I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

2023BD said:

I loved the Prius Prime we owned. We drove it as a full electric 90% of the time. So as a daily an EV drives wonderful. It simply did not make sense economically anymore.

A Prius Prime with no electricity is just a regular Prius. They get 50+ mpg. If "it simply did not make sense economically anymore" to keep the Prius, how does it make sense to buy the Hyundai that gets worse fuel economy? Is it simply about the trade in money?

Hell yea. I got $10,000 more than I paid for it, and I drove it for 15,000 miles

2023BD said:

Hell yea. I got $10,000 more than I paid for it, and I drove it for 15,000 miles

That's just selling an asset into a hot market to capitalize on equity gain. That's not really an argument for or against EV financial viability.

STM317 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

The Bolt is rated at 259miles, not 290. And it's not the shortest range EV out there.

People in the NE are currently paying $0.34/kwh which makes charging their EV's equal to or more expensive than gasoline. Public chargers can be even higher. It's not reality to claim that it's much cheaper than an ICE across the board. It can be. In some locations at some times.

If you can't do some form of renewable power generation on your own property, you'll always be subject to uncertain pricing of fuel/electricity. Sometimes an EV is cheaper, and sometimes cheap gas makes an ICE cheaper to operate. PHEVs give the owner the option of using whichever energy type is  cheapest.

An EV plus a renewable power source is a fantastic combo for controlling costs. It's better in some places than others of course due to geography, weather and government incentives.

That's absolutely  true.  Especially the part about capturing solar/wind. And always being dependent on profit making entities. 
  The oil companies will spend billions / trillions of dollars looking for and extracting  oil from wherever they can be it deserts , oceans or despotic governments. 
   Then they will spend even more shipping it from where it is to where people can refine it.  More billions in refinery costs.  Then truck it or pipeline it to a metro area where truckers can come and haul it to gas stations.   Finally you'll drive to that station to fill up your tank.  
  Or the sun shines everywhere, the wind blows every where.  Including  your yard where it comes out ready to use.  Or be sent to a nearby user.  
    The advantage of that is  lack of transit loss.   Some power plants lose as much as 40% of the energy they generate in transit losses. That number varies so widely that it's meaningless.  If you live by the the generating plant losses are trivial.  But every mile away increases losses.  Plus the condition of the lines. The composition of the lines, the various connections, etc. 

     Then the source of fuel driving the power plant. The cost of coal is no longer competitive, oil barely, natural gas ? Better, but hydropower, nuclear and renewable is cheapest of all   Plus it's going down.  Newer solar panels are more efficient than those just 5-10 years ago. Wind is getting more cost effective as blades gain efficiency  the use of rare earth magnets  is making production possible in lower and lower wind speed.   Wind speed is well documented by reliable sources  in graphs down to the city block. 
     
  While it's true the wind doesn't blow steadily every day  nor is the sun always shining.  Both will generate electricity  in less and less favorable conditions.  
 This as renewables become more widespread  paying for fuel costs  will be more and more reduced. So nuclear, natural gas, and hydropower, will have a lower and lower burden on sending money out of your state to pay for that fuel.  
    That money can then be used in whatever way the tax payer chooses. 

tuna55 said:

2023BD said:

Which part do you feel is not accurate? That is all easily verifiable info. 

There is not a realistic risk of a fire with a post-recall Bolt.

The cost to operate a Bolt is, in my own experience, around 4.1 mi/kwh, which in my area translates to $.03/mile. The cost to operate your 38 MPG ICE example in my area (which has some of the cheapest gas in the country) currently is $.08/mile. The $6K difference you state would be made up in 120K miles when just considering gasoline. You'll have to plug in your areas electricity and gasoline costs. This does not include oil changes, brakes transmission fluid changes and a coolant change in there. Figure the math works out to be closer to 100K break-even miles in your own example.

I track my costs pretty closely, and I was replacing a vehicle which got a much-more-typical 29 mpg. I've saved myself $6K so far in just about 70k miles, of course I am tracking the gas prices monthly to compare.

https://insideevs.com/news/561549/study-evs-smallest-fire-risk/
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a40163966/cars-catching-fire-new-york-times-real-statistics/

Your ICE car is far more likely to catch fire than an EV by far.  In fact, if you look at NHTSA, Insurance data, and records, an ICE vehicle is about 61 times MORE likely to catch fire than an EV.  It's just that you heard three stories about an EV catching fire because it's "hip and reportable," but you didn't hear about the ICE cars that burned to a crisp because that's been boring news since 1921.

