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

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

But I'm sure the current leaders can just mandate reality 

This is how we got to the moon in a decade. You know what markets really don't like? Instability. If you have a goal, and the desire to stick with it, industry will get on board.

frenchyd said:

Opti said:

The problem is certain governments are decreeing things. The argument that you aim high and see improvement is terrible when it comes to markets. When governments come out and say things, it moves markets. It makes manufacturers go fully electric, then if we get to 2030 and the OEMs, based on what the govts have said, have gone fully electric and the infrastructure and pricing isnt there yet, consumers are left in a worse position, Govt forced movement we werent ready for and the consumers are left with bad choices in the sector, or failing electric infrastructure. I dont buy the argument that we will fix the grid, because we arent currently. The grid is becoming more unreliable. California wanted to shut down the nuke plant and replace it with "green energy" but they cant because they dont have the capacity.

Anthony makes a good point about not having the skills or capabilities in the US currently to fix some of these issues. Its why we have a 9 billion dollar hole in South Carolina were a nuke plant was supposed to be.

Toyota agrees that EVs are overhyped.

Im not saying they dont have a place. They work for some, but they dont work for all. EV trucks are still garbage and massively inferior to gas powered trucks. I have a problem with our failing infrastructure we arent fixing, and the government decreeing obviously stupid things.

Take California for example. The want to move to EVs for emissions, all the while the largest energy source for them is natural gas and imported energy

Minnesota is at 50% renewables already and goal is 100% renewables  by 2050.  
  But we have sun and we have wind.   I guess where you are that doesn't exist?   Gee that's really too bad. 
     Maybe Hybrids will work for you?   I take it you travel more than 250 miles per day? That's over 90,000 miles a year.   When I was in sales  I could rack up around 85,000 miles a year  but a Tesla will meet that requirement.   
  To be fair. That sort of mileage  really requires a lot of time. I used to leave the house at 4:00am some mornings and get home by. 11:00 pm.
    I didn't mind because I actually paid for my pickup truck 3 times over during that period.   Plus even without a good commission check the expense allowance added considerable to the family income during that period. 
  Then the big commission checks went directly into 401K, IRA, and retirement account thus avoiding the big tax burden. 
 

Unless something massively changed in 1 year I dont think you have correct data

https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=MN#:~:text=electricity%20in%202021.-,Renewable%20resources%2C%20including%20wind%2C%20solar%2C%20hydropower%2C%20and%20biomass,and%20natural%20gas%20contributed%2021%25.

Renewable resources, including wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass, generate the largest share of Minnesota's electricity. In 2021, renewables accounted for 29% of total in-state electricity net generation, coal fueled 26%, nuclear power supplied 24%, and natural gas contributed 21%. Coal-fired power plants provided the largest share of Minnesota's electricity net generation until 2020, when their contribution fell below the amount supplied by renewables and nuclear power for the first time

4 energy sources together equal 29%

Coal, nuke and natural gas has similar shares by themselves.

The largest single supplier was coal.

Currently wind and solar are not viable on a macro scale. For some situations solar works on the micro scale. They are the least power dense energy sources why do people want them so much. They are also far from green

Notice the massive bulldozer for scale

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

The problem is manufactures getting on board before it actually benefits the consumer. Yes it will happen but at the detriment to the consumer, like so many other things the government does.

In reply to frenchyd :

Also Im in the state that produces the largest amount of "renewable" energy by a factor of 2. Its easy to see its not currently viable.

In reply to dculberson :

Oh it ain't just him. There are two others off the top of my head in this thread in the last couple pages. Yes frenchy is full of E36 M3 and makes up half what he posts but he's not the worst offender. 

In reply to bobzilla :

mblommel said:

In reply to bobzilla :

And here's #3. 

Opti said:

Chris_V said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to Chris_V :

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

Which ones have you seen,? Early Volts with 16kWh batteries that have a 35 mile range (2000 cycles on that is 70k electric miles before needing battery replacement) or early Leafs with non thermally managed batteries that have similar timeframes before needing (cheap) replacement batteries? Or early compliance cars with short ranges that ALSO have lower overall lifespans due to smaller battery capacity and thus more charge cycles for their lifetimes?

Here's a Bolt at nearly 200k miles that still has full range left:

To be fair this is a bolt so the battery has probably been changed

it got replaced at 200k miles, and came with a new 100k mile warranty then, so the owner was tickled pink that he basically had a 200k mile car with a new 100k mile warrarnty! lol

In reply to bobzilla :

Haha what a internet tough guy you are. Have you checked your blood pressure lately? I never disagreed with you, yet your first instinct on a rather civil forum is to lash out. 

