Will The New York International Auto Show Have A Positive Impact On Em?

[TeamCoconutOreo]

Agree that $70k makes the Tesla a rich man's car, but disagree that it has to be an "and" car. I've known people in the past who used bicycles for their daily use and when they needed something more called Hertz. The point being that for those who do not drive long distances on a regular basis, virtually *anything* could be their only car. Rental cars and trucks are readily available for that once-a-month trip to where ever. And if that's all the more often you need long distance, you'll probably save a crapload of money by renting that second car rather than owning it.

You do realize you emphasized my point? "Unless," meaning I understand there are exceptions.

 

[TeamCoconutOreo]

I'm sure you know Lithium batteries are nearly 100% recyclable right?
Didn't thinks so.

I read an article that recycling Lithium batteries is very dirty. It was a single source story so the grain of salt thing may apply, but if half true it may not be as clean as we have been led to believe.

Also Jeff may have been referring to the environmental cost of producing the electricity used to charge the batteries and not the batteries themselves.

 

[Jeff Miller]

I read an article that recycling Lithium batteries is very dirty. It was a single source story so the grain of salt thing may apply, but if half true it may not be as clean as we have been led to believe.

Also Jeff may have been referring to the environmental cost of producing the electricity used to charge the batteries and not the batteries themselves.

I actually just wanted to point out that EVs are not a 100% slam dunk of energy/environment/cost vs. oil. All of the energy sources we use for personal transportation have a toll and it was the original posters comment about believing that EVs are the only answer to the solution that I found a bit out of place.

The original poster's response that lithium batteries are recyclable and thus somehow equating that to EVs being more environmentally friendly than oil that caused me to do a very quick search to understand where those comments came from. It took me seconds to find a post from a waste recycler that has no particular benefit to see EVs in use or not that showed that once again there is no slam dunk for EVs. The environmental and monetary cost of lithium batteries is still ridiculously high enough that I'll take oil over them any day.

The added bonus of oil was also pointed out in the earth day blog. The current infrastructure allows us to drive gasoline powered vehicles great distances without worry of trying to find a fuel source or being delayed significantly waiting to charge. Infrastructure to charge millions of EVs is a significant issue. We already have browns outs in large population areas. It is those areas that do to its limited range make the most sense for an EV. So what happens when millions of EV owners plug in their cars to a grid that is already strained?

As I posted originally, I'd like to be able to be 180 degrees opposite of the original poster and laugh at EV zealots but given the issues with EVs I simply can't muster a laugh.

 

[WilliamH]

I actually just wanted to point out that EVs are not a 100% slam dunk of energy/environment/cost vs. oil. All of the energy sources we use for personal transportation have a toll and it was the original posters comment about believing that EVs are the only answer to the solution that I found a bit out of place.

The original poster's response that lithium batteries are recyclable and thus somehow equating that to EVs being more environmentally friendly than oil that caused me to do a very quick search to understand where those comments came from. It took me seconds to find a post from a waste recycler that has no particular benefit to see EVs in use or not that showed that once again there is no slam dunk for EVs. The environmental and monetary cost of lithium batteries is still ridiculously high enough that I'll take oil over them any day.

The added bonus of oil was also pointed out in the earth day blog. The current infrastructure allows us to drive gasoline powered vehicles great distances without worry of trying to find a fuel source or being delayed significantly waiting to charge. Infrastructure to charge millions of EVs is a significant issue. We already have browns outs in large population areas. It is those areas that do to its limited range make the most sense for an EV. So what happens when millions of EV owners plug in their cars to a grid that is already strained?

As I posted originally, I'd like to be able to be 180 degrees opposite of the original poster and laugh at EV zealots but given the issues with EVs I simply can't muster a laugh.

Guess we really need to get to work on that di-lithium crystal energy source for our matter to anti-matter converters so we can fire up the old transporter beams.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

I suppose I react to the EV debate because I see so much garbage science about it and even more short sightedness about the whole subject.
So, to answer the standard junk science crowd:

Electrical vehicles are not a silver bullet, they are a part of the solution to dependence on foreign oil and foreign conflicts. Less oil from hostile countries, less compromise of American values, less money on military to control said countries.

They are NOT a complete environmental solution, but they ARE better overall for the environment. Powering a fleet of EV's, causes less pollution than a fleet of comparable gasoline vehicles. In addition, the power plants are usually outside the urban areas reducing the pollution to the general population. Introduce natural gas (not great, but vastly improved AND domestically produced), will reduce the pollution. Solar and wind power are a viable and growing solution. Obviously, not a complete solution, but a huge chunk can be generated from these sources. I am showing that even worse case scenario shoes EV's to be vastly better environmentally than the ICE counterparts. Also, EV's can be powered by many competing sources. Competition brings down prices.