In reply to frenchyd :

You often talk about how the sun shines and the wind blows everywhere, so renewables are the answer. But you also talk about how your lot isn't viable for either solar or wind power due to trees and neighboring houses. It seems like one of those runs counter to the other doesn't it?

Renewables are great in many places. It's a fantastic option for people that can afford it, who live in places where they're incentivized and viable. Everybody else is reliant on their utility company and whatever energy source they use to generate electricity. Ideally, power generation at the utility scale will continue to move into renewables, but it takes time and financial viability.

In reply to STM317 :

You are right again.  I could remove the trees on the property line.  ( they are on my side).  But if a new owner buys the house ( he only wants 1.5 million ) he'll for sure remove the existing house and put one up the size of everyone else's.  Thus I'd lose  access   to solar.   Our houses are less than 10 apart. 

STM317 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

You often talk about how the sun shines and the wind blows everywhere, so renewables are the answer. But you also talk about how your lot isn't viable for either solar or wind power due to trees and neighboring houses. It seems like one of those runs counter to the other doesn't it?

Renewables are great in many places. It's a fantastic option for people that can afford it, who live in places where they're incentivized and viable. Everybody else is reliant on their utility company and whatever energy source they use to generate electricity. Ideally, power generation at the utility scale will continue to move into renewables, but it takes time and financial viability.

I don't know about how others picture it, but in my brain when someone talks about renewables, the picture that pops into my brain is more like solar/wind infrastructure on the mass production level, and less about PV cells on my roof.  Maybe that's me

Since I can't put up a windmill and (until I get a stronger roof) can't do PV, my head thinks about the solar farms out west, or the commercial turbines on top of the mountain.

I will need a new roof in the next 10 years, and I'm strongly considering a scorched earth approach.  My roof is currently rafters with no ridge beam and rough-hewn slab wood.  When I'm in the attic, I'm looking at tar paper between the slabs.  Might be wise to take the extra couple days, order up some trusses and some new sheathing and just do it right.  Who knows, I might even insulate 

Some interesting factors in our Green/EV Transition are the varying opinions about cost and being tied to the grid.

As someone who works in the utility industry, the electric utilities are going to constantly want to push for more grid connected renewables. Utilities always prefer that their consumers pay, even if just pennies, for the infrastructure used to supply those customers. With more demand comes more reliance, which means the consumer pushes for more reliability, which means we also need better grid stability, which costs money and man-hours. The problem, however, is that all that investment takes money - which is then passed onto the consumer. 

This is challenging because we the consumer want the best of both worlds - we want cheap energy and we want clean energy. 

Thus, the consumer says "well I'll just get solar panels and have the electric company pay me for the energy!" Then they get disappointed when the energy companies and utilities fight against net metering and pay zilch for buy-back. When it comes to net-metering, energy companies are VERY away of negative externalities, and they will point out every cent that goes into "buying back" that energy. 

The running theme as I see is that people like the idea of being Off-Grid because they think "I'll own my power, not have to pay for expensive linemen and their retirements, and not have to pay for my electric provider to build renewables." The trouble is, unless you've got some serious sun, wind and water resources, you likely will not generate enough power to keep the lights, dishwasher and stove on at the same time at home, as well as fill the battery on your EV.  Plus, this does nothing for the vast majority of consumers who don't not have personal exclusive access to those resources necessary to generate that amount of energy. 

If you want to spend less on energy without investing tremendous amounts of money, it's always going to be better to just use less, and put your money into stuff that'll allow you to use less (like insulation, LEDs, etc). 

Personally I think EV's are fantastic for daily-short-trip urban runabouts and yes, enthusiast cars. For everything else, I see PHEVs becoming increasingly more popular. 

tuna55 said:

2023BD said:

Which part do you feel is not accurate? That is all easily verifiable info. 

There is not a realistic risk of a fire with a post-recall Bolt.

The cost to operate a Bolt is, in my own experience, around 4.1 mi/kwh, which in my area translates to $.03/mile. The cost to operate your 38 MPG ICE example in my area (which has some of the cheapest gas in the country) currently is $.08/mile. The $6K difference you state would be made up in 120K miles when just considering gasoline. You'll have to plug in your areas electricity and gasoline costs. This does not include oil changes, brakes transmission fluid changes and a coolant change in there. Figure the math works out to be closer to 100K break-even miles in your own example.

