Good question.

Several years ago, there were some electric vehicles for local use that had some level of popularity. They were kind of like a specialized electric golf cart.

It would have been an enormous mistake to buy one, though.

By the time the vehicle sold, the batteries were already pretty old. Many buyers apparently had to buy new batteries at inflated prices within months of buying the vehicles.

There was a big scam with their tax rebates on them, too. The dealerships would reportedly sell them to each other and claim the tax rebate. They'd then resell it as a new vehicle at new prices, but the buyer would not be able to claim the tax rebate because the dealer had already claimed it. And since the company considered the buyer to be the second owner, they would not honor the warranty at all.

I hope these problems no longer exists.

Buck Turgidson said:

---

All electric vehicles as they currently exist are of such limited utility that I think of them as a pointless gimmick. When you can fully charge your EV for 500miles of range in minutes, THEN they'll be competitive. In the meantime, hybrid technology makes a ton of sense. So I would expect technology to cause us to gradually adopt more fuel efficient big trucks and SUVs and one day all electric technology might be able to do the job. Throw into the mix the necessary infrastructure like beefing up our fragile power grid and building these future charging stations, and reality is years away from what is today just an enthusiasts fantasy.

---

The only way I would consider them is as a second vehicle for around town travel.

BTW, I'm not surprised at certain people rushing out to buy these stupid Lightnings. Some people place real economic value on being the first kid on their block to have the new technology. My Dad was like that - paid hundreds of dollars for a pocket calculator in the 1970s, paid a huge amount for a Betamax recorder when they came out, paid a fortune for one of those Land Cameras.. At least he never paid $5-6k for a crappy little Apple computer in the 1970s.

As a reaction to that I became the guy who yawns and says "come back when the bugs are worked out and the price is much lower".

Always follow the money.
Supposededly Pelosi family is up to their ears in electric investments. So why not pass laws favoring those investments?
I ventured over to business/investment board and there was a poster named Houstonag touting some penny stocks - lots of ags jumped on, then the stockscratered and he disappeared but he did say they were long term, so who knows? But he is being accused of pump and dump.
Anyway, one of the stocks is bmix, an outfit out of Brazil that is starting to mine lithium , the other is abml which is going to be a battery recycle company located in rural Nevada. Both to me, look like major polluters, but guess it is for the cause and money is to be made. Libs, your guys ain't any different, just speak out of both sides of their mouth better.

eric76 said:

---

Buck Turgidson said:

---

All electric vehicles as they currently exist are of such limited utility that I think of them as a pointless gimmick. When you can fully charge your EV for 500miles of range in minutes, THEN they'll be competitive. In the meantime, hybrid technology makes a ton of sense. So I would expect technology to cause us to gradually adopt more fuel efficient big trucks and SUVs and one day all electric technology might be able to do the job. Throw into the mix the necessary infrastructure like beefing up our fragile power grid and building these future charging stations, and reality is years away from what is today just an enthusiasts fantasy.

---

The only way I would consider them is as a second vehicle for around town travel.

---

Currently that's the only practical use for them. If you use an ev for travel outside a metro you are courting disaster

LDA9336 said:

---

Let the people that it makes sense for buy EV's, in the meantime let everyone else buy what makes sense for them. Govt just needs to stay out of the way while EV tech is in its infancy.

---

Current battery powered vehicles are like government required compact fluorescent bulbs.

The LED of automobiles hasn't arrived yet and I have no intention of participating.

Owlagdad said:

---

Discussion on WBAP this morning is how electric cars should pay for use tax for using roads. Petro is in anywhere from 40-50 cents in tax per gallon.

---

Also, given their weight, do electric vehicles reduce the longevity of roads? EVs wont have the same heat output so will we need to re-examine the logic and materials of our road and infrastructure construction?

Here's why we won't all be driving Electric Vehicles (EVs) anytime soon (or why petroleum isn't going away in our lifetimes).

