To be clear, here was the post that started the whole scenario:
To me, that reads like 170 mile plus change. Pantastic later clarified that the trip was actually 235 miles.
You scoffed at using any distance for the ‘going out’ part instead of zero miles, and at least one other person mocked the idea of using even the short 10 mile distance with something like ‘oh, and you’re living somewhere where nothing is within 10 miles of anything else’.
Again, you shouldn’t take a scenario that is loosely described in an off-the-cuff post, make up your own numbers for it and add weird assumptions that don’t make sense, then use those numbers to argue that what the person said about the scenario isn’t true, then complain that the other person is ‘goalpost moving’ when they correct you.
That’s not true at all. If it were just a few extra miles, I’d have considered that “change”. But it was an extra 20 miles, and then you added another commute on top even though you said “then come home after the weekend.”
That was me, too. I’m allowed a bit of snark. I didn’t call you a liar or anything.
Look, I hope it’s obvious from this thread that EV supporters have to wade through a tremendous amount of bullshit from the “opposition” (see post 13 back at the beginning). So it’s helpful if everyone in a discussion can lay out clearly what their individual scenario is so that we can evaluate if it’s something that EVs can support or not. It’s immensely frustrating to respond to something and then have it turn out to be something else.
If an EV doesn’t work for you, fine–no one claimed otherwise. But let’s also do an honest evaluation. They work for a lot more people than is generally thought. The public’s perception of EVs is far behind their actual reality.
Thanks. And similar to people countering your OP, there have been many, many threads where people claim that no one needs and SUV/4x4. I guess I bring it up because many people can’t seem to see beyond their own needs. The EV vs ICE / SUV vs sedan debate is somewhat similar.
I’m all for EV’s myself. None would work for me at this time though.
No, I have not.
I have never said, nor implied that “273 million Americans live in areas where driving more than 50 miles in a day is so rare it’s an edge case.”
You are incorrect. To be kind, you have misinterpreted “my words preserved in this thread”. I have quoted statistics that say the average commute is 32 miles round trip. This means that fully half of commuters travel less than this distance to and from work every day. I have repeatedly said that an EV is not for everyone, and there are cases where an EV makes no sense for a particular driver. You included.
You, however have indeed argued that we must take into account that everyone must account for a scenario like “that’s 50 miles for the commute, another 20 or so miles for going out, then 25 miles for the commute, 60 miles to friend’s house, 60 miles back to work, 25 miles to home. That’s 235 miles of driving”
And then you implied that all you said was “10 miles drive for ‘going out’ on an evening.” Actually it turned into 235 miles in order to make your point.
I think this entire thread would have a lot less punch to it if auto manufacturers had focused on introducing EVs as the commuter/second car, and then worked everyone up to the idea of replacing a truck/long-range vehicle/SUV, etc.
But Tesla decided to leapfrog and start with a vehicle that put cross-country driving within reach (if not exactly care-free.) Then they muddied the waters even more by building their own charging network, which could only be used by Tesla drivers.
This breaks out to many people arguing from the perspective of - for example - a Nissan Leaf, which is a viable choice as a commuter/second car for most people; vs. a bigger, more expensive, more powerful, longer-range Tesla with a network of high-speed chargers.
I get Tesla’s marketing decision to put out the most expensive models first, and let the technology trickle down to cheaper models. But when you’re pushing luxury and the rest of the manufacturers are pushing economy, that puts out a highly mixed message.
Nobody ever said Above average is an “edge case that’s not worth considering”.
You certainly do like putting words in other people’s mouths.
Interestingly, I went back in this thread and looked at who has been talking about “edge cases”:
Gorsnak initially brought this phrase up in post 173 in response to a post that talked about someone driving 500 miles to a hotel, and needing to immediately charge up using a supercharger. This person said that an EV needed “virtually infinite miles.” Gorsnak said this was an “edge case”.
Who brought the term up next? You did.