I track my costs pretty closely, and I was replacing a vehicle which got a much-more-typical 29 mpg. I've saved myself $6K so far in just about 70k miles, of course I am tracking the gas prices monthly to compare.

Actually other than $24 oil changes every 7500 miles per the manual that's it for the car he purchased. Transmission fluid is life. Coolant is 120k miles. Brakes on that car will last 80k miles and are super cheap. He's averaging 38mpg and his electric costs are sone of the highest in the country.  At 15000 miles per year you're talking about 11 years to make up that difference. 11 years that ev may be needing a $2500 battery change. That changes the math yet again. 
 

look, for you maybe they make the most sense. But that isn't true for everyone. That's why I hate our govt propensity to try to make one solution for everything. It just doesn't work for everyone. 

bobzilla said:

tuna55 said:

2023BD said:

Which part do you feel is not accurate? That is all easily verifiable info. 

There is not a realistic risk of a fire with a post-recall Bolt.

The cost to operate a Bolt is, in my own experience, around 4.1 mi/kwh, which in my area translates to $.03/mile. The cost to operate your 38 MPG ICE example in my area (which has some of the cheapest gas in the country) currently is $.08/mile. The $6K difference you state would be made up in 120K miles when just considering gasoline. You'll have to plug in your areas electricity and gasoline costs. This does not include oil changes, brakes transmission fluid changes and a coolant change in there. Figure the math works out to be closer to 100K break-even miles in your own example.

I track my costs pretty closely, and I was replacing a vehicle which got a much-more-typical 29 mpg. I've saved myself $6K so far in just about 70k miles, of course I am tracking the gas prices monthly to compare.

Actually other than $24 oil changes every 7500 miles per the manual that's it for the car he purchased. Transmission fluid is life. Coolant is 120k miles. Brakes on that car will last 80k miles and are super cheap. He's averaging 38mpg and his electric costs are sone of the highest in the country.  At 15000 miles per year you're talking about 11 years to make up that difference. 11 years that ev may be needing a $2500 battery change. That changes the math yet again. 
 

look, for you maybe they make the most sense. But that isn't true for everyone. That's why I hate our govt propensity to try to make one solution for everything. It just doesn't work for everyone. 

Our government isn't forcing anyone. Keep your ICE,  buy new ones. Buy hybrids, It's your choice. 
    The country is going to be selling gasoline long after we're taking our long dirt nap.   Probably long after your grandchildren  pass 

There are still coal fired trains, horses,   Stage coach rides etc. 

 Skip ahead of EV's. What's next after them?  Teleportation?  Think there is any chance we'll be doing that in our lifetime? 
      After that?  What's next?    And I'll bet there will still be coal fired steam trains,  horses, ICE 
     

pheller said:

Some interesting factors in our Green/EV Transition are the varying opinions about cost and being tied to the grid.

As someone who works in the utility industry, the electric utilities are going to constantly want to push for more grid connected renewables. Utilities always prefer that their consumers pay, even if just pennies, for the infrastructure used to supply those customers. With more demand comes more reliance, which means the consumer pushes for more reliability, which means we also need better grid stability, which costs money and man-hours. The problem, however, is that all that investment takes money - which is then passed onto the consumer. 

This is challenging because we the consumer want the best of both worlds - we want cheap energy and we want clean energy. 

Thus, the consumer says "well I'll just get solar panels and have the electric company pay me for the energy!" Then they get disappointed when the energy companies and utilities fight against net metering and pay zilch for buy-back. When it comes to net-metering, energy companies are VERY away of negative externalities, and they will point out every cent that goes into "buying back" that energy. 

The running theme as I see is that people like the idea of being Off-Grid because they think "I'll own my power, not have to pay for expensive linemen and their retirements, and not have to pay for my electric provider to build renewables." The trouble is, unless you've got some serious sun, wind and water resources, you likely will not generate enough power to keep the lights, dishwasher and stove on at the same time at home, as well as fill the battery on your EV.  Plus, this does nothing for the vast majority of consumers who don't not have personal exclusive access to those resources necessary to generate that amount of energy. 

If you want to spend less on energy without investing tremendous amounts of money, it's always going to be better to just use less, and put your money into stuff that'll allow you to use less (like insulation, LEDs, etc). 