First, adoption of EVs is going to continue to be slow. Unlike the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles that provided a marked improvement over the horse and buggy, EVs provide no real, tangible improvement over the ICE car to the consumer. They cost more, don't last as long (batteries at least), have a shorter range, and they take longer to "fuel". If you run out of "fuel" driving down the road, you are pretty much hosed as the energy they consume is inherently not portable without fixed infrastructure. They are only suited for those who are wealthy with disposable income who live in urban areas. That is basically who is buying them now. It is going to be a long time until the average family in Hearne will be driving an EV just based on the economics and benefits provided.

EVs require the build out of a distinct "fueling" infrastructure that does not currently exist. With slow adoption of EVs, there is little economic incentive to build this infrastructure.

But what if governments mandate it? They simply cannot due to reality.

First, there is the simple issue of replacing our current fleet of LDVs. Consider that we have about 300 million LDVs on the road in the US today. Each year, we replace about 17 million of them. The median age of a LDV on the road is 12 years with more or less Gaussian distribution. The median retirement age is 17 years. This means that if we banned new ICEs today (i.e. 100% adoption of EVs), it would still take over 20 years to hit 90% EVs on the road.

And that's just replacing the cars through attrition. If the government tries to ban ICEs from the road, they will have no choice but to subsidize the purchase of EVs. And this subsidy will have to be massive. Remember, the median age of a car on the road is 12 years, and they are retired around 17 years. That's a lot of older cars on the road which implies many households simply cannot afford a new vehicle. 300 million times $50,000 is an astronomical number, even by today's spending standards.

This is why I agree with the Energy Information Agency's (EIA) projection that, even in 2050, electricity will only be a few percent of the total energy consumed for transportation in the US. The overwhelming majority will continue to be gasoline/diesel/jet fuel.

See the first page:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/05%20AEO2021%20Transportation.pdf

Second edit to add link:

barnyard1996 said:

---

Still waiting for a lib to tell me what materials will be used to manufacture green technology.

---

Recycled Patagonia jackets.

That truck's range in the cold with the heater running will be 140 miles. And that's when the battery is brand new

Has Government ever considered that almost no one wants an electric car?

Fore Left! said:

---

That truck's range in the cold with the heater running will be 140 miles. And that's when the battery is brand new

---

So it will take 4-6 days to get to Florida?

All natural here.
The horse's name is Beto.

It is going to come down to:
Cost
Ease of use
Power

Sure electric vehicles have fewer systems, but their range is still limited.
Electric motors can be bad ass, but the range is limiting.
Zero motorcycles, HD Livewire, countless Ebikes seem to have more press than riders.
I like the Lordstown auto truck.
900hp and 700lbs of torque, four wheel drive, all great, but they are still not ready to mass produce.

For second commuter and errand cars, electric cars can make sense. For urban and suburban drivers who rarely or never need to travel long distances, they can make sense. Until we have subscription driverless vehicle services, electric cars will only be a fraction of vehicles simply because the range/charge time issue will remain relevant for most drivers until radically improved battery technology is adopted.

To the socialists politicians that are pushing EVs, the limited range is a feature not a bug. They don't want people freely moving around in ways that lets the public transport contraband and communicate and organize outside the prying eyes of government surveillance. If everyone is limited to driving EVs than everyone is naturally limited to a pretty limited range of movement.

Regarding the technology, a compromise is the best solution - the hybrid. You get the best of both worlds. You eliminate range limit, improve MPG (and emissions) over gas-only, and you can combine the power of electric and gas engine for bursts of torque and HP that neither can achieve alone.

TxTarpon said:

---

All natural here.
The horse's name is Beto.

---

Your horse gets drunk, crashes into people, then runs away?

Not to mention level 3 full self driving. Pretty handy on a 3-4 hour highway trip

No one is going to stop EVs. But I will still want a 1970s cow killer Lincoln for weekend driving.

