Electric cars and Tesla (PLEASE leave politics out of this thread!)

[auburnseeker]

1 minute ago, TerryB said:

You might want to impart your wisdom on how the economy functions to the large number of young tech multimillionaires who have become exceedingly rich early in their lifetime.  Imagine how much money they would have if they actually knew what they were doing!

Ok what is the percentage of new multimillionaire tech startups to regular guys and gals showing up to work their minimum wage job wit ha pile of college debt they can't afford?  

I suspect we are at less than 1 percent.  It's the one's fresh out of school and not even college that are going to save the world by forcing us to part with proven technology for dreams that have yet to be proven.  I'm not talking slow progression either.  Many are so full of them selves and want instant ratification so they want legislation passed before the technology and infrastructure is even in place to support it,  much less be viable economically. 

As it stands living in America is great Because we have  the freedom to have choices.  I don't want to have my choices taken away so someone can feel good about themselves only to find out that change actually wasn't for the better.  In general older people (hey I'm 44)  Have a much better grasp of how the economy really works and how you need to keep the balance sheet in the black.   Though some at all ages still don't understand this.  Knowledge is gained better through experience than text as the text can be formulated to show any way will work,  but experience proves different.  Look at the student loan debt crisis we have.  Yup those are all the brilliant young people that understand how the economy works.  

[1912Staver]

29 minutes ago, TerryB said:

I’ve been to China multiple times, they know the problems they face and are doing something about it. They are seeing the degrading environment, especially air and water pollution will do nothing but destroy their future economic growth.  For them to be the power they want to be they have to fix that now.

 

 

And from what I have seen those problems are gigantic to say the least. And then all the other Asian country's with exploding populations, at least China has some money to work with. Pakistan and Bangladesh have huge environment problems and little money.

 

Greg

[1912Staver]

13 minutes ago, auburnseeker said:

Ok what is the percentage of new multimillionaire tech startups to regular guys and gals showing up to work their minimum wage job wit ha pile of college debt they can't afford?  

I suspect we are at less than 1 percent.  It's the one's fresh out of school and not even college that are going to save the world by forcing us to part with proven technology for dreams that have yet to be proven.  I'm not talking slow progression either.  Many are so full of them selves and want instant ratification so they want legislation passed before the technology and infrastructure is even in place to support it,  much less be viable economically. 

As it stands living in America is great Because we have  the freedom to have choices.  I don't want to have my choices taken away so someone can feel good about themselves only to find out that change actually wasn't for the better.  In general older people (hey I'm 44)  Have a much better grasp of how the economy really works and how you need to keep the balance sheet in the black.   Though some at all ages still don't understand this.  Knowledge is gained better through experience than text as the text can be formulated to show any way will work,  but experience proves different.  Look at the student loan debt crisis we have.  Yup those are all the brilliant young people that understand how the economy works.  

 

In general a decent post secondary education gives you the basic building blocks and tools you will use to combine with experience to arrive at a point where your peers will agree that you actually do know what you are doing. In my experience this usually occurs after you practice your craft for a decade or so , assuming you are a reasonably capable learner.

 Some as Auburnseeker points out never get there , some exceptional cases might reduce the practice stage to as little as 5 years but these people are quite rare.

  As I mentioned earlier the instant successes are usually more circumstance than subject mastery.

  

 

Greg

Edited May 5, 2019 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[TerryB]

So at this point my apologies to sounding like a wiseguy on the millionaire post.  It is again leading the discussion away from the basis of this thread which was intended to showcase the advances in technology that has lead to what had been a dream some 120 years ago, the practical car propelled by electricity rather than gasoline.  The Electrovair brochure I posted here described the issues GM was having with battery technology in the mid 1960s that prevented them from having an electric car that was both lightweight and had sufficient range and battery life and still performed like a typical car. 

 

Todays advances in battery technology and power delivery management are making electric cars a viable alternative to gasoline automobiles.  They do have rage and price issues that make them somewhat limited as a replacement for everyone’s driving needs but those issues are not insurmountable and will continue to be addressed.  

