• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An electric car won’t save you money

Unlikely, but our load is not evenly distributed across the 24 hour clock, so the existing
powerplants running at full capacity at night would cover a lot of people charging cars with existing infrastructure,
I do think that could change what is considered peak and off peak hours.

Good point. And of course what happens when the power is out? Fuel is easy to transport. Generators can handle some charging, but they use fuel!
 
Good point. And of course what happens when the power is out? Fuel is easy to transport. Generators can handle some charging, but they use fuel!
I could see myself with a plug in hybrid, but I do not think battery electric cars are quite ready
to replace fuel cars yet. I read that 18% of the battery electric buyers in California are not buying a second one.
Of course that means that 82% are reasonably happy with their pruchase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Why would I intentionally do something dumb?
Which brings us to the subject of used e-cars. Since the battery is built into the chassis, it seems to me that EVs are designed more of as disposable after one use.
 
Which brings us to the subject of used e-cars. Since the battery is built into the chassis, it seems to me that EVs are designed more of as disposable after one use.
I assume it depends on the specific design in question, but I'd think it possible to replace the battery pack.

Probably a difficult thing though. But replacing the battery pack and recycling the old one for materials seems plausible.
Hey, maybe in another few decades we'll see a market for upgrade parts to improve range and/or performance of older electric vehicles?
 
That’s like saying not paying for cleaning products for your house will save you money. While true, it seems pretty silly when completely divorced in that way from the primary consideration for buying cleaning products.
Whether or not EVs will clean the planet is highly debatable and there's numerous threads on that. If you think an EV will put more money in your bank account as per this thread you are mistaken.
 
Whether or not EVs will clean the planet is highly debatable and there's numerous threads on that. If you think an EV will put more money in your bank account as per this thread you are mistaken.
I expect EV's to get more cost effective as they develop further.
It's a way newer tech than internal combustion engines.

Edit: Or at least, it's had less development thus far.
 
I expect EV's to get more cost effective as they develop further.
It's a way newer tech than internal combustion engines.

Edit: Or at least, it's had less development thus far.
Not newer, just more efficient to begin with, heat engines are very lossy.
The only reason they work, is that hydrocarbon fuels are very energy dense,
Gasoline even at a 80% loss of efficiency is still almost 5 times more energy dense as the best batteries.
Ammonia is not bad ether, but modern engines cannot burn it, (the 1930's cars did).
 
If you think an e vehicle is cheaper to own think again. Even at today’s gas prices you won’t even break even until you own your e car from eight to 13 years.
Bingo!

And since many people today don't keep new cars longer than 5 years, then they are even deeper in the hole.
 
They didn't figure maintenance into the equations. With far fewer parts and less complexity electric vehicles are much cheaper to maintain. The cost is about 1/2 according to Consumer Reports.
But, if you keep an electric vehicle longer, you will be met at some point with a very expensive battery replacement expense. Where with a good model/brand gasoline vehicle--- which today can see well over 100k miles (much more for Hondas and Toyotas) and more years of trouble free service with just standard maintenance, you need to factor that in as well. Especially since the OP article indicates that any break even point for a modern electric car compared to gasoline is years down the road.

This is why that without some government tax incentives, for most people buying an electric vehicle is actually a luxury; they are not for most people going to be cost saving. Not based on typical years of ownership, and typical battery replacement costs.

Hey, owning an electric car is great if you are un Uber or Taxi driver. But they still are not more economical than a good quality gasoline vehicle, for example an Accord or a Camry.
 
I could see myself with a plug in hybrid, but I do not think battery electric cars are quite ready
to replace fuel cars yet. I read that 18% of the battery electric buyers in California are not buying a second one.
Of course that means that 82% are reasonably happy with their pruchase.

Same, although for the price, I would just stick with a fuel car. All the benefits, none of the disadvantages.
 
Whether or not EVs will clean the planet is highly debatable and there's numerous threads on that. If you think an EV will put more money in your bank account as per this thread you are mistaken.

Haha. "Highly debatable"- that's pretty funny. It's about as debatable as whether the Earth is only 6000 years old, or how you're not gonna believe what Trump's top people are finding on Obama's secret birth certificate.

 
Last edited:
Same, although for the price, I would just stick with a fuel car. All the benefits, none of the disadvantages.
I am trying to order the new Ford Maverick hybrid, but they will not open ordering until June sometime.
I like a Truck, but also like the idea of getting over 40 mpg in town.
 
Not newer, just more efficient to begin with, heat engines are very lossy.
The only reason they work, is that hydrocarbon fuels are very energy dense,
Gasoline even at a 80% loss of efficiency is still almost 5 times more energy dense as the best batteries.
Ammonia is not bad ether, but modern engines cannot burn it, (the 1930's cars did).
Ammonia smells terrible though. Then again, so does Gasoline, if to a somewhat lesser degree?