In posts 432 - accused Dr. Strangelove of acting like it’s a “weird edge case to consider that people might remember to plug things in”
Post 436 - you repeat your “weird edge case” wording
post 481 - You say that EV drivers pretend that ordinary distances are some kind of weird edge case
Post 483 - you mention “edge cases” again.
You do a lot of accusing others here. A lot.
You seem to do an excellent job of accusing everyone else of doing what you actually do yourself. Good luck with that.
Yeah, I think you are on to something. I think there are several affordable electric vehicles out there that are perfectly viable, and moderately competitive, as the city car/commuter car in a household that either doesn’t really need a car, or has a second car for long trips. There are certainly some that would work for me if the two of us had two cars to share.
Then there’s the Tesla, trying to make a case for a luxury car that’s suitable for road trips. And they’ve kinda succeeded – I have a couple of friends who use them that way – but the Tesla is a niche luxury car, not a bread-and-butter car that competes with the junker you take to the train every morning. It does create a weird overall message.
Good points. A LEAF is an excellent city car, great as a 2nd car if you need to do longer road trips in more remote areas with your ICE car. But I do appreciate that Tesla has pretty much put to rest the garbage that I heard a few years ago about EV’s in general:
“Just shitty golf carts that have no power. I want a REAL car that can perform.”
“EV’s can go no more than 20 miles on a charge”
The Tesla Model X and S blew these talking points out of the water.
I think Musk’s plan was first to make EV’s cool, and something to aspire to, something desirable. And then bring a more affordable EV to the masses. Maybe a dumb plan, maybe not.
I did not add any miles or another commute to the scenario, I in fact made no change to it. You decided to ‘interpret’ my scenario in a nonsensical way both by assuming a zero distance for ‘going out’ and by assuming that the first part of the scenario was not actually part of the trip. And you did this so you could claim that my scenario didn’t support the later statement in my post even though with my clarifications it exactly fit the later statement, it was only with your ‘assumptions’ that it didn’t. As I’ve said before and will repeat, you don’t get to make your on assertions and then complain that the other person is ‘moving the goalposts’ when they point out that your assertions are incorrect.
Your ‘snark’ clearly implied that making a trip to and from a destination 10 miles away was in some way an unrealistic or unreasonable thing to include in an actual use case. It highlights how out of touch the most vocal EV proponents are with actual driving in this thread.
I think that the lack of honest evaluation falls on people who claim that chargers are always conveniently located and never have wait times when Tesla’s own website shows plenty of populated area where the only charger is 20 or more minutes out of the way (in one case, 70 miles) and the actual use case for Thanksgiving weekend had people stuck waiting for literal hours to use chargers right in the middle of the area with the best charger availability.
No I didn’t argue that “everyone must account for” that scenario. Just didn’t, plain and simple.
If I was claiming that you literally used the phrase ‘edge cases’, this might be relevant. But I didn’t say that you used the phrase, but rather that EV proponents are treating certain scenarios as weird edge cases when they’re not.
No, we’re not. You keep claiming this, I know.
There are many people for whom an EV will not work.
If you drive a great many miles in a week and have no access to home charging and the local charging infrastructure is poor - do not get an EV.
Again, the whole point comes down to; How many people will an EV actually work for? I say “quite a large number - in fact, many who have not considered one would actually be ideal cases for getting an EV right now. Plus, in future, the case for buying an EV will be expanded to include even more people as range and infrastructure improves”
Now you might say that what I really mean is that as an EV proponent, I am treating a bunch of ICE drivers as weird edge cases, but trust me, I am not.
I literally had a conversation in another group with a gentleman who was the epitome of goalpost moving.
He started out by claiming that an EV would not handle his 50 km round trip commute, plus trips to the grocery store. When this was conclusively proved false, his commute kept getting longer and more arduous. It started getting comical.
We ended up with him talking about driving weekly from Vancouver to Yellowknife, in the middle of winter - a distance of 2400 km. I was forced to confess that there were no EV chargers on theTŁĮCHǪ Winter Road.
