You're Being Lied to About Electric Cars

[easyrider]

The goverment mandates didn't come into the picture until after the free market (Tesla) brought mass market BEVs to the masses. The incoming administration will eliminate the mandates, which likely won't hurt Tesla at all, given it's also very likely the oil and gas industry subsidies will also be eliminated in the process - producing a real level playing field for once.

The mandates are what is causing the legacy auto makers to loose so much money. Mandates on vehicles have been around for as long as I can remember in some form since un-leaded gas was mandated. Why would oil loose it's subsidies ? If anything, oil subsidies will increase and EV subsidies will be eliminated is what I think.

Bill

 

[emeryjre]

General Motors recorded record profits for the last 12 months
Ford has a problem with several new Internal Combustion Engines that is causing large warranty costs
Stellantis (Jeep) has had serious quality problems and sales have fallen

Profits are being diminished by internal problems way beyond EV manufacturing costs

 

[PigsDad]

I showed you a map of gas stations that show what the EV infrastructure will need to replace if everything goes EV. Do you really think that is going to happen ?

Again, you missed the point. Due to the dramatically different use model of how, when and where EVs are mostly charged, we do not need to replace the existing gas station infrastructure as it exists today. You don't seem to be able to grasp that concept, and I don't fee like babysitting your thought process any more so I am dropping out here. Good luck.

Kurt

 

[HitchHiker71]

The mandates are what is causing the legacy auto makers to loose so much money. Mandates on vehicles have been around for as long as I can remember in some form since un-leaded gas was mandated. Why would oil loose it's subsidies ? If anything, oil subsidies will increase and EV subsidies will be eliminated is what I think.

Bill

So why isn't Tesla losing so much money? Maybe you need to ask yourself why that is. It's not just economies of scale - it's a vastly more efficient manufacturing methodology that Tesla pioneered (based on Gigacasting) and continues to develop, that's why Tesla can build BEVs profitably, and this is precisely why the legacy manufacturers cannot build BEVs profitably (by a longshot). It quite frankly has nothing, nothing, to do with mandates as you purport. That's just an excuse being used by the legacy industry due to lack of innovation in a futile attempt to prop itself up and avoid obsolence over the next 10-20 years. Oil will lose it's subsidies because if we eliminate BEV subsidies, it's necessary to provide a level playing field, which means all subsidies should be eliminated. It may or may not actually happen, only time will tell.

 

[easyrider]

Again, you missed the point. Due to the dramatically different use model of how, when and where EVs are mostly charged, we do not need to replace the existing gas station infrastructure as it exists today. You don't seem to be able to grasp that concept, and I don't fee like babysitting your thought process any more so I am dropping out here. Good luck.

Kurt

You don't like to admit that ev's are not prime time and probably never will be. I get it. If every passenger ice vehicle was replaced by an EV the electrical generation systems are estimated to need a 50% more electricity capability than what exists now.

Bill

How much electricity would it take to power all cars if they were electric?

The US would need to produce 20-50% more electricity annually if all cars were electric vehicles.

usafacts.org

​

 

[easyrider]

it's necessary to provide a level playing field

When has that ever happened ? How it works is the people with money, pay the people that make the rules, to make the rules favor them.

Tesla came out as a niche EV maker that made very expensive and very cool fast cars. Tesla is the only profitable EV maker in the USA because they have been at it the longest and they make a decent enough EV. Having an intelligent wealthy innovator like Elon Musk in charge is the main reason Tesla is profitable.

Bill

 

[Passepartout]

You don't like to admit that ev's are not prime time and probably never will be. I get it. If every passenger ice vehicle was replaced by an EV the electrical generation systems are estimated to need a 50% more electricity capability than what exists now.

Bill

How much electricity would it take to power all cars if they were electric?

The US would need to produce 20-50% more electricity annually if all cars were electric vehicles.

usafacts.org

I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over this. If there is a profit motive for something in demand, electricity can be generated in any number of ways. Entrepreneurial folks will figure out how to fill all those batteries while said consumers will fill the coffers of the entrepreneurs.

Most likely you and I won't live long enough to see this whole scenario work out, but it'll happen without us.

 

[easyrider]

I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over this. If there is a profit motive for something in demand, electricity can be generated in any number of ways. Entrepreneurial folks will figure out how to fill mall those batteries while said consumers will fill the coffers of the entrepreneurs.

Most likely you and I won't live long enough to see this whole scenario work out, but it'll happen without us.

You are probably right on this Jim. Until then I'm driving big ice.