 

I’m dropping any more references on global climate issues from my discussions going forward.  This is not the place for these discussions as the intent of the forum is to promote old automobiles and our interests in their history restoration and use.  That I enjoy immensely and want to keep it that way for everyone who comes here.  

 

May you have a good day wherever in the world you may be.  For me as paraplegic and amputee thanks to an inattentive driver I know all too well the importance a good day can have on your health and well being.  Enjoy each day, it’s a gift that needs to be appreciated.

Terry

[auburnseeker]

The only reason it keeps going the way of environmental impact,  is that's the only thing driving people to the electric cars.  That's their only real gain right now. If they had no perceived environmental benefit,  they would not be getting any press and there definitely would not be the push for them that we are seeing. 

Not arguing,  just presenting other ideas so one can take it all in and make a judgement based on all the evidence for and against.  

A true free unsubsidized market would determine how bad we want them.  

 

I see one other problem as well.  How many of those fresh out of College kids will be able to afford an unsubsidized Electric car? Pushing them to a used car market.  How much value will those used electrics have especially needing a major battery replacement.  Where does it leave a large percentage of drivers that can barely afford the 1500 clunker today,  when a good set of batteries will set them back 2 to 3 times that even if you gave them the car for free.  Alot of cars are over 8 years old on the road.  If the Tesla is dead in 8 then what?   All food for thought.  I again think it's a push that exceeds the technology available at present on a wide scale.  

 

Tank the economy and nobody will be buying them, because no one will have a job.  

[maok]

9 minutes ago, auburnseeker said:

 

Tank the economy and nobody will be buying them, because no one will have a job.  

 

Destroy the environment, the economy tanks.

 

Problem with our economy, and ultimately our way of life (capitalism), its a ponsie scheme, if it does not grow in expense of the environment - it fails.

 

If we as a society don't change,  by changing our methods of energy production, the environment will change us for the worse. Free in-exhaustible energy is available every on the Earth, we have the technology and knowledge now to make it work, but not the will power due to how our economy and mindset functions.

[1912Staver]

If the entire world's population was close to a Western mindset then we might have a chance. When I was a young lad in the early 1970's my generation became somewhat environmentally aware. Each Western generation since has expanded to one degree or another on that foundation. The young Western people today are generally quite environmentally aware. 

But we in the West are a relative minority compared to the earths overall population.

  The members of the other cultures on this planet are quite numerous, much more in fact than the population of the Western world. And they range dramatically in degree of environmental awareness and action. 

 Overall I am afraid it looks like a definite uphill struggle.

At the end of the day it simply comes down to numbers. Population numbers. Some might say there are just too many of us on a over burdened  planet.

 

Greg

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[maok]

1 hour ago, 1912Staver said:

 

But we in the West are a relative minority compared to the earths overall population.

  The members of the other cultures on this planet are quite numerous, much more in fact than the population of the Western world. And they range dramatically in degree of environmental awareness and action. 

 Overall I am afraid it looks like a definite uphill struggle.

At the end of the day it simply comes down to numbers. Population numbers. Some might say there are just too many of us on a over burdened  planet.

 

Greg

 

 

This is very true, however, what you are forgetting/omitting is that we in the western world created the situation and still consuming vastly more energy and resources than the third world.

We need to set the standards for the third world to follow, not blame them for wanting their left behind share of a comfortable life.

[auburnseeker]

It only works when everyone changes pretty much everywhere and has the same mindset.  Some countries are so backwards they may never change unless we run out of oil. 

Kind of like showing up for a battle where our weapons are  flowers to create peace through positive experience (Can't believe I just said that)  and they bring firearms.  Guess who wins? 

Capitalism beats Communism any day.  I kind of like choosing my destiny.  Not sure about the rest of you, but I think I'm not alone here. 