1)Look again. He refers specifically to EVs driving on roads. So, not container ships and not offroad but replacements for vehicles already on roadways, and to be fair in developed nations for the most part. That the discussion has primarily turned to Tesla is due to the fact that they are the most popular passenger EV in developed countries. Further, if you don’t have a stable infrastructure already for ICE vehicles, EVs aren’t going to fare much better.
- My second point is that developing infrastructure like a power grid and a landline based telco is vastly more expensive than running up cell towers and decentralized power grids, especially if you don’t have/ can’t put in decent roads. If you don’t have decent roads, it doesn’t matter whether you have EVs or ICE vehicles because both are going to be problematic. Finding parts for a Diesel Toyota Hi-Lux in the middle of the Bolivian jungle is going to be just as difficult as a Rivian.
Sometime in the future, you could build an infrastructure to make vehicles easy to mobilize within these places, it would be possible to run renewables and batteries just as easily as gas stations in out of the way places that will require frequent refuelling. Where will that fuel come from? It will have to be trucked or airlifted in. Wouldn’t it make more sense to run EVs that have self-filling stations (solar/wind/ pocket nuke…) if you have to start from scratch?
TL;DR The areas that are best served by most EVs right now already have the infrastructure in place. Talking about EVs in the third world leads to a discussion like my second point and that is wide of EP’s post.
-
Your reference to container ships is therefore completely irrelevant to road vehicles. Nowhere in the discussions so far has anyone said that ICE vehicle are completely redundant.
-
Britain has had electric milk floats for decades. The point is that those tuk tuks and rickshaws were people or animal powered not too long ago and in time, the same tech trickle down will happen with them as well. As Macgiver has pointed out on this and other threads, the battery tech has to be faster charging and much cheaper. Once that happens, the I suspect you’ll see more of the world going electric, too. It will just take longer.
Really TL;DR: The point is that there is a lot of willful misinformation going on and it makes it really difficult to parse whether replacing your car or truck with a pure EV is a proposition worth pursuing for one’s unique situation. Unless that’s very wide of the mark, I think that’s what we were talking about.
The more expensive ones can. But most used worldwide are like the ones I shared in my previous posts, and they can’t.
I think you’re seriously underestimating the number of people who live in an apartment & or city rowhouse/brownstone who don’t have dedicated parking near an appropriate power source. I think the Dope tends to skew older (which typically means wealthier) so this poll isn’t indicative of the population in general.
Secondly, I wouldn’t even consider one if I couldn’t use home charging. I can fill my gas tank in 4 mins. Last week I actually made a specific trip to the gas station because I only had about ⅓ of a tank & I was leaving a dark:30 the next morning for holiday road trip, before the gas stations opened; even with the drive to/from the gas station it only took me 12 mins & that was to 100% full. It would be a real time waster if one had to regularly fill their car at a charging station instead of plugging in at home. Think how tough that would be if you had young kids & are a single parent, whether full time or just for the night because you spouse is out; especially in inclement weather.
Third, it’s not the local charging network it’s the ‘I’m traveling’ charging network that’s an issue. Calif is the best at that & even that failed miserably last week as the demand far exceeded the supply. One doesn’t have to go far out of their way or take much time to fill up an ICE vehicle; that can’t be said for an EV. People with young kids going to see the grandparents &/or people with elderly parents traveling once a month or every other month isn’t so unusual. If that trip is 125 miles or more one needs to fill up their vehicle to make it home. Are you putting in a Level 2 charger at someone else’s house? What if that’s not possible because they’re in a apartment/condo/retirement facility? What percentage/how many of Level 3 chargers won’t work for you if you have any EV other than a Tesla? Please don’t tell me to go somewhere specific like shopping or out for dinner just to charge my car because that is Pantastic’s “planning my life around my car”
We won’t need the improved infrastructure for driving because we’ll all have flying cars by then. :rolleyes:
EVs work for people who own their own home & who don’t travel, or have two cars which means they take the ICE for roadtrips. For others, we’re not there yet.
