GM Is Stalling EV Production Because Demand Is Falling Off..Joe C craps on self

Poor Richard Saunders said:
That is some funny shit.
It costs EV owners $17 per gallon of electricity.

How do I know when I have a gallon of electricity?
Click to expand...



Study: Cost of ‘fueling’ an electric vehicle is equivalent to $17.33 per gallon

The study authors say the $1.21 cost-per-gallon equivalent of charging a car cited by EV advocates excludes the real costs born by taxpayers for subsidies, utility ratepayers for energy investments, and non-electric vehicle owners for mandate-and-environmental-credit-driven higher vehicle costs, which they say total $48,698 per EV. Those costs must be included when comparing fueling costs of EVs and traditional gas-powered vehicles, TPPF maintains.

The study also assumes EVs will be driven for 10 years and 120,000 miles, which the authors claim is a generous estimate. According to J.D. Power, EVs lose 2.3% of their range each year due to battery degradation, in part driving EVs to lose value faster than internal combustion cars.

With Ford losing an estimated $70,000 per EV and subsidies reaching $50,000 per EV, Isaac says the real cost of a vehicle such as a Ford Lightning is over $150,000, and those costs are carried by everyone, including non-EV owners and even Americans without cars.

“The real cost of a Ford Lightning is closer to $172,00 and no one would buy them at that. I know their sales have tanked. The [electric] Silverado sold 18 electric trucks last quarter,” Isaac said. “Buying a car is more expensive today and people don’t understand why that is. I’m trying to help them understand if they buy a gas or diesel car they’re paying for an electric vehicle for a wealthy EV owner.”

To reach the $17.73 per gallon equivalent figure, the authors created categories for costs borne by EV owners, taxpayers, utility ratepayers, and buyers of electric vehicles. For reference, the cost per gallon equivalent is computed by dividing the number of miles over a car’s ten year lifetime by the average new vehicle's fuel efficiency of 36 miles per gallon equivalent, and using that number to divide the total cost presented.

https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_...cle_caff6214-815b-5a60-b54d-8e13d5989458.html
 
volsrock said:
Actual Cost Of Charging An Electric Vehicle Is $17 Per Gallon, Automakers Losing $36,000 Per EV Sold (Big Boondoggle For China)


The actual cost of charging an electric vehicle is $17 per gallon, and automakers are losing $36,000 per EV they sell. Its enriches China and makes the US dependent on Chinese batteries and minerals controlled by China

https://confoundedinterest.net/2023...g-36000-per-ev-sold-big-boondoggle-for-china/
Click to expand...

ev is definitely the "we love china" play.
 
volsrock said:
Study: Cost of ‘fueling’ an electric vehicle is equivalent to $17.33 per gallon

The study authors say the $1.21 cost-per-gallon equivalent of charging a car cited by EV advocates excludes the real costs born by taxpayers for subsidies, utility ratepayers for energy investments, and non-electric vehicle owners for mandate-and-environmental-credit-driven higher vehicle costs, which they say total $48,698 per EV. Those costs must be included when comparing fueling costs of EVs and traditional gas-powered vehicles, TPPF maintains.

The study also assumes EVs will be driven for 10 years and 120,000 miles, which the authors claim is a generous estimate. According to J.D. Power, EVs lose 2.3% of their range each year due to battery degradation, in part driving EVs to lose value faster than internal combustion cars.

With Ford losing an estimated $70,000 per EV and subsidies reaching $50,000 per EV, Isaac says the real cost of a vehicle such as a Ford Lightning is over $150,000, and those costs are carried by everyone, including non-EV owners and even Americans without cars.

“The real cost of a Ford Lightning is closer to $172,00 and no one would buy them at that. I know their sales have tanked. The [electric] Silverado sold 18 electric trucks last quarter,” Isaac said. “Buying a car is more expensive today and people don’t understand why that is. I’m trying to help them understand if they buy a gas or diesel car they’re paying for an electric vehicle for a wealthy EV owner.”