Bill

 

[Passepartout]

You are probably right on this Jim. Until then I'm driving big ice.

Bill

Me too- - - Mostly. Anybody want a Tundra???

 

[PigsDad]

I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over this. If there is a profit motive for something in demand, electricity can be generated in any number of ways. Entrepreneurial folks will figure out how to fill all those batteries while said consumers will fill the coffers of the entrepreneurs.

Most likely you and I won't live long enough to see this whole scenario work out, but it'll happen without us.

Absolutely. The US produced 1200% more electricity in 2021 vs. 1950. Supply will fill the demand; that's good ole American capitalism at work. And anyone with half a mind knows that conversion to EVs doesn't happen overnight. Adding 50% capacity over the next couple decades is easily within reach.

Kurt

 

[letsgobobby]

Again, you missed the point. Due to the dramatically different use model of how, when and where EVs are mostly charged, we do not need to replace the existing gas station infrastructure as it exists today. You don't seem to be able to grasp that concept, and I don't fee like babysitting your thought process any more so I am dropping out here. Good luck.

Kurt

"I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed."

 

[easyrider]

Absolutely. The US produced 1200% more electricity in 2021 vs. 1950. Supply will fill the demand; that's good ole American capitalism at work. And anyone with half a mind knows that conversion to EVs doesn't happen overnight. Adding 50% capacity over the next couple decades is easily within reach.

Kurt

I doubt it. The problem is even if you can generate 50% more electricity you need a power grid that can handle the increase. To replace and add to the grid, there was an estimated cost of over 10 trillion + and an estimated time frame of between 30 - 50 years. If they relied on renewable energy they would be replacing turbines and solar farms about every 30 years not because they aren't functional but because they are depreciated out.

My bet is the current EV technology will be replaced with a better technology all together. I'm thinking it will be a synthetic fuel that the oil companies bring to their existing infrastructure if they can't sell gas.

Bill

 

[davidvel]

I doubt it. The problem is even if you can generate 50% more electricity you need a power grid that can handle the increase. To replace and add to the grid, there was an estimated cost of over 10 trillion + and an estimated time frame of between 30 - 50 years. If they relied on renewable energy they would be replacing turbines and solar farms about every 30 years not because they aren't functional but because they are depreciated out.

My bet is the current EV technology will be replaced with a better technology all together. I'm thinking it will be a synthetic fuel that the oil companies bring to their existing infrastructure if they can't sell gas.

Bill

Your bet? I think you mean your wish.

 

[PigsDad]

"I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed."

You captured my sentiment perfectly, @letsgobobby. Thanks for the chuckle!

Kurt

 

[pedro47]

How many electric chargers stations are needed in every state? How many electric chargers station will be needed in major cities liked New York, Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles?

 

[Passepartout]

How many electric chargers stations are needed in every state? How many electric chargers station will be needed in major cities liked New York, Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles?

The answer is- ENOUGH to meet demand. And the market will decide how many that is.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I doubt it. The problem is even if you can generate 50% more electricity you need a power grid that can handle the increase. To replace and add to the grid, there was an estimated cost of over 10 trillion + and an estimated time frame of between 30 - 50 years. If they relied on renewable energy they would be replacing turbines and solar farms about every 30 years not because they aren't functional but because they are depreciated out.

My bet is the current EV technology will be replaced with a better technology all together. I'm thinking it will be a synthetic fuel that the oil companies bring to their existing infrastructure if they can't sell gas.

Bill

Actually you don't - unless you make blanket assumptions that nothing changes - which is never accurate. Your assumption is that central power generation remains the only solution - which is exactly what solar power does not require. Solar power embraces democratization or distributed power generation that doesn't require any significant grid upgrades - outside of bi-directional power flow. The reason solar makes the most sense - is that with the current efficiency of solar panels - globally - if we placed panels (or solar roofing) on top of as little as 25-30% of roofs - that would generate over 17.5Tw of electricity - which is what the entire globe consumes for energy - not just electricity - I'm talking all energy - including all fossil fuel energies consumed. The beauty of a distributed power play is that the grid doesn't have to be expanded at all - the existing grid - for the most part - will service those entities that cannot generate their own power by redistributing excess solar power generation from other sources. In a distributed model - solar generates your power locally - and then distributes excess power back to the grid for consumption or for mass storage (using commercial battery storage farms which are already being deployed globally to eliminate peak power plants and to serve as the basis for this sea change in power generation in the future).

