The Triumph of Bidenomics!

[rjs330]

Inflation is back to 3%.

Gee that's good after it's its been as high as what, 8%? Prices are still way higher than when he started. I'm glad it's down. Four years later.

 

[rjs330]

A Tesla S costs 75k$.

How many Americans can afford a Tesla S? 1% at best.

Yes and they are all Democrats. Lol.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are completely wrong on the Bolt -- the battery should last as long as the car. You do realize the batteries came with, at a minimum, an 8-year, 100,000 mile warranty? Yes, Chevrolet did get a few bad battery cells from their supplier (my recollection is it was LG) and ended up recalling all Bolts and replacing the batteries to ensure they repaired the issue. That had nothing to do with "wear" but was a manufacturing issue when the batteries were produced.



MPGe (Miles per Gallon, electric) is a term "invented" by the EPA so you can compare efficiency between gasoline and electric vehicles (to include plug-in hybrids while in electric mode). An explanation, "To determine MPGe ratings, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a set amount of electric energy that's equal to the energy contained in 1 gallon of gasoline. The EPA says one gallon of gas contains 115,000 BTUs of energy--which equates to 33.7 kilowatt-hours. For a battery-electric car, the distance it can cover on that amount of energy is used to determine its MPGe rating, which goes on the window sticker in place of the traditional miles-per-gallon figures."

So, the base Honda Civic can go 36 miles on 115,000 BTUs of energy (one gallon of gasoline), while the Tesla Model 3 can go 138 miles on that same 115,000 BTUs (33.7 kWh of electricity).

If the last example doesn't make sense....

Imagine I made a magical rainbow battery that's rechargeable but only generates holds 1 kilowatt hour of energy....but here's the great part....it weighs only 1lb. I could stack 500 together or build one large enough to send any EV hundreds of miles further than any ICE car because the lack of the weight of the ICE means my vehicle is only 1500-2000lbs....and packed with 500 kilowatt hours of energy.

It seems what the EPA is doing with MPGe is both...

1. Removing weight as a factor.
2. Removing capacity as a factor.

Because the weight of a similar sized vehicle is about 25% less.

And the capacity is around 5- 6 times greater.

So the EPA is blowing a lot of smoke up your skirt. If the Tesla you looked at gets 138 MPGe....then the problem is that it only holds about 2 Ge (gallons energy) and weighs 25% more.

Edit- or to use the analogy you decided to dispute....you're trying to sell me a mimeograph machine while I have a printer.

 

[NxNW]

Gee that's good after it's its been as high as what, 8%? Prices are still way higher than when he started. I'm glad it's down. Four years later.

Inflation spiked for a year after Covid and the Trump Recession slowed the supply lines. Aren't you glad Biden got inflation back to normal?

 

[NxNW]

A Tesla S costs 75k$.

How many Americans can afford a Tesla S? 1% at best.

Nobody hesitates to buy an F-150, and they're in the same range.

 

[SimplyMe]

A warranty won't cover accidents....and you're making my case for me.

Because the idiots in this thread that want to ban ICE cars dream of a future where all cars are electric....

And you know what will happen then?

No more free batteries. You'll pay out thousands every few years because you won't have any other options.

I would suggest that accidents are why you have insurance, just like with a gas car where the engine can be crushed, the transmission can be destroyed, etc. Though, of course, the issue with a car is the frame where, if it is bent, the car is essentially headed to the junk yard and you have to replace it. Basically, to damage the battery in an EV the frame has to be bent, so whether a gas car or an EV you'll be replacing the car.

Next, as I've pointed out previously, with the links to show it, there is no "every few years" that you have to buy a new battery. Batteries in EVs should last for hundreds of thousands, if not a million, miles -- basically longer than most cars will last. And, as the Battery Management Systems (BMS) in cars improve, they do a better job of protecting the battery and they last much longer.