Quote:

---

Not to mention level 3 full self driving. Pretty handy on a 3-4 hour highway trip.

---

Call me when we have self driving RVs. I want to crawl in the back with a beer and a book and wake up in Great Basin National Park

HumpitPuryear said:

---

To the socialists politicians that are pushing EVs, the limited range is a feature not a bug. They don't want people freely moving around in ways that lets the public transport contraband and communicate and organize outside the prying eyes of government surveillance. If everyone is limited to driving EVs than everyone is naturally limited to a pretty limited range of movement.

---

I think we are a long way from that, but I could see a situation where a town pisses off the government or an individual's social credit score is too low so the government cuts off their power or limits it enough they can't charge their car.

But I just bought a Humvee at auction so what the **** do I know.

Here's my personal analogy of electric vehicles, based on the performance of many laptop batteries and no actual electric vehicles.

Imagine when you buy a brand new car, it comes with a gas tank that leaks. It doesn't leak very much, so you only notice it if you don't drive the car for some time. You ask the dealer about it, and they say it is not a flaw in the design or a defect. That's just how it works.

So you go along fine for a year or two with the knowledge that you gas tank has a slow leak. Only you eventually realize you aren't getting as many miles from a tank of gas as you used to get. It appears the leak has gotten worse.

At some point you are losing about half your gas. You go back to the dealer, and he tells you he can install a new gas tank. For $10,000. And it has the same leaking problem.

To add to the metaphor, the new gas tank, like the old one, is built using black slave labor. And you're supposed to be proud of how smart you are to use this and ignore silly boilerplate language about how the company cares about conflict zones in Africa.

torrid said:

---

Here's my personal analogy of electric vehicles, based on the performance of many laptop batteries and no actual electric vehicles.

Imagine when you buy a brand new car, it comes with a gas tank that leaks. It doesn't leak very much, so you only notice it if you don't drive the car for some time. You ask the dealer about it, and they say it is not a flaw in the design or a defect. That's just how it works.

So you go along fine for a year or two with the knowledge that you gas tank has a slow leak. Only you eventually realize you aren't getting as many miles from a tank of gas as you used to get. It appears the leak has gotten worse.

At some point you are losing about half your gas. You go back to the dealer, and he tells you he can install a new gas tank. For $10,000. And it has the same leaking problem.

---

Good point, how much energy and electric generation fuel will be wasted due to batteries going bad needs to be considered.

If anyone remembers what the auto industry went through in the late 70s and early 80s? They were largely junk cars. Think about the Chrysler K series, the Ford Taurus, anything made by American Motors, etc.

The auto execs were sold a bill of goods and made some horrific decisions in gauging what the American car buying public wanted.

I fear the hype about EVs will be a similar miscalculation.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Until we have subscription driverless vehicle services

---

I know this is part of a larger post, but excellent point. This is the direction (I think) that transport is and should be headed. It is utterly absurd that I own 2 cars. They are -- by a long shot -- my most under-utilized assets. What would work best for me would be to own a fractional share in cars that guarantees I can commute when I need to and take my kids places as needed. Places that are low-density like Houston could dispense with nonsense like light (or heavy) rail and use a bus system that is a hybridization of current bus service and Uber.

Say what you want, but please don't denigrate the Gremlin.

nortex97 said:

---

Say what you want, but please don't denigrate the Gremlin.

---

You mean the non-exploding version of the Pinto?

My issues with EV:

Range over different power levels. Right now ice powered vehicles curb stomp ev in this area. And there is room to run still. With direct injection, turbo, faster controls, lighter alloys, different fuels... ev has a really steep curve to climb.

Safety. The ev has to overcome challenges in maintaining battery cell integrity in collisions. Ice engines can have fuel leak but also requires right conditions to ignite.

Cost premium. Ev has a cost premium that given other drawbacks is a substantial degradation in value.

Parts and repair. Most ice powered vehicles have huge knowledge base and parts supply chains that make it time efficient to repair. Good luck in ev. And I doubt you are gonna be able or even allowed to do a battery swap in your garage at home.