[Locomobile]

Listen closely to what this Professor of physics from Princeton and former director of Science with Dept of Energy says about climate change. One very important fact he states (para) "C02 levels have never been lower than they are right now"

 

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by Locomobile (see edit history)

[mercer09]

My sons ex drives a used Prius. Batteries needed to be replaced-3000. plus

His buddy went out and bought a used Prius-he was able to "regenerate" his old batteries-cost for upgrades about 2500.

both cars cost over 35k new

 

My son was gifted a 13000. versa for graduating college.(brand new car) He got a little over 30 mpg

ran the car to 200k miles and was still going strong when he sold it. very very little maintenance.

all three of them are early 30s.

 

very easy to do the math..................

[mercer09]

for anyone truly interested in this topic- you might want to buy a copy of The Quest-by Yergin

it is 800 pgs long and not for the faint of heart.

 

ironically, the end result of this total discussion will come down to politics- which we are not allowed to discuss on this thread and agreeably so.............

[Gunsmoke]

Peter, may be time for sadly another intervention. The AACA forums, even this "general discussion" forum is intended for members to discus old cars, a place where newbies and old-timers alike can get advice and insight on their old car from knowledgeable and experienced people. I find it a wonderful site in that way. But if a newbie was to waste their time pouring thru this "initially well intended thread", he/she would think many of us are a bunch of clowns. In this thread and the previous one you ended, I find too many highly opinionated (but not knowledgeable) posters appear to have virtually no real knowledge of the global issues we face, climate change specifics, the advancement of EV technology, economic forces and models, population dynamics, and as well appear to have only a superifcial understanding of the connection between them all as manifested in the current EV evolution (and not revolution). Too many haters and dinosaurs emptying their spleen. CT asked very politley in the thread title for people to keep politics out of this, but some cannot resist nibbling around the edges in very provocative ways, virtually taunting others to respond.

[alsancle]

1 hour ago, Gunsmoke said:

Peter, may be time for sadly another intervention. The AACA forums, even this "general discussion" forum is intended for members to discus old cars, a place where newbies and old-timers alike can get advice and insight on their old car from knowledgeable and experienced people. I find it a wonderful site in that way. But if a newbie was to waste their time pouring thru this "initially well intended thread", he/she would think many of us are a bunch of clowns. In this thread and the previous one you ended, I find too many highly opinionated (but not knowledgeable) posters appear to have virtually no real knowledge of the global issues we face,

 

Just so I understand,  you are saying the conversation should end because you don't agree with the arguments being presented?   Even though the entire thread seems fairly tame and polite to me?

 

 

 

[Gunsmoke]

Just so I understand,  you are saying the conversation should end because you don't agree with the arguments being presented?   Even though the entire thread seems fairly tame and polite to me?

 

No. The AACA site/forums are not inteneded to be platforms for arguments! They are intended to be platforms for passing on knowledge and fact, and not a platform for unsupportable and over the top unfounded opinion and derision. I believe the reason it has stayed somewhat "tame and polite" is because the knowledge and fact people have chosen to withdraw. 

[auburnseeker]

Not sure if it was mentioned anywhere.  How many miles/ charges can an electric go?  Will they as well reach the 200,000 mile mark before battery replacements? 

[auburnseeker]

3 minutes ago, Gunsmoke said:

I believe the reason it has stayed somewhat "tame and polite" is because the knowledge and fact people have chosen to withdraw. 

Not really,  I just chose to try to keep a level head and present my thoughts and questions in a way as not to offend anyone and ask genuine questions to help me understand the other side of the coin.  

AACA is all about wheels and until there are hover models,  I think it's acceptable on this forum.   Not so far in the future they will be on the AACA show field.  We have discussed many other vehicles too new to qualify as old cars in other threads all in an effort to educate. 

There are no other forums I contribute to that I can learn what I have so far about EV's. 

I imagine if you joined an EV forum it would be extremely one sided and few would question what is presented as facts for they would be banned. 

[Curti]

I may have missed it, but wasn't the Chevy Volt the best of both worlds ?

