Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2141566)

I think the point of electric today is what is most of the driving you do - do you drive 500 miles every day? Week? Month? What is your average trip? Doing a little looking the number varies - the average daily driving in the US is 35 miles per day.

Motor Trend did an excellent article comparing (even to the point of establishing average flow rate for the gas pumps vs charger rates for EVs) ICE vs EV and one section covers time to drive 1,000 miles.

To summarize:

ICE would take around 14.7 hours (16.5 for a BMW i3 because of its small tank requiring 12 stops.)

EV average over 52 available models is 15.3 hours for EV. The Mini Cooper SE taking 23.5 hours because of its very low top speed. .

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2141609)

All very good points. Sadly the electricity at gas stations is probably not sufficient to put in more than one supercharger. But, the idea is sound. Even more important I think it would be a good idea to repurpose the existing stations. Whether or not it is less expensive to repurpose to LPG (large high pressure tanks) or electric (large high current service) is beyond my pay grade.

I personally hope before we invent too heavily into local charging stations (long distance I think will be needed under most possible futures) that we consider the retirement of personal vehicles. I know a LOT of people will be turned off by the idea, but shared vehicle pools would have a massive impact on pollution since far few vehicles would be needed. It would save on rare earth materials. It would massively reduce congestion on roads. And on and on.

But, it would require someone to get the ball rolling - that is big bucks. Tesla has indicated they are considering the idea.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2140987)

Okay, I will bite, where are you going (200 to 250 mile range) if the power is out? Gas stations can't pump or charge you, grocery stores can't run the cash registers, banks are definitely not going to be open, etc.

So, let's accept that the situation occurs and both the EV and an ICE are full. The EV (current) has a 200 to 300 mile capacity, the ICE has a 400 mile capacity.

If you are going up north, are we assuming there is NO power for 200 miles north of here? That would be a pretty serious catastrophe.

52 weeks of 200 miles of driving comes out to 10K per year. That is more than I drive now without a power outage. My point here being I except 200 to 400 miles range is more than most people will need for a week without power.

Also, GM has already announced a 400 mile range (I think for next year). Others are doing the same.

MOST of the arguments I hear/read are saying why EVs won't work now. And I completely agree, if tomorrow we all woke up and found an EV had magically replaced our ICE vehicles, we would be in a world of hurts with circuit breakers popping on all the transmission grids. But that is not going to happen. It is not physically possible to replace 300 million ICE vehicles in even a decade. Even in 3 decades would be a push, that is 10 million cars a year for 30 years. We currently sell about 17 million cars and trucks per year. Converting all those factories to EV is going to take time, so some percentage of that 17 million will become EVs, but certainly not all any time soon. So, we have at least 30 years, probably more, to transition. Meaning improve infrastructure, improve battery technology, convert factories, etc, etc, etc. A lot of work.

Also, I really liked a comment by Jay Leno recently. He expects people to keep their ICE vehicles around for a long time - for those limited cases where the EV is just not appropriate. But the benefits of driving an EV all the other times (two miles to Publix from my house) far out weigh the negatives. So, he expects most people will have one of each for a while until we can transition.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2141609)

All very good points. Sadly the electricity at gas stations is probably not sufficient to put in more than one supercharger. But, the idea is sound. Even more important I think it would be a good idea to repurpose the existing stations. Whether or not it is less expensive to repurpose to LPG (large high pressure tanks) or electric (large high current service) is beyond my pay grade.

I personally hope before we invent too heavily into local charging stations (long distance I think will be needed under most possible futures) that we consider the retirement of personal vehicles. I know a LOT of people will be turned off by the idea, but shared vehicle pools would have a massive impact on pollution since far few vehicles would be needed. It would save on rare earth materials. It would massively reduce congestion on roads. And on and on.

But, it would require someone to get the ball rolling - that is big bucks. Tesla has indicated they are considering the idea.

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy (Post 2142272)

Just a moment...

LOL!