Yes, there are a few cars that were designed from a few years ago that relied on air to heat and cool the battery, and (particularly if the battery was kept in a hot region of the country) their batteries had a tendency to need to be replaced after a few years.

See below for the problem with that.




A Tesla 3 is about 1000lbs more than a Honda Civic.

So no...while they may have convinced you that the Tesla actually has a further range....it doesn't, it's not even close.

More weight requires more power....at lower speeds and shorter distances.

If the Honda Civic had an efficient engine, than that would be true.

Here....I'll help you out with a more realistic power conversion.

1 gallon of gasoline (an incredibly energy dense fluid per weight) is roughly 36.6 kilowatt hours. The entire 12.5 gallon tank therefore holds 460ish kilowatt hours of energy....moving a 3000 lbs vehicle.

The issue is, of that 460ish kWh of energy, the Honda Civic can only use about 160-ish of that energy. The problem is the internal combustion engine is, at best, only about 40% efficient (and that is typically only if the car is a hybrid). Most of the "power" produced in a Honda Civic is wasted, largely as heat -- it does nothing to power the car (though it does provide a "cheap" way to heat the car in winter).

Your Tesla 3 battery? 75 kilowatt hours....the whole battery. A full charge. That's the model 3 long range lol. The base model is around 57.5 on a full charge. It has to move a 4000lb vehicle.


So no.

It's not close. There's simply no comparison. Long after you driving a Tesla 3 long range with a full charge comes to a dead stop with no power....I would be going hundreds of miles further in realistically any similar sized sedan.

I didn't claim that the base Civic and the Tesla had the same range. What I stated was that the Honda is very inefficient, when you look at power "expended" because gasoline is so energy dense. By contrast, EVs are about 90% efficient -- the only "losses" tend to be transmission losses and some small loses of power in charing/discharging the battery.

So yes, when you really compare an ICE car with an EV, the fact is that while the gas car might have a tank from between 13 and 25 gallons, an EV's "tank" is only about 3 or so gallons. Yet because the motors on an EV are so efficient, they can still go hundreds of miles on that 3 gallons, but that is why things like heating can cause a noticeable drop. Of course, on the other side, some of the effect of heating and cooling can be lowered by heating and cooling the car before you leave home, while it is still plugged in -- you get the car heated/cooled and still have a full battery.

Edit- maybe some day in the future that battery will hold 500 kilowatt hours of energy but we aren't there yet, and realistically, we won't be there in our lifetimes. Do you understand the problem? Gasoline is extremely energy dense for how incredibly light it is. The giant battery which powers an EV is not only much heavier, but also far less energy dense.

But the argument wasn't range, it was how efficient the two are -- and the actual efficiency shows part of why ICE cars are so bad for the environment, they use a lot of power using "combustion" (controlled explosions) where the main "power" is released in the form of heat and there are several chemicals created -- which tend to be bad for the environment.

And range is a matter of perspective. As I've gone over previously, the range is adequate for over 90% of Americans, particularly since the idea is you plug in when you get home and charge overnight, starting each morning with a full charge. Yes, on a road trip you will need to charge more, and it will take somewhat longer. OTOH, the recommendation is for people, while traveling, to stop every two hours and take a 15 minute break -- and (just to be clear) that recommendation predates EVs, it is something known about human concentration and fatigue, just that we Americans have largely ignored that recommendation.

 

[SimplyMe]

If the last example doesn't make sense....

Imagine I made a magical rainbow battery that's rechargeable but only generates holds 1 kilowatt hour of energy....but here's the great part....it weighs only 1lb. I could stack 500 together or build one large enough to send any EV hundreds of miles further than any ICE car because the lack of the weight of the ICE means my vehicle is only 1500-2000lbs....and packed with 500 kilowatt hours of energy.

It seems what the EPA is doing with MPGe is both...

1. Removing weight as a factor.
2. Removing capacity as a factor.

Because the weight of a similar sized vehicle is about 25% less.

And the capacity is around 5- 6 times greater.