To reach the $17.73 per gallon equivalent figure, the authors created categories for costs borne by EV owners, taxpayers, utility ratepayers, and buyers of electric vehicles. For reference, the cost per gallon equivalent is computed by dividing the number of miles over a car’s ten year lifetime by the average new vehicle's fuel efficiency of 36 miles per gallon equivalent, and using that number to divide the total cost presented.

https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_...cle_caff6214-815b-5a60-b54d-8e13d5989458.html
Click to expand...

To reach the $17.73 the authors created categories that are borne by ICE vehicle owners as well and then didn't apply them to ICE vehicles.
Based on the authors' categories, a gallon of gas in an ICE car costs about $24 per gallon. (Cafe standards also apply to ICE cars.)
If we include all the costs that protect the gasoline industry, gas costs about $35 per gallon.
If we include the environmental costs of ICE cars, then gas runs about $125 per gallon as we see the billions in climate disaster that are occurring due to the increase in CO2.
 
1698605026704-png.1416711
 
volsrock said:
But they ARE NOT faster
Click to expand...

Acceleration is not faster. It's just acceleration.
It only means in a typical drag race, an EV will typically get off the line faster. It doesn't always win the race. In a real situation, the EV is better at entering a busy road from a stop sign. It's weight actually helps it here, giving the tires the traction needed as well.

Once up to speed, their maneuverability sucks. The problem is the heavy batter. EVs weigh almost twice as much as a gasoline car of the same size. The battery alone in a Tesla Model 3, for example, weighs 1083 lbs!
Put an EV in a slalom course, and they show just how much they suck. In a real world, roads are often winding and filled with other vehicles that you have to maneuver around. They can do it, but only about as well as truck can, and this is for a compact car! Passing is easier, due to their quick acceleration, but that does not help you on winding or city roads.

The biggest problem is their high initial cost, their maintenance costs, their insurance costs, and the inconvenience of long charge times. Quite a bit of this is subsidized heavily.

Left on the open market, the EV fails.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
To reach the $17.73 the authors created categories that are borne by ICE vehicle owners as well and then didn't apply them to ICE vehicles.
Click to expand...
No need to.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Based on the authors' categories, a gallon of gas in an ICE car costs about $24 per gallon. (Cafe standards also apply to ICE cars.)
Click to expand...
But not to EVs. It's a subsidy for EVs.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
If we include all the costs that protect the gasoline industry, gas costs about $35 per gallon.
Click to expand...
There are none.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
If we include the environmental costs of ICE cars, then gas runs about $125 per gallon as we see the billions in climate disaster that are occurring due to the increase in CO2.
Click to expand...
Again, you are taxing ICE cars to subsidize EVs.
Climate does not have a 'disaster'. There are no 'billions in climate disaster'.
CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. It doesn't cost anything for it to be in the atmosphere.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
 
Lionfish said:
1698605026704-png.1416711
Click to expand...

It's actually worse than that.
Because EVs take their power from remote power plants, a lot more energy is wasted to transmit that power to the location of charging for use in the EV.
Added all up, the EV uses about twice the energy to go the same distance than the ICE car would. It is MUCH more efficient to simply burn the fuel in the car.

Of course, there is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
 
Into the Night said:
No need to.

But not to EVs. It's a subsidy for EVs.

There are none.

Again, you are taxing ICE cars to subsidize EVs.
Climate does not have a 'disaster'. There are no 'billions in climate disaster'.
CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. It doesn't cost anything for it to be in the atmosphere.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on violating the Stefan Boltzmann law. Changing the makeup of the atmosphere changes its emissivity. If a body is receiving the same energy but is radiating less because its emissivity has changed then the temperature will increase. It is you that is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can't just disappear like you are pretending it can.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Congratulations on violating the Stefan Boltzmann law.
Click to expand...
You are describing yourself.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Changing the makeup of the atmosphere changes its emissivity.
Click to expand...
WRONG. Emissivity is not a function of the composition of the material.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
If a body is receiving the same energy but is radiating less because its emissivity has changed then the temperature will increase.
Click to expand...
You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics again.
Absorption is less if emissivity is less.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It is you that is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
You are describing yourself. You are still trying to create energy out of nothing.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Energy can't just disappear like you are pretending it can.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to destroy energy.