Overall, efficiency for an EV is much greater than gas autos. It's not even close.

Range. Even the short legged Nissan Leaf (which has only an 80 mile range) is more than sufficient for most (98%) of commuting. Long distance cargo and passenger hauling will depend on Diesel for the foreseeable future.

The idea of reducing oil consumption by 20% may not seem like much, but consider this: the difference between an oil glut and an oil crisis is less than a 3% change in production.

Finally, the established auto makers don't like EV's. Why?
Auto manufacturers make around 50-75% of their profits with spare parts and servicing. They NEED your car to break to maintain their business model. They have made changing the oil impossible for the normal person and then try to charge up to $120 for the service.

To expand further on this: A normal 4 cylinder gasoline engine has hundreds of moving parts. An electric motor has ONE. Fewer moving parts, fewer parts breaking and less profit. No company will make an easily serviceable car, let alone an electrical car, because they will NEVER accept a 50-75% cut in profit. EVER! They will make a crappy semi-electrical vehicle and let it fail, then say: "see? the public never wanted en EV in the first place"

It comes down to the issue of control, not perfection.

Electrical vehicles reduces the control of Auto makers by giving a REAL choice for transportation, reduces the control of the dealer by eliminating them, reduces the control of oil empires by reducing demand thus reducing military activity and spending on sandboxes filled with people who hate us.

Does the argument sound familiar?
Elio Motors reduces the control of Auto makers by giving a REAL choice for transportation, reduces the control of the dealer by eliminating them, reduces the control of oil empires by reducing demand thus reducing military activity and spending on sandboxes filled with people who hate us.

Or, to put it in a way that even the most devout Fox News disciple can understand:
"It gives you back your freedom."

 

[WilliamH]

I suppose I react to the EV debate because I see so much garbage science about it and even more short sightedness about the whole subject.
So, to answer the standard junk science crowd:

Electrical vehicles are not a silver bullet, they are a part of the solution to dependence on foreign oil and foreign conflicts. Less oil from hostile countries, less compromise of American values, less money on military to control said countries.

They are NOT a complete environmental solution, but they ARE better overall for the environment. Powering a fleet of EV's, causes less pollution than a fleet of comparable gasoline vehicles. In addition, the power plants are usually outside the urban areas reducing the pollution to the general population. Introduce natural gas (not great, but vastly improved AND domestically produced), will reduce the pollution. Solar and wind power are a viable and growing solution. Obviously, not a complete solution, but a huge chunk can be generated from these sources. I am showing that even worse case scenario shoes EV's to be vastly better environmentally than the ICE counterparts. Also, EV's can be powered by many competing sources. Competition brings down prices.

Overall, efficiency for an EV is much greater than gas autos. It's not even close.

Range. Even the short legged Nissan Leaf (which has only an 80 mile range) is more than sufficient for most (98%) of commuting. Long distance cargo and passenger hauling will depend on Diesel for the foreseeable future.

The idea of reducing oil consumption by 20% may not seem like much, but consider this: the difference between an oil glut and an oil crisis is less than a 3% change in production.

Finally, the established auto makers don't like EV's. Why?
Auto manufacturers make around 50-75% of their profits with spare parts and servicing. They NEED your car to break to maintain their business model. They have made changing the oil impossible for the normal person and then try to charge up to $120 for the service.

To expand further on this: A normal 4 cylinder gasoline engine has hundreds of moving parts. An electric motor has ONE. Fewer moving parts, fewer parts breaking and less profit. No company will make an easily serviceable car, let alone an electrical car, because they will NEVER accept a 50-75% cut in profit. EVER! They will make a crappy semi-electrical vehicle and let it fail, then say: "see? the public never wanted en EV in the first place"

It comes down to the issue of control, not perfection.

Electrical vehicles reduces the control of Auto makers by giving a REAL choice for transportation, reduces the control of the dealer by eliminating them, reduces the control of oil empires by reducing demand thus reducing military activity and spending on sandboxes filled with people who hate us.

Does the argument sound familiar?
Elio Motors reduces the control of Auto makers by giving a REAL choice for transportation, reduces the control of the dealer by eliminating them, reduces the control of oil empires by reducing demand thus reducing military activity and spending on sandboxes filled with people who hate us.

Or, to put it in a way that even the most devout Fox News disciple can understand:
"It gives you back your freedom."

......." I am showing that even worse case scenario shoes EV's to be vastly better environmentally than the ICE counterparts."..........
If you have to say what you are showing, you aren't showing it.

If you have to bash a news outlet that doesn't tow the line of your political faction
........."Or, to put it in a way that even the most devout Fox News disciple can understand:"............
it shows a total lack of objectivity.

