The Triumph of Bidenomics!

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I agree that both....

1. He handled many aspects of the pandemic poorly. The only two bright points I can think of are the shutting down of the southern border with title 42 (few exceptions were made) and if someone believes that the vaccines were good and effective....then credit goes to him for cutting the red tape on the vaccine creation and funding.

2. Likewise, I don't think economic impacts could be correctly assessed in 1 year or essentially the beginning phase of the pandemic. Judging these impacts or their management as "Trump's fault" is a rather bad argument. Biden has had far more responsibility to manage these things and likewise more blame for the negative aspects of how he handled them...from things like ramping up currency production to mandates that depleted military personnel. Since Democrats weren't trying to get Trump reelected, they weren't exactly helpful or quick to offer good advice (if they had any to offer) Biden on the other hand had a lot of help and advice and I'd be hard pressed to say he did much better than Trump. Serious cost/benefit analysis of the lockdowns, mandates, or even just consistency are things that did not happen. I don't know how many people are aware of this....but as a member of the federal government I was mandated, along with everyone in not just my agency, but I believe my entire department....to get the vaccine by (I think) November 2021...or we would be terminated. I waited until the last two weeks to see if this decision was going to change...before caving to the mandate because it seemed like an extremely bad time to lose my job and health insurance. The only time I can say for certain I contracted the virus was between my first and second shot. I'm not saying that I had the typical reaction of a couple of days of covid symptoms....I caught the virus and had to delay the second shot beyond the recommended time. During this time...my wife inevitably caught the virus and required a 2 day hospitalization for pneumonia. It was an expensive and frustrating ordeal that seems unlikely to have occurred had I not taken that first shot. The most aggravating thing was that those who completely refused (in both my agency and tmk my department) faced absolutely no consequences as the mandate was completely rescinded on the final day. Coworkers who risked their employment weren't fired or penalized in any way. I can only assume it's because the realization of the loss of manpower would have been too significant to bear. I was essentially bluffed into taking a vaccine I was hesitant about because of the threat of loss of employment that ultimately didn't really exist. It's hard to see that as anything but bad leadership and I have to wonder the number of federal agencies that had similar problems.

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

Well I do believe this administration changed their official definition of recession (2 consecutive quarters of negative growth) just so they could conveniently avoid declaring a recession.

Let's consider the number of problems that the administration had to deal with in that first year though....

1. The embarrassingly bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan...
2. The absolute failure of their border policy.
3. Rising inflation, costs, and the inevitability of the rent moratorium ending and leaving many homeless and jobless.
4. Public realization of vaccine ineffectiveness.

The Trump administration does deserve a reasonable amount of

praise for the economic incentives it leveraged for pandemic economic relief.

I'm unsure what you're referring to here. Trump certainly allowed states to decide how to handle economic woes as they saw fit. Beyond that, I'm unsure what you mean.

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).

Is the PPP they payroll deduction? I think that was smart....but I don't think the public understands it well enough to understand why. Despite that....the public should understand the absolute disaster of the covid relief fund under Biden. If I recall correctly, the complete lack of oversight and vetting led to a record number of taxpayer dollars being stolen by outright frauds, foreign nations, and misappropriated by many big city mayors.

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 operatingmayor's.

I don't think many people understand why those supply chains were disrupted. I don't blame Biden or Trump this particular issue....because the single largest factor was the literal business logistics models for so many corporations. It would have happened to any president. These models are optimized for profit and under normal conditions, can meet demand increases well. Under pandemic conditions, they fell apart and couldn't meet demand. There's a lot that can be criticized under Biden (like promoting policies to reduce prison populations)....but supply chain would have happened under any president imo.

With travel and heath rules varying WILDLY between different jurisdictions, supply chain dislocation was also an inevitability.

Tmk these didn't really enforcement mechanisms. Perhaps some places did.

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.

