Electric Vehicles

[my5cents]

Didn't want to quote your entire wall of text, but I read it, and it mirrors my opinion quite nicely.

The technology and price of a new EV just aren't there yet. It would take me 10+ years to break even at current fuel/electricity costs, which are both going up and the government will find a way to add a tax to EV's to support infrastructure. Don't know what that will look like yet, but I'm guessing that the 10+ year break even estimate is actually going to be worse than that.

We pay a LOT of taxes within our fuel prices (a whole other topic). OK, in the "perfect" world where everyone drives an EV, the government is going to have to make up those tax dollars they were getting from gasoline taxes, somewhere. An EV may not pollute but it still needs roads and road maintenance. At some point the "tax penalties" for fuels that pollute could diminish to virtually nothing. That money has to come from somewhere.

The current technology used in EVs is obviously flawed. Range of travel and duration of charging is a big issue. Vehicle manufacturers and governments can sugar coat these short falls until the cows come home but those with their eyes open see the lipstick on the pig for what it's worth.

When new technology is developed that solves this issue, will society be face with a complete replacement of the EV fleet or "just" expensive battery replacements. I feel like were designing the "new" 747 but we haven't developed the jet engine yet.

[youjustcomplain]

When new technology is developed that solves this issue, will society be face with a complete replacement of the EV fleet or "just" expensive battery replacements. I feel like were designing the "new" 747 but we haven't developed the jet engine yet.

And that's a big part of the reason I haven't gone EV yet. I know my ICE will get me where I want to go until I drive it into the ground. I buy cars to keep them for the life of the car. For people who lease for 2 or 3 years then get a different car, I think EV's are perfect right now. Those people don't have to worry about battery life spam or replacement costs.

For me though, if I buy an EV today, I am stuck with the current battery technology and diminishing vehicle range until I replace the vehicle. In a few years, will battery technology be such that the prices are the same, but range is doubled or better? Hard to say, but the technology, used now, and the changes coming are evolving rapidly. Once the rate of technology evolution slows, I think that'll be the time to buy. Hard to know when that will happen. Until then though, my ICE will get me everywhere I need to go and it's easy/quick to refuel. There's something to that.

[Jlabute]

Yeah, an EV will end up costing pretty close to what a gas vehicle costs to operate some time in the future. Also, I am not convinced they are cleaner, especially at this point in time where the global grid is 96% unclean after 40 years of pursuing renewables. Putting an EV in the hands of everyone is less clean than ICE vehicles because of the energy required in the battery manufacturing, and the current state of the grid. Mandating an EV for everyone at this time is dumb (IMO).

We need more nuclear.

[LovemyBolt]

Yeah, an EV will end up costing pretty close to what a gas vehicle costs to operate some time in the future. Also, I am not convinced they are cleaner, especially at this point in time where the global grid is 96% unclean after 40 years of pursuing renewables. Putting an EV in the hands of everyone is less clean than ICE vehicles because of the energy required in the battery manufacturing, and the current state of the grid. Mandating an EV for everyone at this time is dumb (IMO).

We need more nuclear.

Funny thing about consumers. As the manufacturers are mandated to put out more EV's...the consumers can still just not buy. Or buy ICEV's on the used market. Nobody is mandating consumers to buy. Incentivizing yes. But not mandating.

Agree with nuclear. Why can't we just throw the waste out in space though? Or recycle. I don't know enough about nuclear.

[spooker]

Yeah, an EV will end up costing pretty close to what a gas vehicle costs to operate some time in the future. Also, I am not convinced they are cleaner, especially at this point in time where the global grid is 96% unclean after 40 years of pursuing renewables. Putting an EV in the hands of everyone is less clean than ICE vehicles because of the energy required in the battery manufacturing, and the current state of the grid. Mandating an EV for everyone at this time is dumb (IMO).

We need more nuclear.

Funny thing about consumers. As the manufacturers are mandated to put out more EV's...the consumers can still just not buy. Or buy ICEV's on the used market. Nobody is mandating consumers to buy. Incentivizing yes. But not mandating.

Agree with nuclear. Why can't we just throw the waste out in space though? Or recycle. I don't know enough about nuclear.