Forget getting your goat, these guys opened the pen door and ran the whole herd down the road. Lol

bobzilla said:

Chris_V said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to Chris_V :

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

Which ones have you seen,? Early Volts with 16kWh batteries that have a 35 mile range (2000 cycles on that is 70k electric miles before needing battery replacement) or early Leafs with non thermally managed batteries that have similar timeframes before needing (cheap) replacement batteries? Or early compliance cars with short ranges that ALSO have lower overall lifespans due to smaller battery capacity and thus more charge cycles for their lifetimes?

Bolts, Leafs, Prii, Fusion, c-max, Volt and the lexus rx-whatever. Granted, most were hyrids and not pure EV's so I am sure it's going to be summarily dismissed by the purists even though its the same battery tech in the EV's. 

So you didn't even read the post you were responding to. Got it. Charge cycles versus range is the difference. At the same charge cycles a short range EV or hybrid will need to have the battery replaced MUCH sooner, for the reasons stated. But you can't seem to grasp that, can you? Same with everything else about EVs. You really have zero clue.

BTW, the Prius and Toyota hybrids use a completely different battery chemistry than the pure EVs.

In reply to Chris_V :

That was GM doing the right thing.  Times in the past they didn't.  Current management is looking long term rather than the next quarterly report. 
     Sure poorly informed people are twisting that around to reinforce. Their position.  It's OK.   When they are wrong those types of people shout louder and louder as the rest of the country accepts the truth. 
 When GM gets their collective heads out of quarterly reports it seems like the country does well. 
   Their in line six started out selling Fords 4 cylinder and  made them a power house business for decades.  But when the time came for a V8 they sure made a good one.   
     I expect  them to actually lead the industry in EV's.  Little things like the square wire in their motors.   Their ability to see the future, the history of leading the industry.  

bobzilla said:

In reply to Chris_V :

Nice. Are you always this condescending or only behind the keyboard?

Opti said:

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

The problem is manufactures getting on board before it actually benefits the consumer. Yes it will happen but at the detriment to the consumer, like so many other things the government does.

As a consumer, having a planet that my grandkids can inhabit without going back to the dark ages is a value.

In reply to bobzilla :

Neighbors who have had batteries replaced own a Chevy Bolt. It was replaced free because a few were defective without a way to know which.  So everybody got a free 100,000 mile battery.   None of the Tesla owners have.  One Leaf owner  just returned the car.  I'm sure it didn't hurt his credit rating.  ( as if he needs credit ) ps.  He's driving a Tesla now. 
      

This whole discussion makes me think of a third grade "nuh-uh" "uh-huh" playground argument. 

Like who would win between Superman and Batman...

Don't want an EV? Don't buy one and leave the people alone who did.

Bought an EV? Don't be an insufferable ass to people who need a ICE for whatever.

Nobody is coming for your ICE. 

Buying an EV won't save the planet. 

So as the person who opened this up I will add some things:

1. The title of the thread says "I don't see it" which pretty much implies it's my opinion.

2. There are no wrong answers here; EVs work for you or they don't for a variety of reasons.

Note I think anchovies taste awesome; on pizza, in marinara sauce, for breakfast because I grew up with traditional Italian food. I also know full well most people think they are nasty...................neither one of us are wrong. 

3. Even after some very insightful answers I still don't see EVs getting beyond 20-30% market share in the next 10-20 years.....just where I'm at.

4. Also the thing to remember is peoples working styles & thought process may be radically different; my fabricator / race engineer friend often reminds me I come up with logical conclusions through illogical methods................nothing wrong with it as it works for me.

5. Most of us come here because compared to the rest of the online world we are the most hysteria free place............I mentioned my thinking out load.....................that's all we are doing here is thinking out load. 

Carry on.........................  

In reply to Tom1200 :

I don't disagree with you. They have their place. I've always said that. But, they aren't the ONLY option and shouldn't be. What works for one person may not work for someone else and brow beating them and telling them they are backwards and dumb for not wanting it doesn't help. 

Again, I am still waiting for the posts of people telling others to never buy an EV. Its what most have been arguing about but no one has actually said it. There are plenty of posts alluding to the education level and obstinance of those that may not want one personally, to the point of ridiculousness. But no one is telling you not to buy one. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :

Okay, let's measure the upgrades, how much improvement in the power factor was achieved via these upgrades?  

Difficult to say. The utility probably has that information, but hasn't made it public that I have found. They have replaced many aging substations with more modern equipment which should reduce transmission losses some and have added more capacitors to the system.  But from what I've read, overall system reliability was the main goal (and still is - they  received approval in 2022 for additional upgrades) by updating obsolete equipment as well as moving some systems out of areas subject to weather influence. 