So the EPA is blowing a lot of smoke up your skirt. If the Tesla you looked at gets 138 MPGe....then the problem is that it only holds about 2 Ge (gallons energy) and weighs 25% more.

Edit- or to use the analogy you decided to dispute....you're trying to sell me a mimeograph machine while I have a printer.

No, not at all. What they are doing is looking at the actual energy each can hold. Then, because different motors/engines have different efficiencies, they are testing how much "fuel" is used to actual go that distance.

Yes, weight and capacity do affect fuel economy but they aren't the only factors. I'd say in most ways the Honda Civic and Toyota Prius are similar vehicles, yet the Prius weighs about 200 lbs more than the equivalent Civic. Despite this, the Prius, because it has increased efficiency, gets substantially better gas mileage (over 25% better) -- despite the increased weight and similar capacity.

Again, it is the same with the Civic and an EV -- the Civic base engine is likely about 35-ish% efficient, whereas an EV is over 90% efficient. As such, it takes nearly 3 times the power for the Civic, despite the lower weight, to go an equivalent distance as an EV.

And, yes, the Tesla only has about a 2-3 gallon tank, if you will. Again, this is why factors such as going up hills (which an efficient EV largely makes up going down hill) or strong headwinds can play havoc with an EVs range -- it doesn't have all that extra stored energy. Now, it is claimed that new batteries are coming in the next 5 years or so (per Toyota) that will have longer range than a gas car, charge about as fast as a gas car can refuel, and will weigh less than current batteries. It will be interesting to compare an EV with about an 8-gallon tank (what I recall Toyota says "equivalent" capacity will be) vs. an ICE car.

 

[Valletta]

Inflation spiked for a year after Covid and the Trump Recession slowed the supply lines. Aren't you glad Biden got inflation back to normal?

People realize that wages have not kept up with the price of groceries and rent. You're going to have a difficult time selling them that story.

Analysis: Grocery Prices Nearing 40 Percent Higher Than In 2019

A $100 grocery haul in 2019 costs almost $140 today for the same common items, causing consumers to "become creative to cope."

www.breitbart.com

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nobody hesitates to buy an F-150, and they're in the same range.
View attachment 345397

How many "king ranch/platinum" trims get sold?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would suggest that accidents are why you have insurance,

The problem here is the battery is huge...so chances of getting into any significant accident without battery damage is low....and if it's your fault...your car is basically trash.

Batteries in EVs should last for hundreds of thousands, if not a million, miles -- basically longer than most cars will last.

Do you want me to provide evidence?

The issue is, of that 460ish kWh of energy, the Honda Civic can only use about 160-ish of that energy. The problem is the internal combustion engine is, at best, only about 40% efficient (and that is typically only if the car is a hybrid). Most of the "power" produced in a Honda Civic is wasted, largely as heat -- it does nothing to power the car (though it does provide a "cheap" way to heat the car in winter).

I think you're missing the point.

I didn't claim that the base Civic and the Tesla had the same range. What I stated was that the Honda is very inefficient, when you look at power "expended" because gasoline is so energy dense. By contrast, EVs are about 90% efficient -- the only "losses" tend to be transmission losses and some small loses of power in charing/discharging the battery.

I'm not talking about which vehicle has the most efficient energy transfer....

Cars get you from point A to point B.

That's the consideration here....which does that most efficiently.

So yes, when you really compare an ICE car with an EV, the fact is that while the gas car might have a tank from between 13 and 25 gallons, an EV's "tank" is only about 3 or so gallons.

Whoa whoa whoa....

The Tesla model 3 LONG RANGE is holding 75 kilowatt hours.

If it's getting 120 or whatever MPGe out of 36.6 killowatt hours then it's a 2. "who cares" Ge "tank".

Not 3.

For 75000$.

So unless we're driving down the longest mountain road ever....any internal combustion engine in a similar sized car will arrive at point B long before the EV will.

This is just a fact.

