OT: Electric Vehicles--anyone driving them or seriously looked at them?

[Spaghetti Legs]

I’ve driven a Tesla for almost 11 years but never rented one. I’d like to but I don’t want to pay the premium for one. Almost rented a Model Y on our last family trip but decided to save $2-300 and go with a gas car. I think that’s probably the biggest reason people aren’t renting, with maybe the tech anxiety a not too distant second.

[Dlevy05]

Frankly electric vehicles don't make sense if you buy used. They only are reasonable if you buy new, write them off your business expenses, and expect to sell before the eight year mark, and only drive in town for short distances.

Charging is a pain and I wouldn't give up filling up at the pump for a multi-hour charge.

I'd never want to replace the battery on these things - I'd rather rebuild an engine any day of the week at a quarter to a tenth of the cost, if ever.

Also, Evs aren't green. They're terrible for our world and environment. The bs around climate change is a distraction from the true environmental issue which is resource extraction. The push toward EVs in the name of climate change is just a distraction from resource extraction and depletion - and the policy induced adoption is just designed to consolidate supply chains and create induced demand at the expense of the tax payer and average citizen. NO THANK YOU.

[kppolich]

Bought my Tesla used. Saved roughly 40% off new. No complaints, don't need the tax write off, I'll save the money off the front end and the warranty on the whole car including dual motors and battery is until 2028.

Charging is painless with the infrastructure in place. Home charger install took me an hour. No more trips to the dealer for recalls- they update over the air like your cell phone. I charge overnight when electricity is clean and cheap.

No more paying for gas, oil changes, transmission flush, differential fluid, radiator bs, or brake jobs (look it up) thanks to regenerative braking.

The technology in these things is amazing and I use full self driving every chance I get. It drives significantly better than I ever could. Maybe 5-8% reduced range when its cold out, but I'd give that up for the other comforts and safety features included all day long.

-Sage

[djg21]

Originally Posted by kppolich

Bought my Tesla used. Saved roughly 40% off new. No complaints, don't need the tax write off, I'll save the money off the front end and the warranty on the whole car including dual motors and battery is until 2028.

Charging is painless with the infrastructure in place. Home charger install took me an hour. No more trips to the dealer for recalls- they update over the air like your cell phone. I charge overnight when electricity is clean and cheap.

No more paying for gas, oil changes, transmission flush, differential fluid, radiator bs, or brake jobs (look it up) thanks to regenerative braking.

The technology in these things is amazing and I use full self driving every chance I get. It drives significantly better than I ever could. Maybe 5-8% reduced range when its cold out, but I'd give that up for the other comforts and safety features included all day long.

-Sage

I would have bought one but for Elon Musk. We got a Rav 4 hybrid instead. I want an Hyundai Ionic 5n for my next car.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by djg21

I would have bought one but for Elon Musk.

I bet many other car buyers out there have made the very same decision for the same reason.

[bikinchris]

Originally Posted by Dlevy05

Frankly electric vehicles don't make sense if you buy used. They only are reasonable if you buy new, write them off your business expenses, and expect to sell before the eight year mark, and only drive in town for short distances.

Charging is a pain and I wouldn't give up filling up at the pump for a multi-hour charge.

I'd never want to replace the battery on these things - I'd rather rebuild an engine any day of the week at a quarter to a tenth of the cost, if ever.

Also, Evs aren't green. They're terrible for our world and environment. The bs around climate change is a distraction from the true environmental issue which is resource extraction. The push toward EVs in the name of climate change is just a distraction from resource extraction and depletion - and the policy induced adoption is just designed to consolidate supply chains and create induced demand at the expense of the tax payer and average citizen. NO THANK YOU.