Agreed. However China (like most of our enemies) were in favor of Biden. Putin himself has endorsed Biden for reelection tmk. Trump's willingness to swiftly decimate ISIS and assassinate high level Iranian generals (along with his unpredictable attitude toward N Korea was simply too baffling for foreign leaders....even dictators). Trump's unpredictability and preference towards hitting high value targets over large scale engagement meant foreign adversaries were willing to quietly sit out his administration instead of rolling the dice and attacking our allies. Since Biden's election....the Taliban stepped up their timetable for retaking Afghanistan, Putin saw an opportunity for invading the Donbas and eventually doubling down on all of Ukraine, Gaza decided it was the right time to begin war with Israel, Iran has funded Houthi attacks on our economic interests, multiple terrorist organizations have seized the opportunity to enter the US from the southern border, China has stepped up its economic alliances and floated actual spy balloons across the US....

Shall I continue?

Trump's demeanor and policy towards enemies was admittedly a bit nerve wracking for many Americans who didn't understand what he was doing....but it had the same effect on our enemies. They pretty uniformly decided to wait out his term. One of the few really bright points of his administration.

 

[probinson]

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

Plenty of people hesitate to buy a F-150. For example, me.

 

[probinson]

Of course, by June it may not take 6 hours in an EV6. We'll have to wait and see how fast chargers come online and how soon Kia updates the EV6 for the North American Charging Standard (NACS).

So what do you think? 5 hours? Still a heckuva lot longer than fueling.

You do realize that EVgo is one of dozens of companies that has charging stations?

I do.

You do realize that the article I quoted said the average for public chargers right now is between $0.30 and $0.48 per kWh, right?

No, as I pointed out earlier, a Tesla Model 3 does the same -- and it is cheaper than the EV6. After incentives, it is roughly the cost of your car.

A blue (I paid a premium for the blue K5, there is also a premium for the blue Tesla Model 3) long-range Tesla Model 3 base model starts at $48,740. That's $17,870 more than I paid for my K5. That is not "roughly the cost of [my] car."

So, roughly the same price,

Not. Even. Close.

I know what he is talking about. I don't live in California but I see a lot of EVs in this area.

I'm sure you do.

That doesn't change the fact that OVERALL adoption of EVs in the US sits somewhere south of 3%, and even in California, that number is only ~2.5%. Nowhere near mass adoption rates.

 

[NxNW]

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

Breitbart is not a reliable news source.

 

[probinson]

Maybe, or maybe they've just heard the fake claims about how they will only have 60 miles of real world range and worry about it because of that. Maybe they don't realize they can get up every morning with full range. Most people I know see to not really understand that it can fit their needs.

Or, maybe they realize that they'll have to stop every 2 hours any time they drive any distance.

Yes, I did. I assume someone driving 100 miles per day will install a 220V charger, which can charge the car overnight. Again, many EVs come with a 220V charger and/or a credit to install a home charger, and that is on top of the federal (and often state, or even power company) incentives for installing a charger. So even days they drive double their normal amount they can still start the next morning with a full charge.

It's nice when the government gives people "free" things.

That's nice. I think my issue is: you don't think I understand your point. I do understand,

I don't think you do. Right when I think you've finally got if then you say something like this...

So I understand you better than you think -- I think the only difference is that I have never liked eating meals while driving. It seems you are younger than I am, so maybe a time will come when you can't do it that way anymore. Maybe then you'll start understanding why making more stops actually keeps you from getting as tired and makes the trip more enjoyable.

That is just it, you don't understand it yet (and maybe you never will). There are plenty of people whose brains are too wired to "go, go, go" to not be able to slow down a bit and relax. OTOH, my experience is a lot of people will, they just won't understand it until they try it.

I'll be 47 in August. I might not be your age, but I'm not exactly "young".

What I don't think you understand is that the reason I drive like I do isn't because I don't know how to slow down and relax. The reason I will only stop a handful of times during my trip to Florida is because I want to get there to ... wait for it ... RELAX. I don't find it at all relaxing to prolong my drive and my time on the road. I'll leave probably around 10PM and get to our destination around 1-2PM the next day. I've made this trip multiple times. Once I get there, I'll sleep for about 3-4 hours, and then I'll relax the whole week, lounging on the beach.

 

[NxNW]

Is there a Tesla S for 48k?

That's the 3.

 

[NxNW]

Or, maybe they realize that they'll have to stop every 2 hours any time they drive any distance.

Only if they drive 120 mph.

 

[NxNW]

[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]

If you don't understand the difference between the 12v battery and the main one, you have no business discussing EVs at all.