Most utilities are publicly held companies that straddle a strange line between being for-profit corporations and also beholden to regulatory oversight. Combined with regulations that vary between states. But the ultimate goal for them is to make money.  If/when the demand for power caused by consumer EVs is there, they will build the capacity to serve them. It is in their monetary interests to do so.  Capitalism dictates they find the most profitable way forward, be it solar, wind, natural gas, some combination thereof or a few million cyclists on turbo-trainers. They will find a way. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

I don't disagree with you. They have their place. I've always said that. But, they aren't the ONLY option and shouldn't be. What works for one person may not work for someone else and brow beating them and telling them they are backwards and dumb for not wanting it doesn't help. 

Again, I am still waiting for the posts of people telling others to never buy an EV. Its what most have been arguing about but no one has actually said it. There are plenty of posts alluding to the education level and obstinance of those that may not want one personally, to the point of ridiculousness. But no one is telling you not to buy one. 

I guess we agree.  They aren't the only solution. And not suitable for everything and everybody. 
   I think most of the most stubborn EV proponents are responding to misinformation  and bias.   
      For example I still have my Jags and truck. I will until my long dirt nap or crispy  critter time occurs.  Im just looking ahead to what we will have in our retirement. 

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :

Okay, let's measure the upgrades, how much improvement in the power factor was achieved via these upgrades?  

Difficult to say. The utility probably has that information, but hasn't made it public that I have found. They have replaced many aging substations with more modern equipment which should reduce transmission losses some and have added more capacitors to the system.  But from what I've read, overall system reliability was the main goal (and still is - they  received approval in 2022 for additional upgrades) by updating obsolete equipment as well as moving some systems out of areas subject to weather influence. 

Most utilities are publicly held companies that straddle a strange line between being for-profit corporations and also beholden to regulatory oversight. Combined with regulations that vary between states. But the ultimate goal for them is to make money.  If/when the demand for power caused by consumer EVs is there, they will build the capacity to serve them. It is in their monetary interests to do so.  Capitalism dictates they find the most profitable way forward, be it solar, wind, natural gas, some combination thereof or a few million cyclists on turbo-trainers. They will find a way. 

Spot on.  
   A local utility responding to the issue of coal points out that  they have reduced the use of coal  by 14&1/2 million metric tons in the last 27 years. 
     Our lights are still on.  We are moving forward. They aren't going broke.  

I guess this is EV vs ICE is as bad, if not worse than who you voted for. 

For some people money is not an issue and driving a Tesla is like buying a luxury nameplate.  They know deep down they are not saving any money, or the planet for that matter, but they really don't care either. It will always be like that. There is a large audience that has to drive a nameplate that they feel makes them feel special. Right now EV's are filling that void for many. 

Others are not rolling in money and need to be thrifty. Some will try an entry level EV or PHEV vehicle and find that it works financially or it doesn't. I was one who found that with the increased price of electricity and the reduced range in cold weather it costs almost twice as much to drive a Prius Prime on electric vs gas in New England. Some in the south may find a Bolt with rebates and discounts and no cold weather is better financially. The different regions of the country will affect ownership experience and over the years the number of people who choose EV over ICE. 

My big reason for getting involved was for others to realize EV's do not make financial sense for everyone. 

2023BD said:

Some in the south may find a Bolt with rebates and discounts and no cold weather is better financially. 

 

The only thing true about this sentence for the two people on here who actually drive a Bolt and log the actual costs is the word "Bolt". I do live in the South, but plenty of cold weather, no rebate and no discount.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :

So you can't demonstrate any improvement even though you know the engineers.  And Frenchy can't demonstrate how much of MN's power is actually renewable.  
 

Grid power factor is a direct measure of efficiency.  The grid needs large rotating machines spinning at constant speeds to be stable or even exist.  Guess what renewables don't do?  They don't spin big rotational electrical generating machines at a constant speed.  This is exactly why the people making mandates are in fact stupid.  The people that thinks this all just sorts itself out all kumbaya are equally gullible.  
 

These problems are all easily solvable.  Sadly no one is actually interested or can even understand simple, viable right now solutions.  Enjoy the crisis of stupidity.  It'll be worse for your kids and their kids (and sadly my kids too) because you all keep putting faith in stupid leaders.  You could end all this nonsense, but like the 12 step program...  first step admit there is a problem.  
 

Maybe when your kids are $50 trillion in debt, sitting in the dark with their EV stuck in their garage because the power is out, maybe then you'll start acting like serious people.  
 

Until then let's see how this spend it today, bill ya tomorrow, pop a pill culture thing works out.  I'm sure we are just one more mandate away from utopia.  

Not possible.

...

I park in the driveway.