Jaguar I-Pace by Tesla Owner

What $3400 ICE car has 400 mile range? Even my Prius Plug-In doesn't have 400 mile range and at 6 years old, it is worth a lot more than $3400. With almost any car, BEV or ICE, you have to stop once on a 400 mile trip. Refueling time on a trip is about the same for BEV and ICE considering comfort stops, food, etc. No Tesla has a 400 mile range. It takes about one 10 min. stop at a Tesla Supercharger for a 400 mile range. No BEV has a 400 mile range. Very few ICE have a 400 mile range.

Let me explain to you again how your arbitrary $3400 works. Put down $3400 on a $35K BEV and finance the rest. Your monthly savings in gasoline, oil, brakes, timing chains, stealership rip-offs, should make your monthly payments for you. Also figure in the savings in medical care for the future by driving a clean vehicle.

Your certainty that electricity rates will rise to the same rate as gasoline is nothing more than a ploy to justify your commitment to ICE vehicles.

 

Wish I still had my old Chevy pickup. That had a 34 gallon tank and could easily go over 500 miles on a fill up, maybe even 600 if I tried. Would have happily sold it for $3400

If you want 400 miles of range, it's not that hard to find. I'm surprised your PiP doesn't reach that, as my normal Prius can easily go past 500 on a tank.

 

Even with that mix, a plug in is doing much better than even a hybrid at your location in terms global warming emissions.

In terms of other emissions, natural gas burns cleaner than gasoline, and it is easier to address emissions at a few power plants than over thousands of cars. Oil is dirtier, but it is still a tiny amount even during the winter. The accounting may also include waste oils, like used motor oil.

Nuclear suffers from NIMBYism and political issues over recycling the used fuel in the US. Overseas, plants may switch to fuel rods of unrefined thorium and recycled plutonium. Then there is a politics of permits to deal with. Microreactors are safe, and you just leave them buried once their 30+ year lifecycle is used up. They can be the solution in areas where renewables aren't practical. Such has a small Alaskan town that wanted one, but they where denied the permit. So they are stuck burning diesel for power.

No one is hooked up to a national grid.

Our town is also the local power company; it even had its own power plant in the past It spared us from Pa's move to open market electric. There is a small PV farm, but that may belong to the housing development it is next to.

Such prices are just a question of time. You would not have found such a price for a gen2 Prius in 2005. It is unreasable to expect such low used prices for a long range BEV when the affordable ones have just come to market.

Less light during the winter, but the panels will be more efficient has they are chilled.

 

Next town over from ours is on National Grid. That's who sells them power and that's who services their lines. I think that's the case for most cities, too.

I realize that. And that is part of my secondary point. Buying used is always greener than buying new. @el Crucero constantly complains of his lungs hurting because I drive a Prius, but neglects how much pollution is produced by not lowering demand for new cars. But your point is valid, of course. Can't expect used prices on new cars. But my argument was in response to @el Crucero's statement that there is an EV solution for ANYONE. That would include the folk who can't afford more than $3,400 for a reliable economical vehicle with 400 mile range. That is, of course complete and total bunk and I called him out on it, but it turned into this...

I doubt the trade-off is anywhere near equivalent.

 

Yes, I agree. What I was objecting to is the portrayal of ICE as "spewing death" while BEVs get a free pass. It's a matter of degree. ICEs are cleaner than they've ever been, and BEVs are even better than that, but not perfect. I do worry that any gains we make by going to cleaner cars will be wiped out by an increasing population of vehicles being driven more miles. This is particularly worrisome when you have autonomous vehicles which enable even longer commutes, or allow more mobility by those who can't currently drive (generally a good thing, but not from a pollution standpoint).

@VFerdman also makes some excellent points about the pollution associated with manufacturing new cars. A BEV is a big win if it's replacing an old, worn out ICE. But, if you have a new-ish hybrid, is the extra pollution worse than that which would be generated by manufacturing a new BEV and scrapping the hybrid early?

 

if by saying no one is hooked up to a national grid, that's true. By the same token though, there are around 8 areas w/in the US (&parts of canada) that have a lot of interconnectivity (though some areas within the zones are not connected) & that connectivity can & does cause massive power outages in the areas when there over stressing scenarios.

Continental U.S. power transmission grid - Wikipedia
.

 

Ah, but many people in the northeast are hooked up to "National Grid", one of the regional electric companies.

 

Ah, didn't occur to me that you were referring to a company.

Many, either with an anti-plug in view or simply lazy, like to use the national level grid mix of energy sources when discussing emissions. Silly, since there isn't an outlet in the country supplying electricity made by that mix.

I've been quick skimming certain posts in these threads.