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

They were not, which is why I got a brand new battery for mine.

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.

You need to understand which battery they're talking about, which clearly you don't.

 

[probinson]

How many times have you actually used a level 3 or 4 charger?

This is a silly argument. Why do I need to use a level 3 or 4 charger to know how long it will take to charge? Are the advertised charing times wrong?

Up to 400.

Great.

But I thought that you weren't supposed to charge your EV to 100% to help with battery life. And if I'm traveling with my whole family and all of our luggage, don't you think the range would be affected by that? And even if I can get 400 miles, would you suggest that I drive 397 miles before I charge?

Don't change the subject.

The fact that the Tesla Model S more than twice as expensive than my current ICE vehicle is absolutely relevant to any cost "savings" I might realize from not needing to get gas.

I think it takes longer just pumping the gas. I don't buy it.

I'm starting to wonder if you've ever put gas in a car. It literally takes just a few minutes to pump the gas.

I don't use it, but those numbers are ridiculous.

What is ridiculous about charge times of 15-30 minutes? Are you saying it doesn't take that long to charge?

I don't have a problem saying that website isn't useful. But that's a side topic.

What website or app do you use when planning a long trip in your EV?

And yet the world still turns.

Yes, but with more wear on your tires than is necessary.

Your point was that you didn't like going to get your oil changed. But in reality, oil changes typically coincide with tire rotations, which are both recommended every 7,500 miles. You SHOULD rotate your tires on your EV every 7,500 miles, which will require a service visit. Therefore, you're not really saving any time by avoiding oil changes, since it takes longer to rotate tires than it does to change oil and a filter.

I didn't say anything about city vs highway mileage.

You said that when you drive fast, you lose range in an ICE vehicle. That would depend on exactly how fast. But at highway speeds or slightly above, there's no doubt that an ICE vehicle has far more range than when driving in a city.

OTOH, an EV will lose range rapidly as you increase your speed. You said so yourself.

 

[NxNW]

This is a silly argument. Why do I need to use a level 3 or 4 charger to know how long it will take to charge?

You didn't answer the question.

But I thought that you weren't supposed to charge your EV to 100% to help with battery life.

Obviously you misread something. You don't want to leave it fully charged for long periods, but you can certainly utilize the full capacity when necessary.

And if I'm traveling with my whole family and all of our luggage, don't you think the range would be affected by that? And even if I can get 400 miles, would you suggest that I drive 397 miles before I charge?

You're moving the goalposts here. 400 is more than 350.

The fact that the Tesla Model S more than twice as expensive than my current ICE vehicle is absolutely

Irrelevant.

I'm starting to wonder if you've ever put gas in a car. It literally takes just a few minutes to pump the gas.

Assuming it takes zero time to drive to the station and there is no waiting.

What is ridiculous about charge times of 15-30 minutes? Are you saying it doesn't take that long to charge?

First it's "hours", now it's 15 minutes.

What website or app do you use when planning a long trip in your EV?

I use an obscure app called Google. I locate a charger, then a backup. In the seven years I've owned a Bolt, I've never taken a trip that required more than one charge.

You said that when you drive fast, you lose range in an ICE vehicle. That would depend on exactly how fast. But at highway speeds or slightly above, there's no doubt that an ICE vehicle has far more range than when driving in a city.

OTOH, an EV will lose range rapidly as you increase your speed. You said so yourself.

I didn't say anything about highway mileage vs city as depicted in your ad. I only discussed speed. City mileage as depicted in those ads implies idling at lights, which reduces mileage. But for continuous driving, my understanding is that 45 to 50 mph is actually best mileage for both types of cars. It's possible that info or is dated.

EVs can idle and use virtually no juice, unlike an ICE car. So stop-and-go driving is not a problem. That's 99% of my usage.

 

[probinson]

Only if they drive 120 mph.

How often do you have to stop when you drive your EV long distances?

 

[NxNW]

How often do you have to stop when you drive your EV long distances?

With a range of 240 miles, I'll stop at 210ish.

 

[probinson]

You didn't answer the question.

No, I've never used any EV charger, because I don't have an EV.

Now will you answer my question; are the advertised charging times correct?

Obviously you misread something. You don't want to leave it fully charged for long periods, but you can certainly utilize the full capacity when necessary.