Landfill. Ice vehicles have junk yards and salvage yards that can reduce landfill impact and be a source of cheap parts or obsolete parts. Imagine landfills having to take all the batteries...

I'm am petroleum engineer, so clearly biased. However, I like to think I am open to an "all of the above" energy plan if it makes sense to do so.

My main issue with the entire "green" power industry is the complete lack of critical thinking regarding whether or not the ENTIRE chain is environmentally friendly.

Sure, an electric car is zero emissions out the tailpipe. But lithium mining is definitely not environmentally friendly. I think wind power is about the furthest thing from environmentally friendly. Sure, you don't burn things to generate power...but to build, transport, dispose of them is not environmentally friendly...and they have completely ruined views and sunsets everywhere they put them up...which seems completely opposite of what the aim should be.

Finally, any mention of any of this while dismissing nuclear power generation is just intellectually dishonest and proof positive that the whole thing is politically driven.

In my opinion we should be utilizing our most abundant resource more efficiently (natural gas) in power generation and fleet vehicle use. Also we should be seriously considering building modern nuclear power generation.

TxTarpon said:

---

All natural here.
The horse's name is Beto.

---

I bet that horse is a real Pendejo!

Sully Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Not to mention level 3 full self driving. Pretty handy on a 3-4 hour highway trip.

---

Call me when we have self driving RVs. I want to crawl in the back with a beer and a book and wake up in Great Basin National Park

---

It's called Greyhound

I like how (Toyota) hybrids work much better than electric.
Sure electric is cool, but not as practical outside of metropolitan areas especially the more remote you get.
They can make a 25mpg ICE vehicle get around 35-40mpg.
Only cost a few thousand more for popular vehicle styles.
Toyota Camry Hybrids are just right now for us.
It seats 5, only give up 2 cubic feet in the trunk for hybrid extras.
I still have gas in the tank (16 gallons), 400-500 mile range, and battery to economize or roll a few miles in "golf cart mode" after gas runs out.

rgag12 said:

---

Does anyone know if electric car batteries are like the batteries in say like an iPhone? In which after a couple of years the charge doesn't last nearly as long as it seems to as it did when you first got it?

---

All batteries are, but pretty much all modern batteries are pretty good at handling this. For instance, the Tesla batteries are "smart" batteries in that individual cells are digitally controlled. They're heavily optimized to maintain their lifespan and not see much degradation, which is around 10% at 150k miles. Some owners have reported getting 300k miles out of their battery, but it's hard to say how typical that may be. Much of it is also dependent on charging and usage habits.

barney94 said:

---

I'm am petroleum engineer, so clearly biased. However, I like to think I am open to an "all of the above" energy plan if it makes sense to do so.

My main issue with the entire "green" power industry is the complete lack of critical thinking regarding whether or not the ENTIRE chain is environmentally friendly.

Sure, an electric car is zero emissions out the tailpipe. But lithium mining is definitely not environmentally friendly. I think wind power is about the furthest thing from environmentally friendly. Sure, you don't burn things to generate power...but to build, transport, dispose of them is not environmentally friendly...and they have completely ruined views and sunsets everywhere they put them up...which seems completely opposite of what the aim should be.

Finally, any mention of any of this while dismissing nuclear power generation is just intellectually dishonest and proof positive that the whole thing is politically driven.

In my opinion we should be utilizing our most abundant resource more efficiently (natural gas) in power generation and fleet vehicle use. Also we should be seriously considering building modern nuclear power generation.

---

That is being addressed. I just saw something recently that touted EVs as reducing "road emissions". See what they did there? EVs are no longer "zero-emissions". Remember how we used to have "global warming" which got replaced with "climate change"?

If your argument falls apart under scrutiny you just move the goal posts and toss the word salad.

And yes, it's intellectually dishonest.

Especially when he wins over your gf with his smile.