And your worst remark
.........."In addition, the power plants are usually outside the urban areas reducing the pollution to the general population".................
Wow! Guess us subhumans out in flyover country don't count at all.
Just rape our natural resources for your convenience!

 

[Elio Amazed]

I suppose I react to the EV debate because I see so much garbage science about it and even more short sightedness about the whole subject.
So, to answer the standard junk science crowd:

Electrical vehicles are not a silver bullet, they are a part of the solution to dependence on foreign oil and foreign conflicts. Less oil from hostile countries, less compromise of American values, less money on military to control said countries.

They are NOT a complete environmental solution, but they ARE better overall for the environment. Powering a fleet of EV's, causes less pollution than a fleet of comparable gasoline vehicles. In addition, the power plants are usually outside the urban areas reducing the pollution to the general population. Introduce natural gas (not great, but vastly improved AND domestically produced), will reduce the pollution. Solar and wind power are a viable and growing solution. Obviously, not a complete solution, but a huge chunk can be generated from these sources. I am showing that even worse case scenario shoes EV's to be vastly better environmentally than the ICE counterparts. Also, EV's can be powered by many competing sources. Competition brings down prices.

Overall, efficiency for an EV is much greater than gas autos. It's not even close.

Range. Even the short legged Nissan Leaf (which has only an 80 mile range) is more than sufficient for most (98%) of commuting. Long distance cargo and passenger hauling will depend on Diesel for the foreseeable future.

The idea of reducing oil consumption by 20% may not seem like much, but consider this: the difference between an oil glut and an oil crisis is less than a 3% change in production.

Finally, the established auto makers don't like EV's. Why?
Auto manufacturers make around 50-75% of their profits with spare parts and servicing. They NEED your car to break to maintain their business model. They have made changing the oil impossible for the normal person and then try to charge up to $120 for the service.

To expand further on this: A normal 4 cylinder gasoline engine has hundreds of moving parts. An electric motor has ONE. Fewer moving parts, fewer parts breaking and less profit. No company will make an easily serviceable car, let alone an electrical car, because they will NEVER accept a 50-75% cut in profit. EVER! They will make a crappy semi-electrical vehicle and let it fail, then say: "see? the public never wanted en EV in the first place"

It comes down to the issue of control, not perfection.

Electrical vehicles reduces the control of Auto makers by giving a REAL choice for transportation, reduces the control of the dealer by eliminating them, reduces the control of oil empires by reducing demand thus reducing military activity and spending on sandboxes filled with people who hate us.

Does the argument sound familiar?
Elio Motors reduces the control of Auto makers by giving a REAL choice for transportation, reduces the control of the dealer by eliminating them, reduces the control of oil empires by reducing demand thus reducing military activity and spending on sandboxes filled with people who hate us.

Or, to put it in a way that even the most devout Fox News disciple can understand:
"It gives you back your freedom."

Well said CE.
Other than the use of the word "vastly" giving me slight pause in, "I am showing that even worse case scenario shoes EV's to be vastly better environmentally than the ICE counterparts", and your "outside the urban areas" comment, I can live with this.

I do have to agree with William that the latter smacks of you considering rural pollution more acceptable than urban pollution. Blurbs like these, coming from a clinical and coldly objective perspective or not, hamper your ability to get the rest of your content heard and considered fairly.

I recognize and commend the process of your increasing restraint and objectivity in these posts. Keep writing that curve.

As far as using FOX to profile, who cares?
Most of my news is gleaned from my newsfeeds that don't seem to have the time, space, or motivation to spin the facts.
As far as I'm concerned, all the major franchises emit thier own unique, agenda driven, cow flatulence with some news mixed in.

What I would really like to see is the overall cost of a residential solar roof come even close to a convential shingle roof.
There was some movement a couple of years ago in that direction in solar film for metal roofing but it was squashed.
Unfortunately, that particular construction industry, in character, has chosen to gouge for this, both in labor and material mark-up.
That's very likely due to government subsidies fooling the more well-to-do into believing that they're getting an all-around bargain.
It's just too bad that individuals always seem to take advantage of rare genuine efforts to andvance positive things.
While residential system materials are not completely free of environmental issues, it would seem like one of a number of places to start.

 

[RUCRAYZE]

Will The New York Auto Show have a positive impact on EM?

 

[Elio Amazed]

Will The New York Auto Show have a positive impact on EM?

What in the world does that have to do with this thread?
I tell ya RU, sometimes you make me wonder.

 

[WilliamH]

Will The New York Auto Show have a positive impact on EM?

Positive impact?
Not sure exactly what you mean by that
But it did generate a lot of press around the country including folks from Detroit complaining that Elio didn't show at their show.
(This from people who blew their chance to have the factory in Pontiac.)
The financial side?
Not really sure.