There are two reasons: charging performance and battery longevity. Most of the time you should only charge an EV to 80% because charging rates slow down dramatically past the 80% mark. And two, the long-term health of your vehicle’s battery pack is improved when kept below 100%.​

​

...​

​

It’s important to know about the “80 % rule” if you’re on a long-distance drive in an EV. When it’s time to charge, it’s often smarter to stop at 80% and then get back on the road, instead of waiting for the battery to completely fill up. Doing so maximizes your use of time.​

​

For example, if your EV has 300 miles of range when fully juiced up, that means it can go about 240 miles with an 80% state of charge. (Obviously, you’re going to stop and power up before hitting zero miles, but let’s keep things simple and say 240.) If the 0-to-80% recharge time is 40 minutes, you can hit the road in little more than half an hour. If you want to fully replenish the battery, it could realistically take an additional 90 minutes to go from 80 to 100%. In the time it took you to gain that extra range, you could be a hundred miles or more down the road and in the vicinity of another charger. That’s why stopping at 80% usually makes the most sense (though that is something YOU have to determine).​

​

The 80% rule: Why you shouldn't charge your EV to 100%

Did you know that your EV's battery is improved when kept below 100%? Read to learn more about the optimal charging percentage.

witricity.com

​

You're moving the goalposts here. 400 is more than 350.

Not really. I am 100% certain I can drive considerably further in my ICE vehicle without stopping than you can in your EV.

Irrelevant.

It's so relevant, Tesla uses the savings of gas to make their prices seem lower than they actually are.

Let's assume I save $3,000 per year on fuel. That's really high for my situation, but we'll use the number anyway. If the Tesla Model S costs me $45k more than my ICE car, then it will take me 15 years before I break even on gas savings.

Assuming it takes zero time to drive to the station and there is no waiting.

Since I'm driving anyway, gas stations are literally on the way to wherever I'm going. Again, I almost NEVER drive to a gas station for the sole purpose of just getting gas. Just yesterday, I was out shopping, and I stopped to get gas right down the road from the mall. I stopped for less than 5 minutes.

I don't know where you're going to get gas that you'd be waiting all the time. Aside from my semi-local Sam's Club, which offers discounted fuel to its members, I almost never see lines at gas pumps. And I've driven over an awful lot of this great country.

First it's "hours", now it's 15 minutes.

It is cumulatively "hours" on a trip.

I use an obscure app called Google. I locate a charger, then a backup. In the seven years I've owned a Bolt, I've never taken a trip that required more than one charge.

You must not drive very long distances.

EVs can idle and use virtually no juice, unlike an ICE car. So stop-and-go driving is not a problem. That's 99% of my usage.

Right. EVs actually perform better in the city than they do on the highway, which is the exact opposite for ICE vehicles.

 

[probinson]

With a range of 240 miles, I'll stop at 210ish.

OK.

And what is your preferred highway speed? I prefer to set my cruise at 75 on most Interstates. If I had to stop every 210 miles, that means I'd be stopping every 2 hours and 48 minutes.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

It's kind of traditional for republicans to declare that the democrats are too slow to clean up the mess their republican predecessors made. Happened to Obama, too. Happened to Clinton.

 

[SimplyMe]

Or, maybe they realize that they'll have to stop every 2 hours any time they drive any distance.

And maybe that is really irrelevant, since they only drive any "distance" a couple of times a year, maybe a couple of hundred miles to see family. Driving needs vary and the idea that they have to make extra stops every couple of hours on road trips, that they take once or twice a year, tends to be vastly overstated.

It's nice when the government gives people "free" things.

You mean like oil subsidies to gas companies to keep gas prices cheap in the US?

I don't think you do. Right when I think you've finally got if then you say something like this...



I'll be 47 in August. I might not be your age, but I'm not exactly "young".

What I don't think you understand is that the reason I drive like I do isn't because I don't know how to slow down and relax. The reason I will only stop a handful of times during my trip to Florida is because I want to get there to ... wait for it ... RELAX. I don't find it at all relaxing to prolong my drive and my time on the road. I'll leave probably around 10PM and get to our destination around 1-2PM the next day. I've made this trip multiple times. Once I get there, I'll sleep for about 3-4 hours, and then I'll relax the whole week, lounging on the beach.