Edit: But what I meant was that battery and EV tech has had less development focus than IC engines and the vehicles they power.
 
Haha. "Highly debatable"- that's pretty funny. It's about as debatable as whether the Earth is only 6000 years old, or how you're not gonna believe what Trump's top people are finding on Obama's secret birth certificate.

Even if everyone who could switched to a battery electric as fast as they could, it would still take several decades,
and after that only account for a portion of the 8.8% of Human emissions from light vehicles.
There would be major supply chain problems for batteries, and the effects on the electrical grid would be a big unknown.
 
Even if everyone who could switched to a battery electric as fast as they could, it would still take several decades,
and after that only account for a portion of the 8.8% of Human emissions from light vehicles.
There would be major supply chain problems for batteries, and the effects on the electrical grid would be a big unknown.
Switching away from burning stuff to heat buildings maybe would do more?
 
As I understand it, the battery pack is the big cost in there, and it's storage capacity reduces over time.
This is an issue to check if looking at used electric vehicles, I think?
Studies show no significant loss in storage capacity for at least 200,000 miles and 500,000 mile is not out of the question.

A group of Tesla owners on the Dutch-Belgium Tesla Forum are gathering data from 286 Tesla Model S owners across the world and frequently updating it in a public Google file.

The data clearly shows that for the first 50,000 miles (100,000 km), most Tesla battery packs will lose about 5% of their capacity, but after the 50,000-mile mark, the capacity levels off and it looks like it could be difficult to make a pack degrade by another 5%.

The trend line actually suggests that the average battery pack could go another 150,000 miles (200,000 miles total) before coming close to 90% capacity.

https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/
 
Ammonia smells terrible though. Then again, so does Gasoline, if to a somewhat lesser degree?

Edit: But what I meant was that battery and EV tech has had less development focus than IC engines and the vehicles they power.
Electric motors have almost as much research as IC engines and are in industry everywhere.
I keep waiting to see someone build an electric car based on hub motors.
MTSU research team develops DIY plug-in hybrid conversion kit for nearly any car
The University has a good picture of a hub motor, but the idea of an electric car without any drivetrain or transmission,
is interesting.
 
Even if everyone who could switched to a battery electric as fast as they could, it would still take several decades,
and after that only account for a portion of the 8.8% of Human emissions from light vehicles.
There would be major supply chain problems for batteries, and the effects on the electrical grid would be a big unknown.
Actually most automakers have committed to making only EV's by 2035. The I/C engine's days are numbered. It is far too inefficient to waste 75% of energy for transportation on heat. It's funny you would comment on the electric grid when in other posts you claim we have excess capacity to waste on making synfuel to feed dinosaurs.
 
Even if everyone who could switched to a battery electric as fast as they could, it would still take several decades,
and after that only account for a portion of the 8.8% of Human emissions from light vehicles.
There would be major supply chain problems for batteries, and the effects on the electrical grid would be a big unknown.
Maybe. But doesn’t take make what I said less true.
 
Switching away from burning stuff to heat buildings maybe would do more?
Better buildings anyway, burning stuff for heat, tends to be very efficient.
Simple stuff like LED light bulbs, and better buildings have pushed US emissions back to the 1992 level.
 
Electric motors have almost as much research as IC engines and are in industry everywhere.
I keep waiting to see someone build an electric car based on hub motors.
MTSU research team develops DIY plug-in hybrid conversion kit for nearly any car
The University has a good picture of a hub motor, but the idea of an electric car without any drivetrain or transmission,
is interesting.
I thought most pure electric vehicles didn't have a drivetrain or transmission already.

1651607692988.png
That's a Tesla drivetrain, it seems to have 1 electric motor driving the front and another the back.

Edit: On the other hand, a electric drive conversion would have been a good thing for Doc Brown to buy for the DeLorean
 
Actually most automakers have committed to making only EV's by 2035. The I/C engine's days are numbered. It is far too inefficient to waste 75% of energy for transportation on heat. It's funny you would comment on the electric grid when in other posts you claim we have excess capacity to waste on making synfuel.
The excess will come from solar and wind generating electricity when it is not needed.
Unused Kwh, on the grid, turn to heat, and enough of them turn into grid damage.
 
Maybe. But doesn’t take make what I said less true.
Perhaps not, but as a way to cut global CO2 emissions, it will not have a lot of effect.
 
Perhaps not, but as a way to cut global CO2 emissions, it will not have a lot of effect.

Sure it would. Everything helps. Why all the gloom and helplessness?


If you can afford one, you will be doing yourself and your children and grandchildren a big favor.
 
Back
Top Bottom