Even if we wanted to centralize solar power generation - if we converted 1.2% of the Sahara Desert to solar farming - that would generate 20Tw of power - which is more than enough to power the entire global energy consumption of 17.5Tw (which in the process eliminates all use of fossil fuels) - but introduces power transfer issues on a grand scale - hence the reason it's always better to embrace a distributed power generation model whenever possible - only using the grid to transfer excess power generated from distributed solar arrays to those who need it. There is no better technology than electric power for vehicles or anything else for these reasons. Synthetic fuels become pointless and, at the end of the day, still pollute the atmosphere when burned.

 

[emeryjre]

The ideal situation in California is to install solar panels and electrical storage batteries
If the solar panels are sized properly to allow an excess of solar power to recharge the batteries
If the residence has access to bi-directional power lines, excess power and stored power is sold back to the utility companies during peak load times
Also have enough power in the batteries to charge the electric chariot during the dark hours
At this point California generates excess electricity via solar at off peak times
Like early mornings
The problem is cost of installation
Generally solar panels, 2 Tesla Powerwalls and related necessary equipment and installation are around 40K upfront
This assumes I do not need to have my roof replaced before the installation
I still do not have access to bi-directional power lines in my area
Promised in Mid 2025
Will have to see what government incentives are available at the time of the final decision
There are still plenty of homes in California without solar panels installed
But the initial costs, maintenance, depreciation and replacement of equipment are still problematic for many homeowners
Especially the initial costs

 

[letsgobobby]

the "problem" is actually that it is far more efficient to build large solar parks than to install panels on everybody's house, but incentives aren't well set up for that.

the "problem" is that grids need large capacity storage for peak solar and wind production.

the "problem" is even if every house produced electricity, we still want a reliable, durable, stable grid and that costs tens of billions of dollars that someone has to pay.

but these are not insurmountable problems.

electrifying our daily lives is completely feasible.

electrifying long distance truck travel and air travel as well as heavy duty machinery for towing, construction, etc is more challenging .

 

[emeryjre]

Large scale production requires large power lines from one area to another
This has been a huge sticking point whenever large-scale production is proposed
If I need a solution today for MY electrical needs, I will have one as soon as bi-directional capacity is added to my area
I will pay for this grid upgrade by providing electricity for a fraction of the cost of other sources of wholesale power to the grid
The only downside for ME is the upfront cost

This solution does not solve my neighbor's problem
But if enough of us pay the upfront cost he can buy our excess electricity at a regulated price

 

[easyrider]

Actually you don't - unless you make blanket assumptions that nothing changes - which is never accurate. Your assumption is that central power generation remains the only solution - which is exactly what solar power does not require. Solar power embraces democratization or distributed power generation that doesn't require any significant grid upgrades - outside of bi-directional power flow. The reason solar makes the most sense - is that with the current efficiency of solar panels - globally - if we placed panels (or solar roofing) on top of as little as 25-30% of roofs - that would generate over 17.5Tw of electricity - which is what the entire globe consumes for energy - not just electricity - I'm talking all energy - including all fossil fuel energies consumed. The beauty of a distributed power play is that the grid doesn't have to be expanded at all - the existing grid - for the most part - will service those entities that cannot generate their own power by redistributing excess solar power generation from other sources. In a distributed model - solar generates your power locally - and then distributes excess power back to the grid for consumption or for mass storage (using commercial battery storage farms which are already being deployed globally to eliminate peak power plants and to serve as the basis for this sea change in power generation in the future).

Even if we wanted to centralize solar power generation - if we converted 1.2% of the Sahara Desert to solar farming - that would generate 20Tw of power - which is more than enough to power the entire global energy consumption of 17.5Tw (which in the process eliminates all use of fossil fuels) - but introduces power transfer issues on a grand scale - hence the reason it's always better to embrace a distributed power generation model whenever possible - only using the grid to transfer excess power generated from distributed solar arrays to those who need it. There is no better technology than electric power for vehicles or anything else for these reasons. Synthetic fuels become pointless and, at the end of the day, still pollute the atmosphere when burned.

Some things change but the one constant throughout time is greed.

Dynamic and static wireless charging of ev's is the only get around, imo. I'm not even sure it's possible on an industrial scale.

Synthetic oil and gas were invented in the early 1900's. Synthetic oil came to the market decades ago but wasn't manufactured in an industrial scale like it is now. Most new ice vehicles do call for the use of synthetic oil. Synthetic oil is now less expensive or comparable in costs to convention oil.

Synthetic gas is being used in racing. It's called Syngas. It wouldn't be difficult to produce Syngas in an industrial manner. The current infrastructure would be used, any vehicle that runs on gas probably can run on Syngas, including large engines and aircraft.