Again, I understand completely. What you may eventually understand is that you don't have to wait to get to Florida to relax. It makes the trip safer (less driving fatigued -- not tired) and more enjoyable.

So what do you think? 5 hours? Still a heckuva lot longer than fueling.

For your isolated case because West Virginia has less fast chargers than any other state, other than the Tesla Superchargers. Again, that will change soon and you trip will be much more like almost anywhere else in the US.

I do.

You do realize that the article I quoted said the average for public chargers right now is between $0.30 and $0.48 per kWh, right?

That's nice. But the point is, most don't have session fees and he isn't paying extra for any type of "membership."

A blue (I paid a premium for the blue K5, there is also a premium for the blue Tesla Model 3) long-range Tesla Model 3 base model starts at $48,740. That's $17,870 more than I paid for my K5. That is not "roughly the cost of [my] car."



Not. Even. Close.

That is if you special order a Model 3. Doing a search on available inventory, I can get a Blue Model 3 Long Range for $43,870. Yes, even removing the tax credit of $7500, it is still a bit more expensive -- then again it has things like the "autopilot" feature, the blind spot cameras, and other features that are not offered on your car. Also, last I knew, if you complain it is discounted for being in stock, Kia does not even allow dealerships to "pre-order" vehicles for customers; the best they can do is make requests for certain options and colors that they believe will sell well in their area.

This is nowhere close to double the price of your vehicle, as you were claiming, or even $10,000 over the price of an equivalent vehicle.

I'm sure you do.

That doesn't change the fact that OVERALL adoption of EVs in the US sits somewhere south of 3%, and even in California, that number is only ~2.5%. Nowhere near mass adoption rates.

Never said it does.

 

[probinson]

And maybe that is really irrelevant, since they only drive any "distance" a couple of times a year, maybe a couple of hundred miles to see family. Driving needs vary and the idea that they have to make extra stops every couple of hours on road trips, that they take once or twice a year, tends to be vastly overstated.

I'm not sure why you keep pretending like range isn't an issue. It is. It's not vastly overstated. For people who drive long distances, it ranks in the top two reasons for why people aren't converting to EVs nearly as quickly as the industry had hoped.

You mean like oil subsidies to gas companies to keep gas prices cheap in the US?

Yes, energy subsidies exist on most all energy sources.

Again, I understand completely. What you may eventually understand is that you don't have to wait to get to Florida to relax. It makes the trip safer (less driving fatigued -- not tired) and more enjoyable.

Sure. If it takes me many hours longer to get to Florida after leaving Pennsylvania at 10PM, I'll be less tired when I get there. Where on earth do you come up with this nonsense?

If I ever get to a point where I am uncomfortable driving for 4-5 hours at a time on a long road trip, then I will fly to my destination. I won't "understand" that taking LONGER to get where I'm going is in any way relaxing.

For your isolated case because West Virginia has less fast chargers than any other state, other than the Tesla Superchargers. Again, that will change soon and you trip will be much more like almost anywhere else in the US.

I'm not sure why you're hyper-focused on West Virginia. The simple fact is that the EV6 takes 9x longer to charge to 80% capacity than it does to fully fill my gas tank. Period.

That's nice. But the point is, most don't have session fees and he isn't paying extra for any type of "membership."

And my original calculations assumed no membership nor session fees, and clocked in just $10 less than the cost of gas for the trip. Public charging is currently on par with gas prices. In some cases, it is more expensive.

That is if you special order a Model 3. Doing a search on available inventory, I can get a Blue Model 3 Long Range for $43,870.

That car isn't available in my area.

Here is the ONLY new Blue Model 3 Long Range in available inventory that I could get in my area (if I were willing to drive nearly 100 miles to pick it up). MSRP $50,240.

Yes, even removing the tax credit of $7500, it is still a bit more expensive --

Even if I spot you the after-incentives price of $46,860 and the $7,500 tax credit, It's $39,360. Maybe nearly $10k is "a bit more" in your world, but that's substantially more.

