Printable View
It’s not just an oil change. EVs have orders of magnitude fewer moving parts than ICE. As they mature maintenance needs aren’t going to decline just by the occasional oil change. Go find an Uber driver with a model 3 and ask him what he likes about his car. If you talk to three and two of them don’t say “I don’t have to do anything to this car” I’d be shocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
But you know this, you’re just being disingenuous.
Much like any issue that gets AD fired up on here, it basically boils down to “you can’t tell me what to do!”
No, my stance on many things boils down to upper class people forcing their preferred ways on the majority of the country without taking into account their reality.
I've already stated that EV's have a great use case in certain scenarios, but they are not the majority. They should be a perfectly viable option for those use cases, but forcing them on everyone is not going to work.
Incorrect. They are great for MOST scenarios actually used in the US. Just because of your personal preference and occasional boat puttering doesn't make it the majority, it's anecdata.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
Per general stats, less than 2% of trips are over 50 miles. cite: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles...n%2050%20miles.
That kills range, even if you double it or triple it.
As noted above, average new car price has grown to 48k as automakers squeeze profits. As battery and production techniques mature, the low-cost versions will become more available because new tech ALWAYS flows Specialist->Luxury->Economy because by the time you hit economy you've fully amortized R&D and aren't eating into margins. Given that cars are less throwaway these days (as you pointed out, most are expected to live until 2-300k, vs the 100k maybe of 80's/early 90's and before), the cost inflation actually makes sense given it's a durable good that lasts longer.
We get it, you don't wanna, and the reality is you don't have to anytime soon. EV's are here to stay not just because of environmental reasons, but because they vastly simplify everything for carmakers. Remember the chip shortage with tons of shit sitting around waiting for chips? In ICE vehicles there's any number of part chokepoints that can shut it all down - emissions controls, cooling, exhaust equipment, oiling, internal parts to the motor - all moving or consumable in various ways. EV's have an order of magnitude fewer moving things (if not 2 orders), which means there's less to break/service/maintain.
It's not upper class people forcing anything, it's just the normal order of "expensive things with big margins get new shit first" like its always been. I'd say the Prius was an outlier in that regard.
Asking the average American to have two vehicles so they can accommodate their need to travel more than 50 miles is a non-starter financially. We've already covered this.
The majority of Americans can't come up with 500 bucks, so asking them to rent a car, with all the bullshit and cost that entails for 1 of every 50 times they start their car is not realistic. For example, I just tried to rent a truck online in the Upper Valley NH and they want 145 dollars per day, if they actually have one when you show up, nevermind the closest rental car joint is 22 miles and 45 minutes away from my house door to door.
Again, EV's are a perfectly fine use case for the TGR crowd that can afford it, and even then only a small minority of posters here drive one. The steadfast refusal of EV proponents to disregard the real world limitations, whether that be financial or practical of EV's on the majority of the populace is not going to make those real problems go away.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
dude, have some self awareness
Besides,
You white knight white knighting, then, bro?
Please do speak for the majority of Americans…pretend you have your finger on the heartbeat of America from JH or boating in Maine
go ahead
Average daily miles driven does not equal EV range you dumbfuckQuote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
I'm not the one demanding they do things that fit my political or cultural worldview.
Just give them the option to do it and if it works for them, that is a net benefit towards your goal is it not? If the option doesn't work.
Frankly, the amount of pushback you are all doing on this topic shows your insecurity about the real problems that exist concerning EV's and their practicality and cost. There are many reasons why EV's are only a 10% market share, and it is a technology that is no longer in its infancy. Batteries have existed for a long fucking time and the same problems still exist.
^no one is doing that you absolute shit heel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
Your arguments refuting my points really are moving.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
#selfawarenessQuote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
I agree with AR that a free market economy is the essential basis of the American economy and that we should only rely on regulation to manipulate the market as a last resort.
With that said, I also support a per miles driven tax so that people like AR, who voluntarily live out in the sticks, pay their true fair share of road maintenance instead of free loading off of city dwellers who are forced to pay a disproportionate share.
You deserve nothing more than vitriol.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
You aren't going to get a ton of pushback from me on that Alta.
In a perfect world, California wouldn't force people to go electric whether they want to or not.
But in a perfect world, we wouldn't have subsidized oil, and consequently ICE vehicles, so that the true free market could decide what is the better, more efficient choice for society, ICE or electric. Unfortunately, we don't live in this perfect world.
Good one, chief, except that I rented a car a few weeks ago and have rented ~6 different cars in the last 6 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
And just to be clear, since you seem hell-bent on making this a class warfare issue of the "rich" forcing the "poor" to buy something they can't afford: I'm not rich, but I'm a fleet manager of medium and light duty vehicles. I drive, maintain and manage a wide range of vehicles daily, including a commercial EV. You continue to whine and argue in bad faith here, as if the EV situation will never improve or lower in price. Yet you have no skin in the game and nothing to do with it, besides being a consumer with enough money to own and tow your boat around.
So you want a free market economy but you support a blanket tax on supposed freedoms? What??Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
And the concept of "regulation" - banning ICE cars by X date - is because of a last resort scenario. We're ruining the fucking planet and need to work with current, available options to avert that. For your pro-capitalist outlook you should be happy that our economy has a new avenue of materialism, products and accessories to open up into.
thusly, it’s reasonable to have regulations to encourage improvements when near-monopoly would dictate otherwiseQuote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
A per miles driven tax is not anti free market. It is simply forcing those who consume resources to pay for the true costs of their consumption. That's what free market is all about. Eliminate all subsidies as much as possible and let the market figure things out.Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinevibes
The declining revenues from the gas tax as people switch to electric is a major, major issue. Gas tax is not perfect (it is regressive, just like sales tax) but at least the more you drive, the more you pay. A per miles driven tax is the only viable solution I see but I also don't see Americans accepting their government knowing where the are driving each day (they prefer to let Apple, Google, and Verizon know these details, but not their government).