The use of Syngas would bolster our economy and make ev's less relevant globally.


Bill

 

[davidvel]

More interweb talking babble regurgitation. Woo-hoo!

 

[HitchHiker71]

Some things change but the one constant throughout time is greed.

Dynamic and static wireless charging of ev's is the only get around, imo. I'm not even sure it's possible on an industrial scale.

You mean like this?

The Tesla Cybercab won't even have a plug-in charger - wireless charging only - accomplished by Tesla's acquisition of Wiferion back in early 2023. The Cybercab's in use already only use wireless chargers today - the tech is already here - Tesla will drive this innovation and scale it just like they did to the entire EV sector over the past 15 years.

Synthetic oil and gas were invented in the early 1900's. Synthetic oil came to the market decades ago but wasn't manufactured in an industrial scale like it is now. Most new ice vehicles do call for the use of synthetic oil. Synthetic oil is now less expensive or comparable in costs to convention oil.

Synthetic gas is being used in racing. It's called Syngas. It wouldn't be difficult to produce Syngas in an industrial manner. The current infrastructure would be used, any vehicle that runs on gas probably can run on Syngas, including large engines and aircraft.

The use of Syngas would bolster our economy and make ev's less relevant globally.

Bill

All that still does nothing to solve for air pollution and carbon burn into the atmosphere.

 

[easyrider]

You mean like this?

The Tesla Cybercab won't even have a plug-in charger - wireless charging only - accomplished by Tesla's acquisition of Wiferion back in early 2023. The Cybercab's in use already only use wireless chargers today - the tech is already here - Tesla will drive this innovation and scale it just like they did to the entire EV sector over the past 15 years.


All that still does nothing to solve for air pollution and carbon burn into the atmosphere.

That wireless charging tech is really interesting. Does this use a version of Nicolas Tesla's induction coil ?

Syngas does reduce carbon and is renewable. The main benefit is any ice can use it no matter the age without modifications. There are many ways to manufacture Syngas including using atmospheric carbon scrubbers which remove carbon from the atmosphere. Probably the most interesting way to make Syngas would be to use a biomass like organic garbage, imo.

A big problem with ev's as a long term solution to anything is it isn't an inclusive tech regarding all things ice. Syngas, when manufactured using biomass or carbon capture solves this as any ice can use it and it's carbon neutral.

Bill

Producing synthetic gas from atmospheric carbon dioxide using a transition-metal-free catalyst

Japan has declared carbon neutrality by 2050 as a government target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. In order to substantially reduce CO2 emissions, it is important not only to control CO2 emissions through existing processes, but also to develop innovative processes to...

phys.org

 

[HitchHiker71]

That wireless charging tech is really interesting. Does this use a version of Nicolas Tesla's induction coil ?

It's basically an industrialized version of wireless inductive charging coils that are used on a much smaller scale for inductive chargers with smartphones and other wireless charging capable devices today. Here's an article on the four patents that Tesla filed related to the Robotaxi inductive charging system: https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/2247/tesla-files-patents-for-wireless-charging-the-robotaxi

That article doesn't go into much detail, but if you really want to dive into the patents, you can click on the link in the first patent and then do a search on the WIPO site to find the others (Tesla Inductive Charging). Contrary to popular myth - wireless inductive charging properly implemented is just as efficient as normal plug-in charging - when done right - this is the common negative response I see when addressing this particular topic.

Syngas does reduce carbon and is renewable. The main benefit is any ice can use it no matter the age without modifications. There are many ways to manufacture Syngas including using atmospheric carbon scrubbers which remove carbon from the atmosphere. Probably the most interesting way to make Syngas would be to use a biomass like organic garbage, imo.

A big problem with ev's as a long term solution to anything is it isn't an inclusive tech regarding all things ice. Syngas, when manufactured using biomass or carbon capture solves this as any ice can use it and it's carbon neutral.

Bill

Producing synthetic gas from atmospheric carbon dioxide using a transition-metal-free catalyst

Japan has declared carbon neutrality by 2050 as a government target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. In order to substantially reduce CO2 emissions, it is important not only to control CO2 emissions through existing processes, but also to develop innovative processes to...

phys.org

I hear you - and that's certainly better than nothing - but given batteries are 95% recyclable and the rest of the vehicle has far fewer moving parts, over time the simplicity and corresponding superior reliability of BEVs will win out - it's simply a question of when IMHO. I realize this may not be the 100% the case today, but it will increasingly become the case over time as battery tech improves and motor efficiency and reliability improve.