I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend like the K5 GT-Line and Model 3 are even remotely close in price. They are not.

then again it has things like the "autopilot" feature

My K5 has "Smart Cruise Control w/ Stop and Go and Highway Driving Assist" that sounds an awful lot like Tesla's basic autopilot. My K5 will maintain a specified following distance and keep me centered in my lane, which is exactly what Tesla's basic autopilot feature offers. In addition, the HDA will automatically slow down for curves. And If I set the cruise at the posted speed limit, it will automatically adjust to follow speed limit changes.

According to Tesla:

Basic Autopilot includes Traffic-Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer.

• Traffic-Aware Cruise Control: Maintains your speed and an adjustable following distance from the vehicle in front of you, if there is one (see Traffic-Aware Cruise Control).
• Autosteer: Maintains your speed and distance from a leading vehicle while also intelligently keeping Model 3 in its lane (see Autosteer).

https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-101D1BF5-52D2-469A-A57D-E7230BBEE94B.html

So my K5 does most everything that Tesla's Basic Autopilot does. From what I can tell, the Tesla basic autopilot may also be able to change lanes automatically just by signaling. If that's the case, my K5 can't do that. I actually have to grab the wheel and change lanes myself after signaling. (Oh, the horror!)

Also, you might want to read the news before you talk about how great Tesla's Autopilot feature is. There are definitely still some critical bugs to work out.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/08/tech/tesla-trial-wrongful-death-walter-huang/index.html

, the blind spot cameras,

Well, you got me there. All I have are blind spot monitors. Of course, those blind spot monitors will visibly and audibly alert me if I attempt to drive into the path of a car in my blindspot, so I'm not sure what benefit cameras gain me there.

and other features that are not offered on your car.

You know two things Teslas don't have that are absolute dealbreakers for me? Apple CarPlay and a moonroof. I rely very heavily on Apple CarPlay in my K5. It's a must-have feature for me. Also, the Tesla Model 3's roof does not open at all. The panoramic moonroof on my K5 can either vent or open completely on nice sunny days.

I know you're trying to say that EVs have way more tech than my lowly K5. But my K5 is pretty handsomely equipped with many driver-assist features. Having driven over 30k miles in the last 2 years with them, they work quite well. The surround-view monitor is cool and I wish that were an available feature in 2022. The 2024 K5 has that as an option now for roughly the same price as I paid for my 2022, so I have to believe that it's not really that expensive of a feature.

Also, last I knew, if you complain it is discounted for being in stock,

It's not really discounted for being in stock, nor was the one I originally posted "special order". I literally chose a base model Tesla with no additional options. In fact, it was LESS than the one that is in available inventory in my area.

This is nowhere close to double the price of your vehicle, as you were claiming, or even $10,000 over the price of an equivalent vehicle.

Yes, it is nearly $10k more than what I paid, and that's only after all incentives. If we're comparing MSRP, it's $30,870 vs. $50,240. That's 1.62x greater. Not quite 2x, but still pretty substantial.

Never said it does.

So we agree that mass adoption of EVs is not here yet, and is still quite a long way off.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So was I.

Do you have any research data to back that up?


I'm not claiming to....but if you do I'd like to see it.

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.

That could be....but you don't want anecdotal evidence and I've seen no actual research on the topic....so it's hard to say.

LOL!!! I'm sorry, did you actually look at that link you posted?

Yes...I read about halfway through it.

Did you notice that battery they were talking about that lasts 3 to 5 years costs $185 at their dealership?

I wasn't aware that EVs required a second battery. I was under the impression it was one battery.

What is the second battery for?

Who is on the left here?

I was under the impression you were....given our previous interactions.

How would you describe your political beliefs?

I think many on the left would claim it is a part of the right that has abandoned rational thought on these matters.

Sure....but one of these is provable, one isn't.

For example, only the left has concluded that defunding the police and replacing them with "social workers" as a means of improving outcomes between police interactions with citizens/criminals. This basically failed immediately in places like Portland and San Francisco where various versions were implemented. Unfortunately, correcting the damage done to the policing community hasn't been easy.

The left also floated the idea of drug decriminalization with Portland also volunteering to be the test city for that. Whether this was to improve healthcare outcomes or reduce drug abuse it failed miserably...and now they've recriminalized drugs. Hopefully they can get replacements for all the police they lost and destroy the illegal narcotics market they've created in the past few years.