But the argument wasn't range,

The argument is range. These are transportation vehicles. That's what we're talking about....their ability to transport people.

 

[SimplyMe]

The problem here is the battery is huge...so chances of getting into any significant accident without battery damage is low....and if it's your fault...your car is basically trash.

This is about like claiming the it is impossible to have an accident where people are not injured. Nope, there are a lot of accidents where there is no battery damage. The battery may be huge but it is "packaged" in such a way as to prevent damage -- much like we design cars to try and prevent injury to people (who are much softer and squishier).

Do you want me to provide evidence?

Only if it is actual evidence and not anecdotal data of some person that had a battery fail. Granted, I know that there is no evidence that current EV batteries need to be replaced in just a few years, outside of random anecdotal claims.

I could provide similar "evidence," giving stories of lots of people who had their engine "blow up" after a few years and try to extrapolate that it means an ICE engine has to be replaced every few years. Somehow, I doubt you'd find my evidence convincing, even though all my stories would be clue -- including how the manufacturer refused to fix them.

In fact, I suspect your anecdotes would largely be from the Chevy Bolt, where there was a manufacturing flaw with the battery cells -- and, yes, for a time (until the flaw was found) Chevy wasn't helping owners if they could find a way not to. Of course, that changed a couple of years ago and Chevy replaced all of those batteries for free (and, in many cases, bought back the cars).

There are good reasons that anecdotal data is not evidence. Yes, I'm sure you probably think your anecdotes are -- but remember, it is no more convincing that the hundreds of owners of Hyundai cars that were told they had to pay thousands to replace their engines despite it being an issue with the engine.

I think you're missing the point.




I'm not talking about which vehicle has the most efficient energy transfer....

Cars get you from point A to point B.

That's the consideration here....which does that most efficiently.

I think you are misusing the term "efficient" here. By this logic, race cars are jets are some of the most "efficient" modes of transportation.

Whoa whoa whoa....

The Tesla model 3 LONG RANGE is holding 75 kilowatt hours.

If it's getting 120 or whatever MPGe out of 36.6 killowatt hours then it's a 2. "who cares" Ge "tank".

Not 3.

For 75000$.

So unless we're driving down the longest mountain road ever....any internal combustion engine in a similar sized car will arrive at point B long before the EV will.

This is just a fact.

We've gone over the differences in time -- and it isn't "long before" but gas cars do have an advantage; though, how many long distance trips do you take in a year? The average American doesn't take many and, as such, the gas car is less "efficient" (again, not really the proper word for what you are talking about) on a day to day basis.

For most people -- from what we've found, more than 90% of all Americans -- day to day the EV is more efficient. Yes, it has a small "tank" but it is far more efficient (gets far more mileage on equivalent energy). For day to day driving, most Americans can plug their car in at night. In the morning, they unplug their car, get in their car and do their daily driving, then go home and plug in. Maybe they even work at a place where they can plug in during the day, making it even cheaper to operate. They never have to stop for fuel at a gas station, pay far less per mile traveled (because the car is much more efficient -- uses less power), etc.

The argument is range. These are transportation vehicles. That's what we're talking about....their ability to transport people.

And, even for most Americans (again, over 90%), they transport them very well. People who drive more than 200 miles per day on a regular basis are the exception. For longer trips it takes a bit more time but, actually, not longer than the recommended way that experts say you should be road tripping (a 15 minute break every 2 hours).

 

[rjs330]

Inflation spiked for a year after Covid and the Trump Recession slowed the supply lines. Aren't you glad Biden got inflation back to normal?

It's kind of difficult to give him Kudos when it got so high in the first place under his watch in the first place.

 

[NxNW]

It's kind of difficult to give him Kudos when it got so high in the first place under his watch in the first place.

If Trump had been reelected, how different would it have been?

 

[rjs330]

If Trump had been reelected, how different would it have been?

I don't know if anyone can answer that. It's like saying what might have happened next if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated or how many fewer people would have died from COVID if Clinton would have been elected.

