EV's now more expensive in time and money to refuel than ICE vehicles

[RB 60]

Camille Faure in 1881 made the electric vehicle possible, and what was probably the first, a tricycle, ran in Paris in 1881.
https://www.britannica.com/technolog...ic-automobiles

Sorry, I was off a bit. It was only 142 years...

[Into the Night]

You cannot learn the truth. You are anti EVs and will believe anything that comes out against them. You are blind to the opposing facts, so why deal with you?
EVs are far cheaper to operate and require a hell of a lot less maintenance. To some people, time is money to
Your EV is coming soon. You will finally figure it out.

Argument from randU fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacies. Repetition fallacies.

[Into the Night]

Todays EV's are in their infancy. Costs will come down, batteries will improve and charging times will be reduced.

The Li-ion battery is the lightest battery around. The chemistry on this battery does not change. It takes one mole of lithium to provide 3.158 A-h. No matter how big or how small you build the batteries themselves, this number doesn't change. You can make it as one big battery or use several little batteries. The number does not change.

[Lionfish]

[Into the Night]

Bullshit. EV's have been around for nearly 150 years now, and they never worked compared to ICE vehicles. If they did, they'd have already been in the market. Sure, the technology has gotten better, but it hasn't bested the alternatives. Instead, today, it's only the radical Leftist greentards talking government into massive subsidies and draconian mandates that is allowing them to make any headway at all.

The problem with the EVs are numerous, not the least of which is the power to weight ratio problem. Batteries are heavy (even Li-ion batteries!), and take away from useful load. Add to that the inconvenience of long charging times, costs, and energy inefficiency, and you can see why gasoline cars are predominant.

Even with golf carts the gasoline powered cart is predominant. You can see it at golf courses and at retirement communities such as The Villages in Florida.
floridafan and Nordberg is just ignoring all of it.

[Into the Night]

It's no different than personal computers which now sell for a fraction of what they did 15 years ago and are far more sophisticated.

False equivalency fallacy. A personal computer is not a car nor a battery.

HD TV's were costing in the thousands now far better are available for a few hundred dollars.
It's happening already, much cheaper alternatives to Tesla are already on the market.

False equivalency fallacy. A TV or a display is not a car nor a battery.

You just refuse to accept any progress.

The Li-ion battery was developed in the mid-70's. It has not changed. The chemistry is the same. The battery produces 3.158 A-h per mole of lithium. You cannot change that.
The long charging time is part of the life of EVs. You cannot change that without further damaging the battery.
The cost of lithium that is rising is a commodity item. It causes ALL EVs to be more expensive. You cannot change that.

What 'progress'??

[Into the Night]

Wrong. PC's were expensive until IBM changed one thing about them: IBM built one with open architecture. The IBM 8088 PC computer revolutionized not the internal components. Those were off-the-shelf run of the mill ones used more or less by every manufacturer. What changed was IBM made the operating system and source code open sourced. That meant anybody that wanted to develop software for it could do so free of royalties that other manufacturers charged exorbitantly for.
All of a sudden there was a massive increase in applications and uses for a PC due to the software that was now available. It creamed all the smaller, proprietary manufacturers. It also would put IBM ultimately out of the PC business, but it revolutionized small computers.

Unlike computers where a true revolution in design occurred, battery cars today are not that far removed from earlier ones. Sure, the Edison of 1912 was simpler, but it's essentially the same drive train that a modern EV has.



There's nothing innovative about a modern EV. That's why they fail in the market without the government putting their proverbial thumb on the scale to force people into buying them.

IBM did not make the PC cheaper nor invent the PC.

The first microprocessor was the Intel 4004, developed during a disastrous partnership with OTIS (which later pulled out of the deal). The 4004 never succeeded in the general marketplace.
The first microprocessor to succeed in the general marketplace was the Intel 8080. The first machine sold using this processor was the Altair computer, the first personal computer, which cost $357 (quite a bit cheaper than today's PC's, even accounting for inflation!).

[Into the Night]

What does the beginning of the automobile age have to do with today.? The early cars set speed records but the technology was not competitive regarding range and cost. Once they were rethought, they found how much better they are. They are improving rapidly in range and cost. they already are ahead of ICEs in speed.

Gasoline cars beat the electric cars in speed and in endurance. Another reason they became popular.