I mean....nobody likes to talk about the 93 million dollar scam that was Black Lives Matter and some even still support it I hear....but again, that's a lot of devastation to the exact same communities people were trying to help.

All easily avoided with a little common sense.

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.

No? Well the short version is that a personal anecdote that amounted to an unwanted kiss and shove was framed by left wing media as attempted rape. The nominee had to sit before a confirmation hearing where he was accused of sexual assault in person, rape in the media, and then mocked for not being happy about the experience.

He, of course, claimed to not have been at the party his accuser claimed he did this "sexual assault" at in her personal anecdote. Remarkably, the other guests at this same party could recall many of the other party goers....yet none who were there could recall Mr Kavanaugh being present apart from his accuser.

So essentially 1 personal anecdote, 30 years old, smeared a SCOTUS nominee's name and to this day, many on the left still believe that Mr Kavanaugh is guilty of something despite the FBI's brief and pointless investigation only supporting Mr Kavanaugh's version of events (that he wasn't present at the party) and no one supporting his accuser's personal anecdote (that he was present at the party).

Imagine that....a mere 30 year old anecdote was enough to trigger an FBI investigation. When Biden's IRS whistleblowers testified to having hundreds of pages of bank records, shady transactions, shell companies, money laundering and generally corrupt business dealings between Hunter and Joe....the FBI decided not only wasn't it enough to trigger an investigation on Joe, but Hunter should probably get a plea deal for any crimes uncovered in the future.

It's almost as if 2 different FBI agencies exist.....one to investigate 30yo anecdotes with no evidence....and one that apparently doesn't investigate crimes no matter what evidence is unearthed.

I'm surprised you didn't hear about this.

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.

Why the two batteries? Honest question.

https://www.currentautomotive.com/how-much-does-a-tesla-model-3-battery-replacement-cost/

This is one of those anecdotes that you don't like but as I said....I can't find any research supporting your claim that these battery packs are well protected, nor can I find any research supporting the claim they aren't....so anecdotes are all I have.

"Though we don’t have the full details of what went down, we know a large rock somehow struck the bottom of the car, causing enough physical damage to the battery to cause total failure and render the car completely unresponsive and inoperable. This is exactly the type of thing that warranties don’t usually cover—though Tesla’s warranty actually does cover battery fire damage, even if the fire was caused by user error or other forces. In other words, if this rock had set the battery on fire, it would have been covered by warranty.



So to be clear here....a large rock hit the undercarriage of the Tesla and damaged the battery so badly it needed replacement. Generally, a rock hitting the undercarriage of a car is something that happens when the friction of the tire in forward motion creates enough force to send the rock upward as it rolls over the tire. The only other scenario I can think of involves a large rock falling off a dump truck or other vehicle and bouncing underneath the Tesla.

Since we aren't talking about a boulder being driven into (because the battery pack was the only part damaged) and the Tesla's clearance height is 5.5 inches....we're definitely talking about a big rock....potentially something up to the size of a very very small cantaloupe.

16,000$ to replace because the warranty doesn't cover accidental damage.

Now, I'm pretty good at avoiding 5 inch rocks in the road....but if it was 3 or 4 inches...I don't know how well I can avoid those under normal conditions. I've seen plenty of potholes that deep and the mere possibility of that resulting in a 16,000$ bill isn't exactly a plus for EVs.

All in all, it doesn't exactly sound like these battery packs are as invulnerable as you claim but I'll grant that....

1. It's an anecdote....perhaps not indicative of a significant flaw.
2. It's a 2020 model I'm assuming since that's the date on the article and perhaps Tesla has upgraded their battery armor.
3. Perhaps this was some sort of freakish tungsten or depleted uranium rock lol.

Maybe you have some data on the upgrades made to prevent these incidents from happening? Or even just a manufacturing test showing how much force is required to do such significant damage?

More or less, though "outperform" seems an odd choice of word.

C'mon @SimplyMe....I gave you a choice of words, if you don't like outperform, tell me what you are comfortable with.

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.

Sure.

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.

Sure....I'd guess most people if we were betting.

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..

In this context then...we can call "different" and "sustainable" interchangeable. I can agree that sustainable sounds better....but so far it seems like you're listing different energy sources, not something sustainable.