Almost everything you just posted is either outright incorrect or a talking point by oil to shade EVs in a way that's not fair. EVs are just a tiny step in the correct direction to make cities cleaner and reduce dependency on oil companies.
MOST people drive short distances. Batteries, when used correctly are lasting much longer than projected. It won't be long before aftermarket products start making replacement batteries and recycling and rebuilding batteries is common. Eva are much greener than the oil companies propaganda would have people believe and newer battery technology will make them even cleaner, less "extraction" intensive and last even longer.
Charging station support for fast charging is about at the same level as 1920 for cars and it won't be long before it will catch up to something similar to gas station support we are used to. If you want to talk about taxpayer support, let's talk about the $billions given away to the most profitable corporations in world history every year.
Here is something about the "dirty" evs.
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/02/22...ions-myth/amp/

[sipmeister]

Originally Posted by Dlevy05

Also, Evs aren't green. They're terrible for our world and environment. The bs around climate change is a distraction from the true environmental issue which is resource extraction. The push toward EVs in the name of climate change is just a distraction from resource extraction and depletion - and the policy induced adoption is just designed to consolidate supply chains and create induced demand at the expense of the tax payer and average citizen. NO THANK YOU.

Valid points made that the news doesn’t highlight. The mines to produce copper, cobalt, lithium, silver and all the other rare earth minerals that are needed do not exist. To meet carbon neutral fantasies will take more natural resource extraction than has happened to date on the planet. How the hell is that green? I don’t see a wind turbine farm powering a wind turbine factory? I don’t see a solar panel field powering a mine to extract all those raw materials. If has to be subsidized that tells me it’s not economically viable. That tax credit is a joke.

[Tickdoc]

Originally Posted by Dlevy05

Frankly electric vehicles don't make sense if you buy used. They only are reasonable if you buy new, write them off your business expenses, and expect to sell before the eight year mark, and only drive in town for short distances.

Seriously considering getting rid of my beloved k10 for all of the above reasons.

I’ve been rowing over what to do for a year now and I think the rivian makes the most sense.

I can deduct a portion of it, it satisfies my need of a truck, it’s fast af, and it is the perfect size for me. Don’t need it for road trips, don’t need to keep it forever, and now that it has been out for over a year, it is proving to show itself reliable.

Downsides include I hate the looks of the front end, it’s pricey, and my dog can’t lay next to me like he can in the k10. Seriously.

For the same money I can get a completely topped out full size truck, but the rivian is garageable. For way less I can get a new Tacoma, but it is smallish inside by comparison. The rivian strikes the Goldilocks size for me between mid sizers and full size.

I drive like 10 miles a day, maybe 20 max.

I still have my mustang for gas burning loud fun.

I’ve been debating this for so long now I just can’t decide. I like the ridge line, I like the tundra, I like the new Tacoma, and I like the big three offerings as well. I can test drive all of those but the rivian pretty easily.

I’ve got 220 installed in my garage ready to charge whatever I end up getting, but it doesn’t really matter to me if it is electric. Gas is cheap and the business pays for it so even if I go full sized I’m fine w 14 mpg.

I guess I need to start test driving so I can check off the ones I don’t want, but I’m stalling because I don’t want dealers hounding me daily after. Direct to consumer is another huge plus for the rivian. I’ve never struggled with getting a next car this much, and a big part of it is I’m in no real hurry.

[Dlevy05]

The article written on the study you've quoted gets many things flat out wrong. I've not written talking points by the oil industry, as you claim - don't try to attack someone personally when you are supposed to be discussing a topic.

The article you cite very poorly references a study with no acknowledgement of their bias or the parameters set for the study. The study you've referenced is also completely flawed:

In that despite their attempt at using NEMS for the lifecycle analysis, it does not account for the difference in useful lifespan between the EVs and ICEs, nor does it account for the fact that EVs are rendered totalled once their batteries go and must reasonably be scrapped or fixed at a cost greater than the value of a car (or the purchase price of another vehicle). Their model fails to incorporate the increase in overall vehicle consumption and increased emissions from this increased rate, accordingly.