I agree that BEVs don't work for everybody, and neither do PHEVs. Your $3400 price requirement was coming across as close to the "I need 500 mile range, and 5 minute recharge," that the more closed minded tend to state.

Likely so, but since much of a home's electric use goes towards A/C, the reduced output of PV in the winter isn't a big deal when home heating is from natural gas or another non-electric fuel.

In the opposing season, summer heat will reduce efficiency of PV; they are dark and being baked. Enough that liquid cooled panels are being investigated.

The difference I see is that an ICE car gets dirtier with use and age; emission control systems do suffer from wear and tear. Plus, we will need to turn petroleum source that require more energy to extract and refine in the future. Clean the grid, and all the plug ins get cleaner.

But the hybrid won't be scrapped early. It will become available to someone who may not have been able to afford a new one. The only con to such a decision in one's personal finances.

 

Speaking as somebody who over the years has been a bit close minded about fuel injection, automatic transmissions, hybrids, front wheel drive, and anti-lock brakes (and I'm still not convinced on those last two), it takes time to change minds. Longer ranges and faster recharge times require less change on the part of the vehicle owner.

For me personally, I can't charge at the office, so 100 miles isn't enough if I need to go somewhere out of the way during the day. 200 miles would be good for most workdays, as that would allow for going significantly out of my way without running the battery all the way down, even allowing for cold weather and some degradation due to age. If I'm going out of state on a weekend, 400 miles is good and eliminates worries about where to charge on the way.

Now, a few years from now if there's some decent charging infrastructure and let's say a 10 minute recharge time, then maybe I can make do with a 200 mile range as charging on the occasional weekend trip isn't too inconvenient, but it would require a bit more planning ahead. Longer recharge times are still problematic because they start to become a significant part of the trip.

And of course, if I don't have time to think about all of this it will get boiled down to "I need 500 mile range, and 5 minute recharge"

 

As a reference point here is the 2017 power generation from my home system about 20 miles south of San Francisco. I'd guess in the Northeast the differences between the lows and highs would be greater because of the more/less sunlight from being farther north. As you can see, even though heat does impact generation it's much more than offset by the length of the days.

 

I am not a big fan of front wheel drive, but it's more economical and that's that. ABS is actually a very good thing. I learned to drive before its invention and had un-learn it all when I bought my forst ABS car. The problem at the beginning of ABS was that of infancy. Not every car had ABS and the panic braking technique is diametrically opposite on the two systems. So if you switched between the two systems a lot you were doomed to do the wrong thing in a panic. This is why insurance rates paradoxically went up on ABS cars at first. People were having worst outcomes. Once ABS became prevalent and panic braking technique is the same in all cars (that have ABS, which is probably 99% at this point), ABS is actually a very good thing to have. It allows you to not loose steering control. Again, you still need to have your wits about you to actually steer out of trouble during a panic situation, but that's a different problem.

Just like ABS had its growing pains, so are EVs now are in their infancy. Things are still shaking out. There is no doubt in my mind that electric cars are inherently better than cars with ICE. It is a simple enough thing to understand. Electric motors have been around for longer than ICE, they are more efficient, cheaper to make, weigh less, require less supporting systems (like cooling, exhaust, lubrication, etc. on ICE), less maintenance, need no or very simple gear box (other than reduction final drive). Advantages go on and on. Human beings rarely forgo a superior technology in the end. The fossil industry is definitely a drag on the progress of adaption of EVs, but it's really doomed in the end. I would be very surprised if smart people in that industry did not realize that. It's just a matter of time. And they are trying to drag that time out, I get it. But they are doomed, doomed, doomed as energy providers. They are still important for things like plastics, lubricants and countless oil-based products, but transportation is better on electric motor. This is why trains have been electrified a long time ago (first street cars were electric). As battery tech grows and matures and we get ever closer to that 500 mile range and 5 minute charge, things will shift dramatically. It's just not the present day reality that most people can and should use a BEV. We are not there yet.

 

I made a good faith effort to provide YOU with alternatives. YOU kept moving the goalposts by adding new criteria. So. in my opinion, your question wasn't sincere. And I am calling you out on it.

With regards to people below the poverty level, I have stated elsewhere that government should step in and provide subsidies for those people who qualify. If the Feds can provide for up to $7500 tax credit (an income of about $80K/year) they can provide a subsidy of $7500 for people below the poverty level. I have already stated that I am willing to have my taxes raised to fund this program. How about you? In fact, California gives a $7000 rebate to qualified low income people for EVs who fall below income levels.

 

I did not move the goal posts. My original requirement stated: $3,400 price, 400 mile range and 50mpg. You provided me with an alternative that cost $32,995 and had 84 mile range (ok, let's call it 100). Was I wrong to dismiss it? Please do not equate leasing a $33K to owning a $3,400 car. Not the same. Also, 100 mile range is not 400. I don't even know what to say about that.