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.

I don't want you to admit anything but what you think...

I don't understand why people think there's always some trick hiding behind a simple question lol. I didn't think you were trying something tricky when you explained that you were interpreting the word "efficient" differently from how I was using it. I took it at face value....you were considering the term efficient differently from me, and perhaps that was due to the way I contextually used it.

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.

I would agree that nuclear power is probably a far better solution than solar or wind or hydroelectric (I haven't followed advances in hydrogen power much....so I don't think I can speak intelligently on the topic.

And thanks for pointing out my mistake with the Chevy Bolt. I haven't exactly taken a close look at every EV....and I just assumed that like the Teslas, they only had the one battery.

Interestingly, in double checking that the Tesla does indeed only have the one battery so I didn't make the same stupid mistake twice lol....it seems as if the battery in the Tesla starts to nosedive in capacity after a certain number of years (if you guessed 8, you guessed correctly).

A Study on Real-Life Tesla Battery Deterioration

Tesla cars are known for their long range, providing hundreds of miles on a single full charge—but how does the battery hold up after years of use? To find out, we've analysed real-life data submitted by hundreds of car owners to determine how Tesla batteries deteriorate over time.

www.nimblefins.co.uk

Now, it appears to be a limited study (so take it with a grain of salt since I'm sure that Tesla has upgraded the battery in the 10 years compared in the study) but the average battery capacity degradation is about 1% per year. This leaves the capacity at a rather respectable 92% by year 8....but by year 10 it appears to drop considerably to around 83%. I don't know if that becomes an exponential drop after 8 years and by 12 you're looking at a 64% capacity but regardless, this is another advantage of the ICE.

An ICE car with a 12.5 gallon tank on year 1 will still have a 12.5 gallon tank after 8 years.

 

[probinson]

Something interesting I've learned about EV range in this discussion that I did not know is that the advertised range is probably irrelevant since you are not advised to charge your battery beyond 80% to help with its longevity. Also, I've noticed that most manufacturers cite the time to charge from 10% to 80%.

For those of you keeping score at home, that means that realistically, only 70% of the advertised range is usable. So if we consider the advertised 252 mile range of the EV6 AWD, if you're constantly running between 10% and 80% battery charge (as recommended), you're actually only getting 70% of the available range, or 176.4 miles. If you want to get daring and take that battery down to 1% before you recharge, you can squeeze another 22.68 miles out of the battery before its completely dead, bringing the total range up to just under 200 miles.

In case you missed it, I posted an article earlier that states that the reason for charging to only 80% is because while batteries can charge very rapidly to 80%, they take MUCH longer to charge from 80% to 100%. Here is the article again for reference, and the explanation:

Concerning charging rates, a good example is the Hyundai Ioniq 5 with the optional, long-range battery. This hatchback-like crossover can DC fast charge from 10 to 80% in an incredibly quick 18 minutes. But it needs an additional 32 minutes to go from 80 to 100% - almost twice as long as it took to go from 10 to 80.​

​

Why? Charging is not linear. Instead of batteries taking in energy at a constant, predictable rate, the rate actually changes based on a myriad of variables, though most importantly, the battery’s state of charge. Simply put, the fuller the battery is, the slower it absorbs energy. Imagine if a conventional car’s gas tank took longer and longer to fill up the closer it got to being full. It's kind of crazy.​

​

The 80% rule: Why you shouldn't charge your EV to 100%

Did you know that your EV's battery is improved when kept below 100%? Read to learn more about the optimal charging percentage.

witricity.com

​

So for those with range anxiety that are being accused of "vastly overstating" the issue, the reality is actually worse than advertised. If you stay within the 80% rule, you're reducing your range by at least 20% and perhaps by as much as 70% (if you like to keep your battery above 10%). In fact, most manufacturers will allow you to set a maximum charge level to ensure you don't charge to 100%, meaning that the max range is somewhere in the ballpark of 20% less than what you see advertised UNLESS you go against the recommendation and charge to 100%, which will take considerably longer and will take a toll on your battery's longevity.

 

[wing2000]

The historically low 3.8% unemployment rate continues America's longest stretch of a sub-4% jobless rate in more than five decades.

...in five decades.