[Gunsmoke]

Listen closely to what this Professor of physics from Princeton and former director of Science with Dept of Energy says about climate change. One very important fact he states (para) "C02 levels have never been lower than they are right now"

 

As an example of mis-information, this clip above purports to be a climate science professor from Princeton, on Fox, poo-poohing the climate threat being created partially by human beings. Not until the end of it are we told he is retired (old dog new tricks), and never taught climate science. He taught physics, and specifically mechanics or such. He is not known as a knowledgeable climate guru. As I have said, look for knowledge where you know the source is reliable. If I want advice on a 1931 Chrysler egnine rebuild, I don't ask my neighbor who drives a 2006 Chrysler Crossfire. Knowledge is not opinion.

[auburnseeker]

I've always wondered how they can determine the exact CO2 output of humans when Mother nature does something like smoke a big section of CA with a forest Fire. We are burning through controlled exhaust to limit emmissions in our cars,  she just burnt everything is site from the paint to the tires and all the plastic inside,  not to mention the garage and fiberglass shingles on the garage it was in as well as the trash in the can by the curb. 

Seems like it would be a hard science to pin anything down Without monitoring every single ICE as well as smoke stack from stoves and barbecues as we all know some cars are far from fresh and pollute more than others.  Lots of blanket accusations.    Iwouldn't want to have to solidly debate it either way as each argument must have huge holes in it. 

[Locomobile]

There is an old saying with attorneys: "If you have no evidence, pound the facts, if you have no facts, pound the evidence, if you have neither, pound the table" 

 

That is what the climate changers are doing. I've not seen one credible study that supports the world is going to end in 12 years. Everyone should agree that climate change is real, the issue is how man is affecting it.

 

It's nearly impossible to have a discussion about EV's without discussing climate as that is the alleged reason for their very existence.

 

The Physics professor from Princeton University in the video also served as Director of Science for the US Dept of Energy, it's logical that working in that capacity he would have an academic grasp of climate study. People do have the ability to know about two different things.

 

-Ron

Edited May 5, 2019 by Locomobile (see edit history)

[Gunsmoke]

In an effort to place some "facts" on the subject, here is a chart from the International Energy Agency regarding each of the top 20 country's share of CO2 emissions annually, in both total Million Metric Tons (MMT) and Per Capita Metric Tons (PCMT) from fuel combustion. (I penciled in the populations). While it is only one set of facts among many, it clearly signals the wide variation among countries and highlights the big CO2 emitters (both gross and per capita)and the small emitters. The top 4 emitters in total MMT are China (28% of world total), USA(15%), India(6%), and Russia(4%), emitting about 53% of all world-wide emissions. The other 200 countries of the world share the remaining 47%. On a per-capita basis, it is a much different story, the top 4 emitters by a wide margin are Saudi Arabia, Australia, the USA and sadly, my country Canada, all with PCMT emissions exceeding 15.3 metric tons per capita. Factors of level of industrial development and large geography contribute to these per-capita numbers, but none-the-less, the figures are a concern. 

 

Note some of the much lower contributors, mostly in the southern hemisphere. Notably, Brazil with 210M people is at 2.17 PCMT, Indonesia with 264M people is at 1.72 PCMT, and India with 1.34B people is at 1.58 PCMT. 

 

So in any debate/discussion of the merits of renewable energy, reduction of greenhouse gasses, leaving a better planet for your descendents, respecting the rights of other countries to share the planet and its climate, and so on, I encourage everyone to reflect on just what they and their country are really doing to improve the situation.  If many of the under-developed countries (India/Brazil/Indonesia for example with 1.8B people) ever move towards the levels of PCMT's of the top 4, we will be in big trouble if we are not already. 

[Bhigdog]

1 hour ago, Gunsmoke said:

No. The AACA site/forums are not inteneded to be platforms for arguments! They are intended to be platforms for passing on knowledge and fact, and not a platform for unsupportable and over the top unfounded opinion

 

It appears when one agrees it's seen as "knowledge and fact". When one disagrees it's called "unfounded opinion".

As an aside: quite a bit of the "knowledge and fact" offered on this forum regarding old cars and the restoration and fixing of same is quite often "unfounded opinion". But like any other subject where the facts are unsettled and subject to interpretation it's wise to listen to other views rather than close ones mind.