Personally I think EV's are fantastic for daily-short-trip urban runabouts and yes, enthusiast cars. For everything else, I see PHEVs becoming increasingly more popular. 

We agree on much but far from everything. 
 On billboards around town the local energy company brags that they have  saved something  Like 24.7 million. Metric tons of  carbon in the last 27 years.  
  Most of that is for economic reasons some from citizens and some from government. 
  But that's not how 30 states are treating renewables. Some just like buying coal, don't trust the citizens to let them make a decent profit. Or are too frozen in the past to allow  the future in.  
   People will figure things out. Some will make mistakes and pay the price.  Others will move too far ahead. 

In reply to bobzilla :

Look at where oil comes from and everything that had to happen before it moves a car.   
  Then look at renewables,   solar and wind.  Panels on the roof,  wind generators out in the field.  Yeh we have to use the grid  we should pay for it too.  But it's a win -win for the energy companies  

  Oh the few who want to isolate themselves  completely will have to pay to much for that independence 

Sorry I just can't take anymore frenchy self important diatribes rambling about E36 M3 he has no clue about. Just can't do it anymore. 

2023BD said:

Which part do you feel is not accurate? That is all easily verifiable info. 

All of it is innacurate. My Bolt gets around 300 miles of range in daily driving. Most of them do (around 4-4.5 miles/kWh). My Bolt cost $25k new (and the current one starts at $26k). My electric bill is 10c/kWh so a "full tank" in the Bolt is $6, as it has a 66kWh battery in it. The monthly bill for 900-1000 miles of driving (that's 12,000 miles a year, which is average) is $18-24. I have a MINI Cooper and it costs $50 to go the same 300 miles. Savings add up fast.

The Bolts DID get a recall for the battery possibly catching fire (12 of them from 2017-2019 did) but it was from a bent tab done by a faulty robot AND people that did deep discharges and full charges rapidly in succession. Since the recall all of them have been fixed and NONE will burn down from batteries. BTW, Kia also has had fire recalls and park outside notices for a number of their gas models, as have 30 other cars from most manufacturers, but I see you still want to drive a rolling bomb (remember 200,000 gas cars burn down every year and it's been shown that EVs are 100 times LESS likely per capita to burn down than gas cars. That whole fire risk thing is bullE36 M3).

No Ford Lightnings have burned down but many F150 gassers have had park outside fire recall notices, as have RAM pickups.

BTW, the Bolt has other things going for it that the Forte does not: 200 hp and 266 lb ft of torque delivered instantly, no waiting. It's more of a GTI than a bottom feeder economy car.

2023BD said:

Forgot about the $7500, that does make them closer. Don't forget you only get that if your tax liability is that high. Otherwise you only get the amount of tax liability you have. Remember EV's are for the rich. Brakes are good for over 50,000 miles these days and lof is about $300 over 50,000 miles. I loved the Prius Prime we owned. We drove it as a full electric 90% of the time. So as a daily an EV drives wonderful. It simply did not make sense economically anymore. Solar is a whole other debate that has pros and cons.

I'm far from rich and have an EV and it's saving me money right off the bat. Like I said, my '20 was $25k with NO GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES. It's way more fun to drive than that Prius, too. BTW, I'm on my second Bolt now as the lease ran out on the first one, so I'm into a '23 Bolt EUV, which is even nicer than the previous one.

bobzilla said: 11 years that ev may be needing a $2500 battery change. That changes the math yet again.

Modern thermally controlled batteries have ~2000 charge cycles before they are degraded to the point it's really noticeable (but still plenty useful for stationary storage. BTW, Teslas are showing that they lose about 10% of range from degradation in the first 5 years, then it tapers off after that, with many of the earlier versions hitting over 300k miles in taxi service). 2000 charge cycles on a car with 250 miles of range is 500,000 miles before needing a battery. By that point the car will be toast around it anyhow.

Getting tired of the fear of battery replacements out of warranty.

In reply to Chris_V :

I've seen more than a few. But I'm sure its all lies. 

Chris_V said:

bobzilla said: 11 years that ev may be needing a $2500 battery change. That changes the math yet again.