Your stupid inversions won't work.
 
Into the Night said:
You are describing yourself.

WRONG. Emissivity is not a function of the composition of the material.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics again.
Absorption is less if emissivity is less.

You are describing yourself. You are still trying to create energy out of nothing.

I am not trying to destroy energy.

Your stupid inversions won't work.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.
So emissivity doesn't change based on the composition of the material but it affects absorption? So iron has the same emissivity coefficient as a black body and as nitrogen? You clearly don't know the first thing about Stefan Bolzmann's law.

You are trying to make energy magically disappear in direct violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Visible light is not the same as infrared radiation. Different atoms absorb different wavelengths of radiation. Different atoms emit different wavelengths of radiation.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO.
Click to expand...
Laughing at your own illiteracy gets you nowhere.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
So emissivity doesn't change based on the composition of the material but it affects absorption?
Click to expand...
Emissivity is the same as absorptivity. The composition of the material does not change that.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
So iron has the same emissivity coefficient as a black body and as nitrogen?
Click to expand...
Emissivity is not determined by composition. A black body is not a material.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You clearly don't know the first thing about Stefan Bolzmann's law.
Click to expand...
You are describing yourself. You cannot add a 'composition' factor into the law.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You are trying to make energy magically disappear in direct violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
Not at all. You are blatantly lying again, trying to LIF. Grow up.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Visible light is not the same as infrared radiation.
Click to expand...
Never said it was.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Different atoms absorb different wavelengths of radiation.
Click to expand...
So?
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Different atoms emit different wavelengths of radiation.
Click to expand...
So?
 
Into the Night said:
Laughing at your own illiteracy gets you nowhere.

Emissivity is the same as absorptivity. The composition of the material does not change that.

Emissivity is not determined by composition. A black body is not a material.

You are describing yourself. You cannot add a 'composition' factor into the law.

Not at all. You are blatantly lying again, trying to LIF. Grow up.

Never said it was.

So?

So?
Click to expand...

The emissivity is included in the equation. I didn't add it in since it was always in the law. The composition of the matter affects the emissivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law

In the general case, the Stefan–Boltzmann law for radiant exitance takes the form:

M = ε M ∘ = ε σ T 4

where ε is the emissivity of the matter doing the emitting. The emissivity is generally between zero and one,
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law

Emissivity for various types of materials
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
 
Joey shits the sheets.

Brace for the Wind and Electric-Vehicle Bailouts

ord assured investors last week that its generous deal with the United Auto Workers wouldn’t threaten its profitability. Maybe. The same can’t be said of its electric vehicles, which lost $3.1 billion during the first nine months of this year.

Those losses will doubtless grow, and anyone who thinks Washington won’t give auto makers another bailout should think again. Last week Munich-based Siemens Energy, one of the world’s top wind manufacturers, said the German government is prepared to extend as much as €16 billion (or $16.9 billion) in state guarantees to rescue it.

Government has invested too much politically and financially in renewables and electric vehicles to let the companies go bust.
In June Siemens blamed a “substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components” for its mounting losses—about $4.8 billion this year—and warned that its financial problems could drag on for years as it repairs and replaces faulty equipment. The company has a backlog of orders from wind developers chasing government subsidies, but banks won’t extend credit because of its financial troubles. Siemens wants Berlin to issue loan guarantees on the faulty premise that its failure could endanger the country’s economy and national security. Wind is the new too-big-to-fail enterprise.

German leaders worry that Chinese manufacturers will take over wind manufacturing as they did solar-panel production a decade ago and are now doing with electric vehicles. China boasts 10 of the world’s 15 largest turbine manufacturers and can sell turbines at half the price of European manufacturers, owing largely to its cheap coal power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top