Carry on boys........Carry on...................Bob

[auburnseeker]

How can they even make a chart like that without monitoring every source of combustion in each country?  At best it's a wild guess.  How can they put any real truth in those numbers.  I have 2 1940 Ford engines.  one rebuilt and stock one running 3 carbs with basically no exhaust.  I guess they could guesstimate,  but then again, the one hasn't run in 3 years and the other I ran last year for a couple of hours but actually only drove it about 3 miles.   Though I have bought fuel for them in the last last year.  Are they figuring it on Fuel sold?  If so that's Highly impossible to calculate the pollutant from it as they don't know what it's being run in.   What about CO2 from campfires, Wood fired heating?  No one is calculating how many chord of firewood is being consumed. 

 

[1912Staver]

A big source of co2 emissions is the manufacturing of concrete.  Hard to see what material could replace it in a greener world.

 

Greg in Canada

[Locomobile]

1 hour ago, Gunsmoke said:

the figures are a concern. 

 

Why is that? They are numbers and estimated numbers and based on who knows what. Lots of scary numbers, like 188,000 cubic feet of water flows through the Detroit river every second, it doesn't mean Toledo to the south of us in danger of flooding as a result.

 

I think we can all agree that the Climate is changing, always has, always will, we can all agree that man is emitting C02 in to the atmosphere, it's the result and effect that is being debated. Do you have any sort of credible scientific research that backs up the catastrophic effect man is having on the atmosphere. Let's get real here, if there was a credible, even remote possibility, globally speaking there were only 10 er so years left, there would be more than a handful of people in a few countries concerned about it. There would be worldwide panic. Climate science is being used as a vehicle to promote political agendas.

 

-Ron

Edited May 5, 2019 by Locomobile (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

My take is that climate change is happening . The various cause's are being identified however each sources overall contribution to the problem is still somewhat unproven / undefined. 

 

And I agree completely with Auburnseeker's warning that a legislative "ban " of IC engines could someday be a reality regardless of other modes of transport being any less of a climate change device or not.  For old car hobbyist's this is a real concern.

 

 I have attempted to illustrate that various cultural green house gas emissions comes from many sources, not just IC Automobiles. And that IC Automobiles may present a easy target for well intended but uninformed policy makers. Once again the threat to the old car hobby cannot in my estimation be overstated.

 

Greg in Canada

[Gunsmoke]

I gather you are looking for what some people call "alternative facts". The IEA is the world's authority on global energy use and bases it's numbers on all the macro/micro contributors to CO2 emissions. We can all choose what we want to accept as fact based. Anecdotal stories don't add up to global facts, and I doubt you will find one informed scientist anywhere who will have any meaningful disagreement with this data. How it gets interpreted or what it really means in terms of impacting climate is where facts meet hypothesis. I'm not going there. 

[alsancle]

Gunsmoke,  my healthy skepticism went full blown when "Global Warming" was re-marketed as  "Climate Change"  since the very small window of temp measurement data we had showed thing weren't really heating up.  

[Gunsmoke]

1912S, I agree that the old car hobbiests need to be aware of the potential impact of longer term "retirement" of IC engines as a means of propulsion. But I don't agree that fierce opposition to EV development or trashing it's proponents is our answer. We need to instead promote the wonderful and rewarding nature of the hobby, encourage legislators to accomodate the hobby in it's laws, and recognize the long and storied history of the IC engine driven car in shaping the country and its prosperity. Fear mongering by either side in this debate is not helpful.   

[Locomobile]

5 hours ago, Gunsmoke said:

I gather you are looking for what some people call "alternative facts".

 

No, I was asking in earnest and without slant or bias, I try to keep an open mind on every subject, I can be convinced with credible evidence. Ya see, the problem is when they start talking about Climate change, it's packaged with socioeconomic issues. I mean seriously if all of mankind is going to be wiped out in as little as ten years, who gives a beep about a Federally guaranteed job or guaranteed income etc?  I mean, c'mon we're talking about all of mankind here, on orders of priority, mankind, vs a job and income, free college, the latter would fall pretty low on the list.