All I can work with is what happened.

Not to mention that you might be blaming Trump if Trump had been elected and this inflation happened under his watch.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nobody hesitates to buy an F-150, and they're in the same range.
View attachment 345397

Is there a Tesla S for 48k?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If Trump had been reelected, how different would it have been?

My guess is he wouldn't have canceled oil leases.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Inflation spiked for a year after Covid and the Trump Recession slowed the supply lines. Aren't you glad Biden got inflation back to normal?

I'm not entirely certain he did....for all his administration's claims of economic success, they seem to be fully aware of the prices of everything still being higher than pre-covid prices by a lot, and I haven't heard any reasonable explanation.

Sure.....maybe we're being price gouged, and if that's the case, I'd like to hear a plan to deal with it.

Or maybe bad criminal justice policy and a massive increase in property crime is responsible but they seem to also want us to believe that's not the case.

Or perhaps they decided to use a new method for calculating inflation and its not really down...and that's why your dollar is significantly less valuable.

I would suggest that the 10 million illegal poor people he has fought his hardest to let into the country don't help, but I don't think they can account for the price increases we've seen.

Perhaps they're simply selling out the middle class to their billionaire donors and don't care....as long as they don't have to campaign on their own dollars.

I don't really know, I don't even know what Biden is running on as a platform. I've seen commercials where he threatens to "finish what he started" which is pretty scary....but it's unclear how he plans to destroy the USA.

What I do know is the dollar appears to have lost a significant amount of value across all markets....and a large amount in many specific markets....as if inflation hasn't been slowed much at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is about like claiming the it is impossible to have an accident where people are not injured. Nope, there are a lot of accidents where there is no battery damage.

Well I'm fairly certain little fender benders aren't damaging them. I'm speaking more about getting rear ended at 20mph and up degrees of damage...not getting scratched by an errant tree branch.

The battery may be huge but it is "packaged" in such a way as to prevent damage

Maybe? But it's a little early to see how that's working....

I've seen a number of horror stories about relatively small accidents that might cost 2-3k to fix on a ICE and basically costing more than the car is worth on an EV.

Only if it is actual evidence and not anecdotal data of some person that had a battery fail. Granted, I know that there is no evidence that current EV batteries need to be replaced in just a few years, outside of random anecdotal claims.

I'm not claiming to have done a deep dive on this...but you mentioned the Bolt and this was maybe the third result on a search about battery life. It appears to be from a dealership.

2023 Chevy Bolt EV Battery

Compare 2023 Chevy Bolt EV battery costs in Jacksonville. Coggin Chevy has the best battery prices!

www.cogginchevrolet.com

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.9)]Your 2023 Chevy Bolt EV battery will typically last between 3 to 5 years, but that can change laboriously depending on weather conditions battery size, type of battery, and driving habits.[/COLOR]

Now...typically I don't trust a dealership on everything lol, right? But in this case, it seems they're covering themselves from potential lawsuits that they can't handle the way Chevy can.

In fact, I suspect your anecdotes would largely be from the Chevy Bolt, where there was a manufacturing flaw with the battery cells -- and, yes, for a time (until the flaw was found) Chevy wasn't helping owners if they could find a way not to.

Odd. Those must have been out of warranty, huh?

There are good reasons that anecdotal data is not evidence.

This is a remarkable statement from anyone on the left who touts "lived experience" or "personal truths" or any number of issues the left has abandoned rational thought on.

Black Lives Matter, MeToo, Times Up, vaccine mandates, trans youth/suicide....

Remember when the left wanted to deny a man a SCOTUS seat based on a 30yo personal anecdote with no evidence?

Fortunately for us, I've quoted a Chevy dealership on the 2023 model. If that's what the people selling the product are saying about it....I'm sure you'll understand why I'm inclined to believe them.

I think you are misusing the term "efficient" here.

I apologize for any confusion. Hammers hammer, guns shoot, cars transport.

