseless carriage. People back then thought the new technology was "too dangerous" as if there was no danger in operating a horse and carriage. The danger we are familiar with always seems less scary than danger we are not familiar with. We see the same arguments today used against the ev. Pointing out all the new dangers of the ev while ignoring the familiar dangers of the ic. Seems like it's just human nature to do so.
I don't know how many ev or ic cars there will be in 14 years. I don't know how many there were 14 years ago but if you exclude hybrids probably not many.
 
92b said:
I think you are comparing the modern car to a horse as propulsion units
Click to expand...
I'm comparing them as modes of transportation. Obviously different propulsion methods. Cars replaced horses. A day, year, decade, doesn't matter, they replaced horses for transportation.

We aren't replacing cars, just changing the way they are powered. Like trains, ic vehicles won't disappear, they will continue to operate until it's too expensive to operate (gasoline becomes too costly, parts availability, etc). It took twenty years or so before most steam engines met their demise, often working local routes and relegated to yard duty for the smaller engines. So I don't think it will be an overnight type of transition, but I think it will be hastened by those who stand to profit from the EV market.
 
Even the change to diesel was a compromise, steam engines were more powerful, & could pull hills the diesels would not. That required cutting through hills they used to go over. Safety & preservation of water supplies likely drove that change more than anything else....
 
LocuMob said:
I'm comparing them as modes of transportation. Obviously different propulsion methods. Cars replaced horses. A day, year, decade, doesn't matter, they replaced horses for transportation.

We aren't replacing cars, just changing the way they are powered. Like trains, ic vehicles won't disappear, they will continue to operate until it's too expensive to operate (gasoline becomes too costly, parts availability, etc). It took twenty years or so before most steam engines met their demise, often working local routes and relegated to yard duty for the smaller engines. So I don't think it will be an overnight type of transition, but I think it will be hastened by those who stand to profit from the EV market.
Click to expand...
Respectfully I maintain that the horse is the propulsion unit for the carriage. Put a carriage from that period next to a horseless carriage and the difference is the propulsion unit. I think we will have agree that we disagree on semantics. lol.
On the subject of hastening the transition for profit. i think that the inventors of the horseless carriage or auto industry also did try to hasten the transition from horse to ic. I'm sure they pulled all the levers at their disposal to profit from the transition. Also I believe those that profited from the horse industry did what they could at the time to slow the transition. Example, pass laws to prohibit horseless carriages from using roads because they were "dangerous". I'm not saying this was right or wrong. But in hindsite would we have been better off to delay the transition by some number of years?
 
Im still waiting for the solution to a 5 year lifespan to an ev and zero resale. And what you do with a depleted battery when the car is through? Landfill? Rocket into the Sun? And guess what I live in Michigan where we have cold temps and snow to contend with. Whats the recharge life when Im running my heater, wipers, seat heater etc? I know the batteries in my tractor and atvs are not happy in the cold. Not buying til I get good answers. And BTW if its such a great idea why do they have to mandate it? Really tired of mandates.
 
69conv said:
Im still waiting for the solution to a 5 year lifespan to an ev and zero resale. And what you do with a depleted battery when the car is through? Landfill? Rocket into the Sun? And guess what I live in Michigan where we have cold temps and snow to contend with. Whats the recharge life when Im running my heater, wipers, seat heater etc? I know the batteries in my tractor and atvs are not happy in the cold. Not buying til I get good answers. And BTW if its such a great idea why do they have to mandate it? Really tired of mandates.
Click to expand...
Rocket into the sun. lol
 
No one is holding a gun to your head. No one is going to take your gun. No one suggested that an ev is a rural solution. But you are the droids the info media are looking for, oh so many clicks...

One of Dr. Ferdinand Porsche's early designs was a mobile Military platform with an electric motor in each wheel. It's been that long, why are you scared of electrons now? Hint; They are here right now, man... THEY ARE IN THE HOUSE!!!
 
Tesla shares shares are trading higher following news Hertz will order 100,000 Tesla vehicles by the end of 2022. Per TD Ameritrade
 
Killer6 said:
Even the change to diesel was a compromise, steam engines were more powerful, & could pull hills the diesels would not. That required cutting through hills they used to go over. Safety & preservation of water supplies likely drove that change more than anything else....
Click to expand...
Came down to $/mile, and man-hours/mile.
Diesel locomotives are cheaper to build, maintain and operate. Need more power for your train just stack more together. All are operated by same crew, unable to do that with steam locomotive, a double header needed two crews.
Any cuts that were grade lowered were done for safety concerns, downhill speed.
All this argument over ice and ev. Who's worse on or better for environment. As long as they both run on current tires they are environment pigs. The amount of energy that the however many sets of tires the vehicle uses in its life (raw materials, manufacturing, transportation to and from retail and distribution on front and back side, disposal energy, cost of getting rid of non recyclable content. Tires are a worse environmental menace than any cars ic or ev.
 
Gearfinger said:
No one is holding a gun to your head. No one is going to take your gun. No one suggested that an ev is a rural solution. But you are the droids the info media are looking for, oh so many clicks...