 

 

-Ron

Edited May 5, 2019 by Locomobile (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

3 hours ago, Gunsmoke said:

I gather you are looking for what some people call "alternative facts". The IEA is the world's authority on global energy use and bases it's numbers on all the macro/micro contributors to CO2 emissions. We can all choose what we want to accept as fact based. Anecdotal stories don't add up to global facts, and I doubt you will find one informed scientist anywhere who will have any meaningful disagreement with this data. How it gets interpreted or what it really means in terms of impacting climate is where facts meet hypothesis. I'm not going there. 

 

I am definitely not looking for "alternate facts". I must admit I have not made myself familiar with the IEA numbers. I will have to do that. 

 

However I definitely don't want to see a IC ban unless there is clear evidence that alternate forms of transport are substantially better for the planet . Entire life cycle/ all aspects. Minimum of 10% to make the exercise worthwhile.

Unfortunately this is an area where there are conflicting conclusions . And not just from those who some might call climate denier's. 

As far as I can see the environmental advantage of electric cars is far from a proven fact.

 

Greg in Canada

Edited May 5, 2019 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Gunsmoke]

alsuncle, I understand the change in terms was made because "global warming" was a narrower term, only implying incremental change in global temperature. The much broader term "Climate Change" reflects the more easily seen "on the ground' effects of global warming, Artic and Antartic and glacier ice melting, sea water levels rising, rising of ocean temperatures (with the associated effects on sea life as the food chain migrates to cooler waters), bigger and more frequent storms, floods, droughts, greater air quality issues, political and economic strife as the blame and shame game goes on. Some suggest we have 10 years to turn around our habits or the following decades will be much worse. Some say 30 years, but does it really matter. We (I'm 73) may escape having to deal with the consequences, but my grandschildren (I have 4) will not be so lucky. I would like to be part of the solution.

[Locomobile]

18 minutes ago, Gunsmoke said:

I would like to be part of the solution.

 

I think that goes for everyone, but first we it must be known there is a real problem and from what I can tell, that hasn't happened. It reminds me of what my Dad said about my first car "Son, your car is running fine, stop fixing it" There are only statistics that suggest there may be a problem. Anyways, I try to keep an open mind about it and when I see some hard science and am convinced, then I will be joining the charge, as it is right now, the lack of cause and effect evidence and the way it's presented. Nahh.

 

-Ron

[charlier]

 

Tesla is not the only EV maker in the market place. In November of 2018 Rivian introduced their R1T Pickup and R1S SUV. Their "skateboard" chassis features a Quad motor system with active torque vectoring. 0-60 in 3 seconds. Range is claimed to be 230 miles with the 105 Kwh battery and 400 miles with the 180 Kwh battery. Towing capacity is said to be 11,000 lbs. It is said to be able to ford water 3 feet deep. It has a lot of interesting features like the deep front trunk with power hood. The video below discusses a lot of the features.

 

Rivian R1T Electric Pickup Walkaround

 

Hopefully there will be an option for a longer bed because the current bed is a little less than 5 feet which could be an issue for those that want to actually haul something in the bed of this truck. The starting price of the base Truck does not personally thrill me but hopefully over time that might come down. (Don't laugh too hard.) There are a LOT of questions regarding these vehicles that need to be answered among, them what charging technology they will use, how long it takes, etc. How many and where charging sources will be located.

 

Also interesting to note that Rivian has been working on these vehicles for years, put together an actual business plan and what appears to be an achievable timetable of mid next year (2020) to begin selling these vehicles. Before that, they plan driving events across the USA so people can actually DRIVE the vehicles before they order them. 

 

Very interesting to note that Amazon invested $700 million dollars in Rivian and Ford recently announced a $500 million dollar investment. The Ford deal is said to include rights to the Rivian "skateboard" technology as well as having Rivian produce a Ford version of the Truck. It has also been said that GM wanted to partner with Rivian but Rivian turned them down due to GM's insistence on exclusivity. 