Most of the ones I shared in my previous posts can’t, and they’re mostly not tuk-tuks. They usually have a max. speed of 60 kph and can’t handle road slope beyond 15 degrees. There are EVs that can but there are also ICEVs that are cheaper and can do the same amount of work, if not more.
In general, the ones that are most helpful worldwide are BUVs because they can be used for all sorts of things, e.g, commuter and cargo carrier. They usually cost around $1,000 but even cheaper ones can be made using surplus diesel engines. There are EV equivalents depicted earlier but they’re not as powerful or not as cheap.
My point is that you need container ships, among others, to not only manufacture but even deliver EVs.
About requiring a stable infrastructure for ICEVs, how do you think infrastructure is developed in the first place? Through EVs?
Actually, you need decent roads for both.
Also, you need ICEVs to build decent roads. Actually, it can be done without them, but that takes much longer.
Only if EVs, not to mention self-filling stations, can all be manufactured magically. Otherwise, ICEs will be needed to mine resources, manufacture components, and ship them across lengthy supply chains.
Theoretically, though, it is possible to transition to a fossil-free global economy, but it may more than a century to do so. I think the cause is lag time and waste brought about by competition, but to avoid both will involve incredible levels of cooperation between countries, something that we have never seen.
Most important are sacrifices. Given biocapacity, economies have to adjust and meet basic needs first, especially for a population that will continue to increase due to momentum. That’s why EVs in the form of BUVs coupled with rail and other means to deliver necessities to communities will be critical, with ICEVs handling what EVs can’t using available fossil fuel resources.
EVs are used mostly for towns and cities in the Third World not because of lack of infrastructure but because the EVs that can deal with rough roads are expensive. That’s also why ICEVs often used due to lack of infrastructure.
Your second point contradicts your first: you claim that any discussion that involves lack of infra is wide off the OP, but your first point argues that areas with infra in place are best served by EVs.
I was told that EVs can do what ICEVs can, which for me implies that ICEVs are seen as redundant. And yet it turns out that only expensive EVs can, and that even the manufacture and shipping of EVs require ICEVs.
That’s why my argument stands.
Do not confuse “will” with “is.”
But the situation I described is not unique.
You’re still on that? If you mean me then [expletives deleted]. I walked back nothing. My statement, which you repeatedly chopped, reads: “I’ll agree that even the most rugged EVs can’t handle rough roads… where the charging stations are rare and distant. That qualifies MANY rough roads, and blue highways, too.” The subject is not rough roads – unless you think blue highways are unpaved. The subject is currently inadequate infrastructure. Apology accepted in advance.
My drives into California metro areas take me past endless ranks of suburban pre-2000 apartment complexes with detached parking, occasionally covered but rarely with solar cells. Here and there are bulkier “affordable” housing projects with distant, dangerous parking. Then come wall-to-wall urban apartment blocks with down-the-street parking maybe. No 220v or even 120v outlets nearby - these places were not built for EVs. Costly retrofitting likely won’t happen anytime soon IMHO, not without massive subsidies, and guards to keep expensive hardware from walking off.
(Circa 1900, many US cities sported kerosene streetlights, each fueled from an unsecured tank in its base. Drivers of kerosene-fired ICEVs quietly siphoned free fuel from those handy civic sources. Maybe every electric lightpole now needs power outlets, as at some Indian casino parking lots I’ve seen.)
Yes, many scores of millions, maybe a majority of North Americans live, work, and play right now in places quite suited to passenger-hauling EVs. How many of them have nowhere to plug in for a charge? And how many live on unstable power grids?
ICEs dictated 20th-century development. This century, the US EV infrastructure build-out may equally re-stamp housing and living. Or private personal vehicles may mostly be abandoned for autonomous rentals, requiring much less social rebuilding - except converting garages into apartments. Yes, I see housing and vehicle crises intertwined.