The time of ICEs is ending rapidly.

Nope. Less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs.

Here are the ev ICE cost comparisons . You are way off,. The cost of an average ICE and operation is 8,691 per year. In Oregon, an EV yearly cost is 2,474. In Mich, the most expensive is 5.076.
https://www.self.inc/info/electric-c...gas-cars-cost/

Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy. Special pleading fallacy. You are STILL ignoring higher maintenance costs, costs of the vehicle, long charge times, costs to expand generating and distribution capacity, costs of energy waste (EVs use about twice the energy of a gasoline car of similar size going the same distance, when you factor in the discharge AND charge cycle).

You are also still locked in your paradox. You are being irrational.

[Nordberg]

Gasoline cars beat the electric cars in speed and in endurance. Another reason they became popular.

Nope. Less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs.

Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy. Special pleading fallacy. You are STILL ignoring higher maintenance costs, costs of the vehicle, long charge times, costs to expand generating and distribution capacity, costs of energy waste (EVs use about twice the energy of a gasoline car of similar size going the same distance, when you factor in the discharge AND charge cycle).

You are also still locked in your paradox. You are being irrational.

I provided you with articles explaining exactly what I said, EVs require far LESS maintenance. An EV is a far cheaper car to own and operate. Then you repeat your lies. You are so dishonest.

[Celticguy]

What? Joke Communist and the rest of the EV true believers aren't refuting this? Can it be their arguments in favor of EVs are all tissue thin bullshit?

They are only good if you only need to charge at your home (with a garage) (in a temperate climate) (and only if not too many of your neighbors have EVs).

This places a serious limit on who is in the market for these cars. They cannot replace ICE vehicles. Hydrogen will be able to.

[T. A. Gardner]

IBM did not make the PC cheaper nor invent the PC.

The first microprocessor was the Intel 4004, developed during a disastrous partnership with OTIS (which later pulled out of the deal). The 4004 never succeeded in the general marketplace.
The first microprocessor to succeed in the general marketplace was the Intel 8080. The first machine sold using this processor was the Altair computer, the first personal computer, which cost $357 (quite a bit cheaper than today's PC's, even accounting for inflation!).

True, but IBM turned the PC from a curiosity for tech geeks into a tool for everyone, particularly business. The result was an explosion of the PC market with tens of millions of units sold rather than tens of thousands. That happened without government intervention in the market.

If EV's were really what the market wants, the same thing would have happened, but it didn't. The only--ONLY--way they've made inroads is by force--FORCE--of government in the market. It is government forcing people to buy EV's through bribes and eliminating the alternatives that EV's are gaining market share. The second government stops interfering in the market is the second the EV goes right back to being unpopular. So, government will be forced to keep incentives and mandates in place indefinitely to allow EV's to be the automotive market.

[T. A. Gardner]

They are only good if you only need to charge at your home (with a garage) (in a temperate climate) (and only if not too many of your neighbors have EVs).

This places a serious limit on who is in the market for these cars. They cannot replace ICE vehicles. Hydrogen will be able to.

Hydrogen, anhydrous ammonia, or something like one of those using a fuel cell. And when a manufacturer does, the EV market is doomed. It will be no different than slide rules being replaced by electronic calculators.

[Nordberg]

Somebody somewhere wrote a story saying ICEs are cheaper to drive. Here is a careful response. In fact, it is not true. https://insideevs.com/news/650278/ch...SJYOIMBAEnPUQU You rightys do not need the truth, just a false story will do.

[T. A. Gardner]

Somebody somewhere wrote a story saying ICEs are cheaper to drive. Here is a careful response. In fact, it is not true. https://insideevs.com/news/650278/ch...SJYOIMBAEnPUQU You rightys do not need the truth, just a false story will do.

That guy clearly did not read the original article I posted. Instead, drifts off on a shallow analysis of charging that is typical of those who are "True Believers" in EV's. Read the original article(s) I posted. You can clearly see the difference.

[Into the Night]

I provided you with articles explaining exactly what I said, EVs require far LESS maintenance. An EV is a far cheaper car to own and operate. Then you repeat your lies. You are so dishonest.

You provided marketing shit and propaganda and you are making shit up.

You are back to Argument 1 of your paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It's irrational. Inversion fallacy.