 

Will be very interesting to see if Rivian actually delivers with their products and can be profitable. How their entry into the EV marketplace impacts others already doing business there should be fun to watch.  Choice and competition can be good for advancing technology and good for the consumer. The same might not be said for other EV makers in the marketplace. Stay tuned.

 

[Locomobile]

That truck looks like a real option for many, light local delivery service etc. I'll bet that battery is crazy expensive to replace though. i.e. 480 mile range 10,000 pound tow capacity, of course they didn't mention them together, pulling 10k is probably more like 100-150 miles. With my truck, pulling that kind of weight cuts the fuel economy in half. A long trip is a great way to clean out the checking account.

 

-Ron

[Bloo]

There is an old saying that a person who says something can't be done is often interrupted by someone doing it.

 

Several years ago, on a forum I used to frequent, somebody started a thread to complain about the Prius. As I recall it ran to about 30 pages. All the reasons it was going to fail were outlined in great detail. The technology is too new, there will be severe reliability problems. There wont really be enough difference in efficiency from the hybrid system to help. Batteries will fail in 2 or 3 years and cost a fortune, leaving owners with a useless car and a payment. Toyota will lose money on every one they make, and it will cause them to go broke. Batteries take more resources to manufacture than the fuel saved. There were numerous thread derails to the subject of diesels, and how they are "greener" (this was years before the Volkswagen story broke). There were many more reasons the Prius couldn't possibly be any good. Replies were passionate.

 

In 2002 my parents bought one. It outlasted both of them. I have been using it for a winter car for a few years now. It isn't my cup of tea, but it would be pretty hard to argue that was a bad purchase.

 

It has about 212,000 miles on it, and has never had any major repairs. The traction battery is original. It got about 40-43 MPG for most of its life (with the A/C on high), but has fallen to more like 32-35 lately. That might be battery age, or it might just be lack of use. In Central Washington we just don't have the stop-and-go driving conditions that push hybrid MPG figures into the stratosphere.

 

More recently, Toyota expanded the Prius from one model to a whole line. They don't seem to have any trouble selling them.

 

I have long maintained that when pure-electric vehicle range improved to the point that you could get to the next major community without a recharge, popularity would explode. Tesla did, and it is happening. I see Teslas on the mountain passes around here all the time.

 

Drive what you want. Don't worry too much about the other guy.

 

 

[Bhigdog]

Wondering if anyone has calculated the total energy expended by IC transportation per year in the USA, excluding aircraft, in units ( watts, btu, ergs, whatever ) and calculated the generation capacity, adjusted for line loss and down time, that would be required to meet those needs over and above normal electrical needs. Might want to factor in the environmental cost of land loss to wind turbines, solar arrays, and transmission lines. ............Just askin..........Bob

[alsancle]

Bob, are you trying to say the only viable way to generate enough electricity is nukes?  😀

[Locomobile]

To throw another ingredient in to the stew regarding EV's

 

Is it discussed or mentioned about the effects of Electromagnetic forces or EMF's on the human body? Sitting atop all that stored energy and the associated draw/current flow has to be exposing the occupants in the vehicle to dangerous levels of EMF's. EMF's can cause tumors and damage to the nervous system. Harmful to infants.

 

If you are sensitive to EMFs, you may experience symptoms like:¹

• Nervous system symptoms, like fatigue, stress and sleep disturbances
• Skin symptoms, like facial prickling, burning sensations and rashes
• Body symptoms, like pains and aches in your muscles
• Eye symptoms, such as burning sensations
• Foggy thinking and depression
• A variety of less common symptoms, like ear, nose, and throat symptoms and digestive disorders
• Infertility
• Leukemia in children, breast cancer or cancer clusters have been linked to high exposure to EMFs²

It's strange on this page they mention many electric things to avoid, but oddly have left out the electric cars.

 

https://bodyecology.com/articles/little-known-dangers-of-emf-php/

 

-Ron