One of Dr. Ferdinand Porsche's early designs was a mobile Military platform with an electric motor in each wheel. It's been that long, why are you scared of electrons now? Hint; They are here right now, man... THEY ARE IN THE HOUSE!!!
Click to expand...
Good Lord Man, don't get this thread booted over N&P comments, keep it on the tracks....
 
For those talking about government subsidy for EV, remember that the US government deeply subsidized and controlled gasoline prices from the 1930s through the 1970s when deregulation was put into place. The price of gasoline was held artificially low for 4 decades, rising only a few cents per gallon over that time period. They did far more market control for gasoline vehicles than they are doing today for EV.

Gasoline wasn’t a free market controlled by supply and demand, it was tightly controlled by the US government. When they let go of the reins, prices shot up wildly in early 70s and settled back into the free market supply and demand scenario that we live in today.

The price of regular gasoline was $0.21 in 1938 and $0.29 in 1969. It did not follow normal inflation cost change like other goods because the US government kept it artificially low and stable to promote industrial growth and economic gain.
 
70bigblockdodge said:
Came down to $/mile, and man-hours/mile.
Diesel locomotives are cheaper to build, maintain and operate. Need more power for your train just stack more together. All are operated by same crew, unable to do that with steam locomotive, a double header needed two crews.
Any cuts that were grade lowered were done for safety concerns, downhill speed.
All this argument over ice and ev. Who's worse on or better for environment. As long as they both run on current tires they are environment pigs. The amount of energy that the however many sets of tires the vehicle uses in its life (raw materials, manufacturing, transportation to and from retail and distribution on front and back side, disposal energy, cost of getting rid of non recyclable content. Tires are a worse environmental menace than any cars ic or ev.
Click to expand...
At the time of development, that wasn't the case, but of course it didn't take long to figure that out(single crews safely operating tandem engines). EV's have one advantage air quality wise over most ICE vehicles today, (I reject CO2 as a "pollutant"), the regenerative braking systems mean a large reduction in brake dust discharged. That may have as great a health benefit as anything else could, and heavy vehicles eat tires faster, HEV/EV's aren't lightweights for the class of vehicle.
 
Gearfinger said:
No one is holding a gun to your head. No one is going to take your gun. No one suggested that an ev is a rural solution. But you are the droids the info media are looking for, oh so many clicks...

One of Dr. Ferdinand Porsche's early designs was a mobile Military platform with an electric motor in each wheel. It's been that long, why are you scared of electrons now? Hint; They are here right now, man... THEY ARE IN THE HOUSE!!!
Click to expand...
Lol! Nobody here is EV phobic, but the whole "We decree no more ICE's by 2030" is foolishness, and You will know the difference for sure if it happens.
 
If you run over a person with an electric car, can you be charged with battery???
 
Ddaddy said:
For those talking about government subsidy for EV, remember that the US government deeply subsidized and controlled gasoline prices from the 1930s through the 1970s when deregulation was put into place. The price of gasoline was held artificially low for 4 decades, rising only a few cents per gallon over that time period. They did far more market control for gasoline vehicles than they are doing today for EV.

Gasoline wasn’t a free market controlled by supply and demand, it was tightly controlled by the US government. When they let go of the reins, prices shot up wildly in early 70s and settled back into the free market supply and demand scenario that we live in today.

The price of regular gasoline was $0.21 in 1938 and $0.29 in 1969. It did not follow normal inflation cost change like other goods because the US government kept it artificially low and stable to promote industrial growth and economic gain.
Click to expand...
1) it became obvious that oil & fuel were needed for the security & economic growth of the nation. I seem to recall a couple of rather large skirmishes sandwiching that starting period....
2) this, while not true free market, benefited nearly every single US citizen & endeavor.
3) while prices may have went up due to natural market bouyancy, the Arab oil embargo, an unnatural contraction of supply was more responsible for the "wild" part. I sat in those lines, during the oil "shortage".
 
Killer6 said:
"), the regenerative braking systems mean a large reduction in brake dust discharged. That may have as great a health benefit
Click to expand...
This is true, brake life is a plus. Being in the rust belt though I can see the rotors dissolving long before the pads wear out.
 
Let's also not forget the "pain points" of accepting the automatic trans vs manual, esp for performance, the "hatred" of early FWD platforms, and the full frame vs unitized body arguments.

It's hard to find a "car" that isn't FWD, unibody, and automatic in today's world.
 
Killer6 said:
1) it became obvious that oil & fuel were needed for the security & economic growth of the nation. I seem to recall a couple of rather large skirmishes sandwiching that starting period....
2) this, while not true free market, benefited nearly every single US citizen & endeavor.
3) while prices may have went up due to natural market bouyancy, the Arab oil embargo, an unnatural contraction of supply was more responsible for the "wild" part. I sat in those lines, during the oil "shortage".
Click to expand...
Would you be in favor of the government artificially holding the price of electricity low if it were to promote security and economic growth of the nation and Benefit nearly every us citizens and endeavor? Imagine what that would do for the ev industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top