It's the way I think. If we had a hypothetical car that converted 99% of energy to force, but due to capacity or weight factors it could only get a mile down the road before needing refueling....what's the word you would use? Ineffective? Junk?

I'll use whatever term makes this easier to understand for you.

We've gone over the differences in time -- and it isn't "long before" but gas cars do have an advantage; though,

Ok....I don't think we're that far apart in our understanding here....

1. We agree EVs and ICEs are comparable in most ways except for price on short drives.

2. We agree that ICEs still considerably "outperform" on long drives.

Would you agree on those two points?

For most people -- from what we've found, more than 90% of all Americans -- day to day the EV is more efficient. Yes, it has a small "tank" but it is far more efficient (gets far more mileage on equivalent energy). For day to day driving, most Americans can plug their car in at night. In the morning, they unplug their car, get in their car and do their daily driving, then go home and plug in. Maybe they even work at a place where they can plug in during the day, making it even cheaper to operate. They never have to stop for fuel at a gas station, pay far less per mile traveled (because the car is much more efficient -- uses less power), etc.



And, even for most Americans (again, over 90%), they transport them very well. People who drive more than 200 miles per day on a regular basis are the exception. For longer trips it takes a bit more time but, actually, not longer than the recommended way that experts say you should be road tripping (a 15 minute break every 2 hours).

I'm still curious about what "sustainable" energy sources are....you referred to them earlier.

Are you going to explain what that means? Because much like the way you think differently about the term "efficient" I think we may also have different understandings for "sustainable".

 

[Gene2memE]

Inflation spiked for a year after Covid and the Trump Recession slowed the supply lines. Aren't you glad Biden got inflation back to normal?

As much as I personally dislike Donald Trump and think the Trump administration handled the pandemic overall very poorly, it's dumb to put blame on Trump or his administration for many of the negative economic consequences of COVID-19.

The global response to the pandemic slowed economic activity to a crawl for a number of months. A recession was just an inevitability.

The Trump administration does deserve a reasonable amount of praise for the economic incentives it leveraged for pandemic economic relief. These reduced the severity of the recession in the US and set the stage for some of the post-pandemic bounce back. Although there is certainly plenty of room for criticism on specifics, particularly how the administration managed and disbursed pandemic-era relief spending (notably the whos and hows of the PPP and the social security tax holiday).

Supply lines were broken/bottlenecked pinched because of the mixed response to re-opening and the consequences of businesses having to shutter for months/re-open under new operating rules. With travel and heath rules varying WILDLY between different jurisdictions, supply chain dislocation was also an inevitability.

Again, it's hard to blame the Trump administration specifically for this. Trump administration views about trade and immigration, particularly attitudes towards China, certainly didn't help in getting things running again though.

 

[SimplyMe]

Well I'm fairly certain little fender benders aren't damaging them. I'm speaking more about getting rear ended at 20mph and up degrees of damage...not getting scratched by an errant tree branch.

So was I.

Maybe? But it's a little early to see how that's working....

I've seen a number of horror stories about relatively small accidents that might cost 2-3k to fix on a ICE and basically costing more than the car is worth on an EV.

Likely you have seen that on a Tesla. This happens because of how Tesla builds their vehicles -- not sure if you have heard of the huge "stamping press" Tesla has at their factories? This video explains something about it:

As he mentions, Tesla takes large sheets of metal, runs it through the stamper, and that creates a single-piece chassis from that steel plate. This really helps Tesla when they build your vehicle but doesn't help if your chassis is damaged to the point it has to be replaced. So, yes, there are some Tesla repairs that can be quite expensive -- since you might need to replace a larger piece than on most cars. But it has nothing to do with the battery.

I'm not claiming to have done a deep dive on this...but you mentioned the Bolt and this was maybe the third result on a search about battery life. It appears to be from a dealership.