Modern thermally controlled batteries have ~2000 charge cycles before they are degraded to the point it's really noticeable (but still plenty useful for stationary storage. BTW, Teslas are showing that they lose about 10% of range from degradation in the first 5 years, then it tapers off after that, with many of the earlier versions hitting over 300k miles in taxi service). 2000 charge cycles on a car with 250 miles of range is 500,000 miles before needing a battery. By that point the car will be toast around it anyhow.

Getting tired of the fear of battery replacements out of warranty.

It's ironic that GM did the right thing by replacing all the batteries free under warranty.   Acting like a proper corporation should.  
  Yet those who are not ready to face the future distort that into the idea  that lithium  batteries are as fragile  as lead acid.  
      While nobody is forcing  people to buy  EV's  and there are still mostly ICE cars around.    Some are acting like they are on the way to the guillotine rather than being offered a chance to spend less money on transportation.   
  Even ICE devotes should welcome EV's.  The more EV's the less competition  for gasoline.   The lower the demand, prices should drop, right?  Free market and all that!   

frenchyd said:

Chris_V said:

bobzilla said: 11 years that ev may be needing a $2500 battery change. That changes the math yet again.

Modern thermally controlled batteries have ~2000 charge cycles before they are degraded to the point it's really noticeable (but still plenty useful for stationary storage. BTW, Teslas are showing that they lose about 10% of range from degradation in the first 5 years, then it tapers off after that, with many of the earlier versions hitting over 300k miles in taxi service). 2000 charge cycles on a car with 250 miles of range is 500,000 miles before needing a battery. By that point the car will be toast around it anyhow.

Getting tired of the fear of battery replacements out of warranty.

It's ironic that GM did the right thing by replacing all the batteries free under warranty.   Acting like a proper corporation should.  
  Yet those who are not ready to face the future distort that into the idea  that lithium  batteries are as fragile  as lead acid.  
      While nobody is forcing  people to buy  EV's  and there are still mostly ICE cars around.    Some are acting like they are on the way to the guillotine rather than being offered a chance to spend less money on transportation.   
  Even ICE devotes should welcome EV's.  The more EV's the less competition  for gasoline.   The lower the demand, prices should drop, right?  Free market and all that!   

No one is acting like they are going to be killed regarding the change to EV's. Leave the hyperbole somewhere else. 

Many, including myself, realize the current electricity and charging infrastructure isn't being built out quickly enough to coincide with how quickly many governments across the globe want to make the change. Aside from their not being enough chargers, many that aren't Tesla, are frequently non-functioning. 

One of many articles on the subject vs just making things up:
https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/17/23308612/ev-charging-broken-unreliable-survey-jd-power

As for the lower demand for gasoline causing lower prices? Nope. Many OPEC countries depend on the price of barrel per oil being X price to maintain their generous benefit laden states. Less demand for fuel? They will simply pump less to keep the price where they need it..............you know, like they have already done for decades. 

I don't have an issue with EV's.  I think they're great city cars, where you can charge up at home.  Just like z31maniac, I think that the infrastructure is nowhere near where it needs to be based on what countries are legislating and it probably won't be for decades.

Also agree that OPEC will simply stop producing as much oil in order to keep the price/barrel where it wants it.

docwyte said:

I don't have an issue with EV's.  I think they're great city cars, where you can charge up at home.  Just like z31maniac, I think that the infrastructure is nowhere near where it needs to be based on what countries are legislating and it probably won't be for decades.

Also agree that OPEC will simply stop producing as much oil in order to keep the price/barrel where it wants it.

this has always been my perspective but I guess that isn't as cool as creating a strawman so you can pontificate for paragraphs about nothing.

I find the fear for the infrastructure vastly overstated. We have electric lines, we have power plants, we just need to improve what's there and add some power plants which are a technology that's mature and able to be executed. Imagine if you will a moment this same conversation about gasoline cars prior to the widespread rollout of gas stations. I'm sure plenty of people griped about how you can't drive it more than x miles from home because there won't be gas. The task of building gas stations and refineries and digging for oil and building roads to carry tanker trucks on and building tanker trucks and etc etc etc is at least equivalent to - but in my opinion far more complex than - what electric cars face now. We're like 80% of the way done with what needs done, we just need more of it. It's ridiculous to act like there's just no way we can bridge that last tiny gap of X+1 when we already have done X.

I don't think anyone in here is telling anyone to not buy an ev if it fits their need. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Other than making he assumption that those that are hesitant are anti-ev I don't see it.

Please, show me all the people in this thread actively telling others to never buy an ev.