I just think of pushing the nuclear waste into space and then the Challenger comes to mind ... we need to figure out the key to fusion ... fission is expensive, dangerous, and too long-lasting ...

[Jlabute]

Yeah, an EV will end up costing pretty close to what a gas vehicle costs to operate some time in the future. Also, I am not convinced they are cleaner, especially at this point in time where the global grid is 96% unclean after 40 years of pursuing renewables. Putting an EV in the hands of everyone is less clean than ICE vehicles because of the energy required in the battery manufacturing, and the current state of the grid. Mandating an EV for everyone at this time is dumb (IMO).

We need more nuclear.

Funny thing about consumers. As the manufacturers are mandated to put out more EV's...the consumers can still just not buy. Or buy ICEV's on the used market. Nobody is mandating consumers to buy. Incentivizing yes. But not mandating.

Agree with nuclear. Why can't we just throw the waste out in space though? Or recycle. I don't know enough about nuclear.

I suppose one could stick with used vehicles until there are no parts. After an ICE vehicle ban, it wouldn't be long before all the spare parts are gone.

In reality, the mandates won't happen since EVs just can't be manufactured in large volumes or be made affordable for everyone who wants one, yet.

Nuclear waste isn't truly a significant problem. The nuclear industry also intersects with the medical industry, so there is important technology involved. The amount of nuclear waste generated over the years is relatively tiny. The discussions now involve not throwing away nuclear waste, but recycling nuclear waste in different types of reactors. The amount of nuclear waste in the USA can theoretically power the entire country for 100 years, and it takes the space of a football field.

The French recycle their nuclear waste. 80% of the country is nuclear.

[LovemyBolt]

I suppose one could stick with used vehicles until there are no parts. After an ICE vehicle ban, it wouldn't be long before all the spare parts are gone.

True dat. I guess auto-wreckers will become gold mines. Invest now.

I just think of pushing the nuclear waste into space and then the Challenger comes to mind ...

I was picturing more crash-land dump it on the moon.

[Jlabute]

I was picturing more crash-land dump it on the moon.

That's a TV show called "Space 1999". It did not have a happy ending in the first episode ;-) If anything, we have already mapped out areas on the moon to mine more fuel.

Recycle nuclear waste like the French.

[spooker]

I just think of pushing the nuclear waste into space and then the Challenger comes to mind ...

I was picturing more crash-land dump it on the moon.

We still have to get it out of the atmosphere first ...

[foenix]

I was picturing more crash-land dump it on the moon.

We still have to get it out of the atmosphere first ...

Not very cost effective if you ask me.

[spooker]

We still have to get it out of the atmosphere first ...

Not very cost effective if you ask me.

And considering that nuclear (fission) energy is one of the most expensive it just de-incentivizes it even more ...

[hozzle]

Folks need to research energy waste, mining raw materials, eco-system damage, & lifeform losses... then com to the realization that nuclear is the least harmful... hands down.

[spooker]

Folks need to research energy waste, mining raw materials, eco-system damage, & lifeform losses... then com to the realization that nuclear is the least harmful... hands down.

But don't people always complain about the COST of something? Considering that nuclear is the most expensive generation method now won't people react to that since they've shown they don't really care about the environment?

[GordonH]

Folks need to research energy waste, mining raw materials, eco-system damage, & lifeform losses... then com to the realization that nuclear is the least harmful... hands down.

But don't people always complain about the COST of something? Considering that nuclear is the most expensive generation method now won't people react to that since they've shown they don't really care about the environment?

Curious question:
How many hectares of wind turbines would be needed to generate the same amount of electricity as Revelstoke dam daily. Oh yes, got to find a area that wind blows 24/7 for 365 days a year.

Solar is completely useless from sundown to sunrise.

[hozzle]

Folks need to research energy waste, mining raw materials, eco-system damage, & lifeform losses... then com to the realization that nuclear is the least harmful... hands down.

But don't people always complain about the COST of something? Considering that nuclear is the most expensive generation method now won't people react to that since they've shown they don't really care about the environment?

Ummm... isn't there a cost to ALL the criteria mentioned!? why are heads stuck with capital costs!?... land use costs, mining costs, recycling costs, operating costs, etc., etc.....