That is neither here nor there as poor people despite your political stance are still poor and need transportation TODAY, in TODAY'S state of the world to go to work, shopping, take their kids to school, doctor, etc. So this is just empty words and not based in reality at all. As most of your banter.

Also, buying used is ALWAYS greener than buying new. There is precious little market for used EVs, none that match my criteria. But when there is, I will be the first one get one and advocate for them. Those days are coming, but we are not there TODAY.

 

I agree completely that electric motors are inherently simpler and more reliable than ICE, and a BEV will never have problems with rough idle, poor shift quality, etc., etc. The growing pains are all in the battery and charging infrastructure, and those will get solved, eventually.

Still not totally sold on ABS. My first truck with ABS had a sensor problem, so the ABS would kick in at low speed on dry pavement, leaving me in a situation where it was very difficult to come to a complete stop. Kinda scary when you're creeping through a stop sign at a busy intersection with your foot hard on the brake and the ABS going nuts.

All the other cars with ABS have generally been okay. It is nice in the snow, especially when combined with traction and stability control. Still, I haven't had one of those "it saved my life" moments. On the other hand, there is the time I locked up all four wheels on the Mustang in a panic stop and flat spotted my tires and made a bunch of smoke. Didn't hit anything but the tires weren't the same afterwards.

 

Of course I understand if ABS is acting up, but let's consider a system in good working order. It's a great idea, I think. I don't know if I had a moment of "it saved my life", but have definitely had moments of "it saved my butt from a nasty accident". Locking up wheels in panic rarely ends well. You were lucky to just flat spot the wheels. In a situation where you had to steer out of trouble under panic braking you'd have more trouble. It's not an magic bullet, but it's a good system and now that it's mature and most cars have it I am sure it saves some trouble in general. But I can appreciate that it is complex and things can go wrong where in a simpler system things are less likely to malfunction. That is the human dilemma that goes back to the first time someone thought of rounding that rock to make it roll better. Well now the cart can run away from you down hill, Thorg! With the old tech we just dragged it and it wouldn't go too fast down hill. It was safer. All in good humor.

 

My 2007 Prius that I paid $3,400 a year ago has between 400 and 500 mile range. I get 45-50mpg with a 11+ gallon tank. It's very simple. When I do refuel it takes me literally less than 10 minutes, but if I drive from where I live to NYC and back, I do not have to refuel. Even have some range left to do errands at home. I would easily compromise on 100 mile range if I could refuel in 5-10 minutes. That's my point. It's not about range, it's about how I use my car and how others use theirs. I already provided my specific use case that is very real to me, but you do not seem to understand that there are realities other than yours out there.

What if I had bad credit and could not obtain a 30K loan? What if I had terrible aversion to debt? What if I got the loan, but could not make the payments after loosing a job or other financial problem? Credit is not owning and making payments on a $33K car is not the same as owning a $3,400 car. And buying used is always greener than new.

 

Not sure you should use the word 'always' there, but overall I agree with your sentiment.

 

Yes, agreed. I should say "most of the time" instead of "always". I just got sucked into categorical and non-nuanced language by trying to reply to @el Crucero. My bad.

 

Please, oh, please explain to us fools how it works! I am all ears.

What about those who have no access to credit?

For those who do...

Oil change costs $60/year on the Prius
Brake pads on a Prius need to be replaced once in 100K miles (mine lasted 150K miles) at a cost of about $200 That's once in five years
timing chains do not need to be replaced ever
No one has to go to a stealership to get their Prius serviced. There is a healthy ecosystem of hybrid technicians in most areas.

So your math is false. Simply false. Not based in reality. And don't forget $600 Model S door handles.

This is total conjecture. No one, including you knows how driving current state of the art BEVs will effect medical costs in the future. Above statement is 100% pure BS.

Your certainty that I have a commitment to ICE vehicles displays your ignorance of reality very clearly.

I have stated in many posts, including in this thread, that I LOVE EVs and am cheering them on. Moreover, I am fairly certain that they will prevail in the end because they are far superior to ICE vehicles. That has been my position all along. What I take issue with in your attitude is that EVERYONE needs to drop everything a buy a BEV NOW because there is a BEV option for EVERYONE! That is BS and is just plain not based in reality. As much as I love the BEVs, I personally can not possibly own one right now. For many reasons which I have already recounted in previous posts. I am fairly certain that there are other people who also are not able to drive a BEV for many and various reasons. You are not doing your cause any good by being an ignorant, blind and deaf preacher. One thing is to be enthusiastic, much different to tell people what to do from a place of ignorance and arrogance (ivory tower must be nice). Your attitude is insulting and demeaning and does no good to your cause.