Per miles driven doesn’t really make sense to me since it doesn’t capture the benefit derived by having good roads available in the (maybe rare) case that you need them, in addition to emergency services, utilities, freight, etc. Just cuz I don’t go anywhere doesn’t mean that roads aren’t critical to my every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Here’s a picture at 10:30 on a Thursday in middle class America. Took it while walking the dog. It was actually more than pictured.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
Attachment 445528
The line of giant SUV’s that will never see dirt dropping off kids at school is the majority.
It’s super cute when economic or industrial policy is discussed as if the US lives in a vacuum. Does anyone here doubt the momentum of BEV in China, much of W Europe, etc? The whole ‘bbbbut California is forcing this down our throats’ topic is irrelevant. Does the US want to participate in the design or manufacturing of key future technologies like BEV, the internet, etc? If Yes, then economic or regulatory or taxation or subsidy philosophy can reflect that strategy.
If some of these societal investments also mitigate climate change, or have other broad benefits, great. If they reduce the influence of fucked up petro regimes, great. But it’s a mystery to me why anyone who has some pro-business tendencies would want the US to consciously surrender to China.
The push back is because you make the same simple, hackneyed arguments that angry libertarians always make. Just about everyone of us has a libertarian friend with an MBA and an 85th percentile IQ who hasn't taken math beyond multi-variable calculus, worships Milton Friedman, and fancies themself an expert on economics. The are free-market types who don't remotely understand market economics. To be honest, I actually really like some of them, but the arguments are simple-minded and poorly thought out.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
There is a reason it is mandatory to pay taxes. It is actually in the best interests of people to do so, how much is obviously debatable and a whole different question, but it is certainly in their best interests for people to actually pay. But you can't make that sort of thing optional.
There is a reason there are regulatory boards for surgeons. You can't just throw up a shingle saying you are a brain surgeon (or an orthopedist) and figure the market will simply take care of who is or is not good. The idea that surgeons don't need to be licensed is interesting theoretically in the way the it helps facilitate discussion and might help develop practical policy, but it is not reasonable in practice. Much like the saturated model in statistics, it helps one consider the issue of overfitting and the underlying decision mechanisms regarding modelling, but in practice no one would actually use a saturated model anyway. It is a helpful construct theoretically, but not something for pracitical use.
The idea of ending licensing for MDs was one of Miltie's real gems. I get that this does cause an increase in medical costs, but simply pulling the band aid off and deregulating is not the way to do things. It is helpful for a think tank considering how to solve the issue of medical costs, but it has little practical use.
It actually is in the long term best interests of people to go electrify. Most people really don't know what is good for them in the long run, that is where regulations which accurately reflect cost come in. There is a reason children are not allowed to drop out of school until they are 16. Most people simply don't understand what is in their best interests in the long run.
Environmental issues take a very long time to be visible. The idea that most consumers are smart enough to understand the damage they are doing and make purchasing decisions accordingly is absurd.
If you are going to give people the option then you need to have the cost of what they do commensurate with the damage. You cannot wait for people to understand what is in their best interests. In a country where everyone seems to have a smart phone that costs 1k and smart TVs it is in many cases a choice.
2035 is a long way away. Batteries have already improved, and there is tremendous work being done. The charging infrastructure in California is excellent, and getting much better. People are actually much more capable of traveling using EVs than they think. There is work to be done, but it is much easier than expected. In the last couple of years it has improved by leaps and bounds, and that is only going to increase exponentially. Electric cars
I'm actually not entirely onboard with banning ICE vehicles in CA. I go back and forth on it. But what I would do is have a cap and trade system for carbon. I'm not in favor of taxing gas (or anything else that has to do with carbon) because of the emissions, I would prefer to limit how much we are going to put out and then buy/sell shares. That way if a company can't limit themselves it is going to cost them. If every single other company (obvious some strange hypotheticals here) which needed carbon was able to move off that, then maybe the shares cost less. But in the end there is a limit to how much we are going to pollute.
This approach would actually allow people the freedom to drive what they want, but they would have to pay according to the actual costs of their actions. The market would then be more sentient and intelligent, the costs of goods and services would reflect what it costs to manufacturing costs (in this case we are talking about the damage the carbon is doing) in much the same way that buying a smoothy is reflective of both it's demand and what it costs to make.
Companies don't have the right to just dump chemicals into a river. The idea that relaxing these regulations and would lead to a better solution is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous to assume that making paying taxes optional would lead to a better solution.
Make gas prices reflect the environmental cost of driving an ICE and then maybe it is reasonable not to ban them. If that were the case, i.e. if the market accurately reflected the cost, things would probably take care of themselves. Honestly, electric cars are simply better in my experience. I don't have any interest in ever driving an ICE again. Whenever I'm at hot and I drive my dad's Volt I can tell when it is driving on electricity and when it is ICE, and it drives much better on electricity. I think if most people actually had the experience of driving a good EV they would convert easily. For the money they are usually much better cars.
EVs are getting cheaper. That is only going to continue to happen. More and more energy in California is coming from clean sources. New homes, unless they don't have solar exposure, are going to need solar panels. These are all good developments, but there is more work to be done.
Jesus dude, take a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
I remember smog swirling behind my car in Fremont and San Bernardino. It was the same “libertarians” that were against catalytic converters, unleaded gas, and emissions legislation. The clean air is taken for granted now. Not that they (the libertarians) give a damn about clean air.