2023 Chevy Bolt EV Battery

Compare 2023 Chevy Bolt EV battery costs in Jacksonville. Coggin Chevy has the best battery prices!

www.cogginchevrolet.com

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.9)]Your 2023 Chevy Bolt EV battery will typically last between 3 to 5 years, but that can change laboriously depending on weather conditions battery size, type of battery, and driving habits.[/COLOR]

Now...typically I don't trust a dealership on everything lol, right? But in this case, it seems they're covering themselves from potential lawsuits that they can't handle the way Chevy can.

LOL!!! I'm sorry, did you actually look at that link you posted? Did you notice that battery they were talking about that lasts 3 to 5 years costs $185 at their dealership? And amazingly, if you look at other cars, like the Trax (which does not have an EV or hybrid version) they also have roughly the same page showing $185 to replace the battery.

As you might be realizing, that page is to replace the 12V battery and if you had read the page for a couple of minutes, I'm sure you would have noticed. Yes, 12V batteries -- while they often can last longer in an EV (since they aren't in a hot engine compartment, and heat is bad for batteries) -- they often are the same lead-acid batteries that you will find in ICE cars, with the same limitations. Though I seem to recall Tesla, the last couple of years, has started using a Lithium 12V battery which will last substantially longer.

Odd. Those must have been out of warranty, huh?




This is a remarkable statement from anyone on the left who touts "lived experience" or "personal truths" or any number of issues the left has abandoned rational thought on.

Who is on the left here?

Black Lives Matter, MeToo, Times Up, vaccine mandates, trans youth/suicide....

I think many on the left would claim it is a part of the right that has abandoned rational thought on these matters. I tend to try and stay out of most of them.

Remember when the left wanted to deny a man a SCOTUS seat based on a 30yo personal anecdote with no evidence?

Not really, no. I recall them calling for an investigation from the FBI to find out the truth of the matter, rather than rushing him onto the court.

Fortunately for us, I've quoted a Chevy dealership on the 2023 model. If that's what the people selling the product are saying about it....I'm sure you'll understand why I'm inclined to believe them.

Yes, a 12V lead-acid battery that costs $185 to replace at a dealership will only last 3 to 5 years, even on an EV. I have little doubt the Chevy dealership is correct about that but don't see how it impacts the longevity of the traction battery on an EV.

I apologize for any confusion. Hammers hammer, guns shoot, cars transport.

It's the way I think. If we had a hypothetical car that converted 99% of energy to force, but due to capacity or weight factors it could only get a mile down the road before needing refueling....what's the word you would use? Ineffective? Junk?

I'll use whatever term makes this easier to understand for you.


Ok....I don't think we're that far apart in our understanding here....

1. We agree EVs and ICEs are comparable in most ways except for price on short drives.

2. We agree that ICEs still considerably "outperform" on long drives.

Would you agree on those two points?

More or less, though "outperform" seems an odd choice of word. I will agree that you are required to stop more often with an EV than with an ICE car, and the stops are required to last longer. At the same time, if you follow the recommended guidelines (stopping for 15 minutes every two hours, and longer stops the longer you drive), an EV may not be any slower than an ICE vehicle. But I realize many people have no interest in following the recommendations of the experts.

I'm still curious about what "sustainable" energy sources are....you referred to them earlier.

Are you going to explain what that means? Because much like the way you think differently about the term "efficient" I think we may also have different understandings for "sustainable".

What comes to mind is wind, solar, hydro. Hydrogen could be but, at the moment, it appears hydrogen uses more energy to isolate than it provides in power; it would be nice if they could improve on that.

I'm guessing you'll want me to admit that "sustainable" energy will not fully support a power grid and can be unreliable -- and that is true. At the same time, there is much more we could do with these forms of energy to help the grid. I'll admit that I don't have the answers for the grid; just that fossil fuels are less than ideal, while they are relatively cheap and, particularly natural gas, supply a great deal of our energy. I do suspect that we need nuclear power to build out and replace some of the fossil fuel plants.