It assumes that a carbon tax is levied upon the vehicles, again creating induced demand penalising the utility of a vehicle the emits carbon with a higher carbon tax, while not penalising (actually the opposite, subsidising) a vehicle that was built with greater emissions and not applying the carbon tax to the carbon cost of EVB production. At the same time it assumes a rebate on EVB driven vehicles is accounted for in their price comparisons instead of disaggregating for this - again, not possible nor sustainable to produce without policy induced demand, and ultimately a cost the consumer bears - worse when it's even the consumers that opt to not buy one whose taxes pay for such subsidies.

If you actually look at the data within the study, it also assumes variable rates in the cost of electricity and gasoline that are not consistent with one another, does not account for the way energy is produced and underestimates the cost of energy. The study also does not account for differences in petrol/diesel vs electricity cost and supply by region - which is essential to understand cost of ownership, and further does not account for cost of ownership without subsidy.

The study further goes out of its way to hide the fact that even their own data shows that EBVs cost significantly more for the consumer than ICE's even by their own 2050 projections and the data clearly shows how they intend to make EV's competitive in price through both rebates on EVs and taxes on ICE's, without this even by 2050 numbers wouldn't sustainably support EV adoption rates.

Worse, under the optimistic assumptions of 70k miles before an EV breaks even on increased emissions from production relative to decreased emissions from usage - the study does not acknowledge the increase in carbon necessary to sustain greater EV production than ICE production due to the shorter lifetimes of EVs. The study further does not acknowledge that there is too slim of a margin between the 70k miles before the emissions break even vs the lifetime of the average battery (c.10 years), nor does it account for the fact that where EVs are most feasible (urban areas) the 70k miles would likely take the lifetime of the battery to achieve, if not more. Also, the study doesn't account for differences in EVB type - essential to do if you want to quantify EVB emission output for production, nor does it account for the vast differences in EVB size per vehicle, further increasing carbon emissions. The EVs that people are buying with the largest batteries have the greatest production emissions and the most viable types of battery cells for EV production have the greatest carbon emissions and require increased critical minerals inputs.

Moreover - the way the study cherry picks metals consumption to analyse is flat out ignorant - they only show aluminium and copper, two materials that are not in critical undersupply.

Limiting factors to EVB production are the lithium itself - which there isn't enough in the world to sustain vehicle production in the world at our current rates of automotive use. And nickel - which is scarce but also critically underproduced currently.

Countries want to scale lithium mine production and gain access to lithium mining concessions and engage in active extraction because controlling the world's lithium is just as important for EVBs as it is for the military - as lithium is an essential component in certain types of warhead construction. Allowing for the extraction of lithium through induced demand for EVB production through the taxation of other forms of transport decreases the material cost/unit for the defence industry.

EV's have their place - as I've said. If you have so much money that you can afford to replace the battery of your EV instead of maintaining a much cheaper ICE, good for you - you should do that.

But don't tell others what they should do or how they should spend their money either, nor expect the government to force people into your agenda so they will be forced to purchase what you want at a higher cost for them than the alternative.

I like to buy and ride bicycles with my extra money - not waste it on EVB's, thanks.


EDIT: I just want to write an edit to make one thing clear. I'd own an EV under the conditions I said above. I also want to highlight the issues with your article and the underlying study are similar to the issues with almost every study on the matter. It's important that people on this forum and in this world know how to look at datasets critically, understand the underlying methodologies of the study, and genuinely listen to criticism from others because the reasons why they have opinions (as opposed to what those opinions are) may be based on a greater understanding of the economy, the world, the industry or sector, or the utility or consumption habits behind consumer choices. Every study is going to be flawed and limited in methodology, but many studies these days are designed to greenwash, and even if the study isn't, many articles are.