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2141649)

I'm sure that all those blue collar working stiffs can afford one of each. Right......... Sorry, but EVs are not practical for those that are low to middle class with families to feed. Our air quality is much better now than when I was a kid......'50s. If you want to get serious about the pollution situation and transportation, then go with hydrogen cells. Hydrogen doesn't pollute unless you consider water as a pollutant. Probably the reason big business does not wish to invest in hydrogen is that producing hydrogen is cheap in comparison to other power sources. But, if one wishes to finance China and other countries by purchasing EV products, then go for it. I'm sure I won't be around to see the chaos created by those after us. Until then, how about we become fuel independent again like we were a couple years ago?
NO, I have no intention of purchasing an EV. I just purchased a 2022 fossil fuel burner and couldn't afford the luxury of bragging rights to having an EV even if I wanted one.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2142366)

EV are MORE practical to working stiffs since they have a lower cost of ownership.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 2141659)

It isn't clear to me that is actually a problem. Power to a facility can be upgraded. Perhaps not all. I suspect we will see a gradual introduction of EV charging stations to existing gas stations. One of the advantage of existing gas stations is the convenience store and bathroom infrastructure is already in place.

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy (Post 2142533)

LOL! um, negative ghostrider!

Including amortizing the cost of the car, higher insurance, maintenance,
and the cost of electricity in your home bill. . .

I don't think so. . .
Electric Vehicles vs. Gas Cars: Total Cost of Car Ownership | Money

Overall, AAA estimates you'll spend $9,119 annually owning an electric vehicle that you drive for 15,000 miles in a given year. That figure includes costs related to power (electricity) and maintenance, as well as financing, registration, fees, insurance and depreciation, and it's based on fairly inexpensive EVs

while a small SUV would cost you $8,362, , think Subaru Outback or equivalent, which is most comparable to the size and capacity of the EV.

finance guy

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2142552)

Funny, that contradicts EVER Tesla owner I have heard of read. And that article is over a year old. Things change

Try this:

https://nickelinstitute.org/media/8d...tive-final.pdf

And this:

The Government Confirms Obvious: Electric Cars Cheaper to Maintain Than Internal Combustion Vehicles

In fact MotorTrend has had numerous articles pointing out the difference and EV always wins.

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy (Post 2142556)

Dude,

you don't understand finance. The first article has a plug, the plug is called "trade in value", in valuing a company, its called the terminal value, such that the future value inputs is indeterminate, and the future is so uncertain that all values are unknowable, so there is a plug value.

The Nickel institute TCO is missing the cost of insurance, but throws in a lot of other details to convince the reader of thoroughness, as well as missing the cost of battery replacement for the longer period of ownership.

Finally, adding the cost to no longer own it to the cost to own it, is very misleading, which is how they can get to the answer they want. Kind of like crashing the car when done to get the insurance cost of recovery. . . and picking the model comparisons has a lot to do with the outcome as well.

Likewise, the resale value of certain EVs are now plummeting because of the difficulty and cost of replacing the battery, and the more the battery is integrated into the chassis, the less resale value.
Costs of Electric Car Battery Replacement & Other EV Facts
Current Automotive posted the 2020 receipt of one customer’s replacement of a remanufactured 75kWh battery in a Tesla Model 3:

Battery: $13,500
Labor $2,299.27
Total: $15,799.27

The Replacement Battery Costs for These Six Normal EVs Is Staggeringly High


Finally, did you see the excel model? or just believing the article? As a professional excel modeler from before it was called Excel, MS Multiplan, started on a Mac in 1982, I don't trust very many spreadsheet models. . . I have seen very, very few good ones.

As far as a government article, i don't believe much of any government analysis, as they always have an electorial bias.

So yeah, my point still stands. Ask your friends who focus only on costs they want to acknowledge to feel good, how much of their cost of ownership they add up is based upon the future resale value they don't have. Reality does get in the way of estimates. . .

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2142552)

Funny, that contradicts EVER Tesla owner I have heard of read. And that article is over a year old. Things change

Try this:

https://nickelinstitute.org/media/8d...tive-final.pdf

And this:

The Government Confirms Obvious: Electric Cars Cheaper to Maintain Than Internal Combustion Vehicles

In fact MotorTrend has had numerous articles pointing out the difference and EV always wins.