The biggest fallacy that people fall into is that 'big oil' is somehow something different than the resource extraction companies that mine critical, precious, and base minerals/metals. They are not. BP first promoted and popularised the term 'Carbon Footprint'! While we don't need to be privy to the inner workings of these companies to make a critical assessment here, the simple fact is the extractives sector is filled with players whose job it is to extract. We need them, they are useful to us, and they do difficult work at tremendous cost, with insane levels of risk - BUT a push from any corporation to increase consumption in the sector they're in, needs to be taken at face value - and oil companies are not different than any other resource extraction company. Portfolios of oil companies specifically include renewable energy like solar, wind and hydro generation, and other forms of onshore and off-shore resource extraction, allocation, distribution, processing, and production. There is simply no such thing as 'big oil' and there hasn't been since perhaps 50 years ago.

The reasons for this induced demand are clear: greater control, induced consumer demand for essential purchases, induced demand for more consumerist driven purchases (as we're being pushed to buy something that doesn't last as long as the alternative), control over resource extraction, emissions taxes on consumers that lower their purchasing power for discretionary spending and increase their tax obligations, control over resource reserves, resource extraction, and finite recourse depletion, etc... Now I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, but there is an alignment of interests and it's clear to critically assess cause and effect when you look at proposed policy measures forced to increase household spending and induce demand for purchases that are not sustainable, and ultimately cost the average household much more (not just than the alternative) but also purchase frequency over the average household lifetime than the alternative.

Originally Posted by bikinchris

Almost everything you just posted is either outright incorrect or a talking point by oil to shade EVs in a way that's not fair. EVs are just a tiny step in the correct direction to make cities cleaner and reduce dependency on oil companies.
MOST people drive short distances. Batteries, when used correctly are lasting much longer than projected. It won't be long before aftermarket products start making replacement batteries and recycling and rebuilding batteries is common. Eva are much greener than the oil companies propaganda would have people believe and newer battery technology will make them even cleaner, less "extraction" intensive and last even longer.
Charging station support for fast charging is about at the same level as 1920 for cars and it won't be long before it will catch up to something similar to gas station support we are used to. If you want to talk about taxpayer support, let's talk about the $billions given away to the most profitable corporations in world history every year.
Here is something about the "dirty" evs.
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/02/22...ions-myth/amp/

[572cv]

Dlevy pal, the argument is a very important one, engaging much of the planet.

However, your points would resonate and be more resilient in this forum if you did not include the ad-hominem comments. It’s just good discipline.

[Dlevy05]

Originally Posted by 572cv

Dlevy pal, the argument is a very important one, engaging much of the planet.

However, your points would resonate and be more resilient in this forum if you did not include the ad-hominem comments. It’s just good discipline.

Perhaps it wasn't reflected clearly, as I'd quoted the text below my response rather than above, I was only trying to say the same thing you are - that there's no place for ad-hominem comments. Appreciate your comment on this though and agree that its the best for the argument and this forum.

[zap]

Originally Posted by saab2000

I certainly won’t criticize your rental choice. But I will point out that charging is Tesla’s Ace of Spades. I won’t use the other card reference here to avoid saying that other word.

It takes way less time than most people think. That said, your other point on the learning curve is absolutely valid. If anyone in the western burbs wants a drive and a tutorial for future reference don’t hesitate to reach out!

If non Tesla owners rent a Tesla from Hertz can they use Tesla chargers? Other charging systems are not as reliable.

[trener1]

Originally Posted by zap

If non Tesla owners rent a Tesla from Hertz can they use Tesla chargers? Other charging systems are not as reliable.

I am pretty sure that they can.

[kppolich]

Originally Posted by trener1

I am pretty sure that they can.

If you can enter a credit card in the Tesla app you use any supercharger with a Tesla.
---
Yes. You can Supercharge a borrowed or rental vehicle just like you would if you were the vehicle owner. The Supercharging session will be charged to the payment method designated by the vehicle owner in the Tesla app, so make sure you are authorized to do so.

[verticaldoug]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27247-y

Here's the link for the study. I don't think it is paywalled so download the PDF>