Topic: Car and Driver's Long Term Tesla Test

[johngenx]

Since when does a few used Volt form a viable $20K EV market?  Until a $20K EV with 400km range and extensive charging infrastructure is in place will EVs push ICE cars out completely.

[Jaeger]

Oh, so there's one condo in Toronto that is adding one charging station? Well, that solves that issue then. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

[Fobroader]

"OMG, are those torches like gluten free....you are like totally polluting the trees and atmosphere"

[HeliDriver]

Problem solved:

[X-Traction]

From a macro standpoint, that's true, but from a microeconomic viewpoint, individual choices designed to minimize costs today take EVs out of the running for a significant percentage of people.  Someone with a $20K tops budget has no EV option.  You can talk about future costs until you're blue in the face, but if you can afford $20K max, that's the deal.

Also understand that from the same viewpoint, the lack of charging infrastructure and range issues means that the person buying that $20K as their only means of transport is also out of the running for an EV.

I hope it changes - it is - but TODAY, an EV is a luxury car.

When I read this comment, the car that came to mind was a used Leaf.  Smart Electric responded:

Saw a used Chevy Volt for sale in northern GTA dealer, $17K, loaded car, very luxurious inside, quick off the line acceleration and 50+ km all  electric range.

Given the 180000 km 8 year powertrain warranty, that's a buy IMHO.   Costs very little to drive with cheap fuel with overnight electricity, it's like driving 20c/L gas price!

So yeah, if your budget is <$20K, there's an EV for you.

Also, I paid less than $20K taxes included for my EV, and it goes 80 km all electric in any weather and accelerates off the line faster than any economy car, and most mid sized cars!

Your response to that was:

Since when does a few used Volt form a viable $20K EV market?  Until a $20K EV with 400km range and extensive charging infrastructure is in place will EVs push ICE cars out completely.

Your original position was: "Someone with a $20K tops budget has no EV option.".  Smart Electric easily demonstrated this was not true.  Rather than even refer to this, let alone agree SE was correct, you claimed: "Since when does a few used Volt form a viable $20K EV market?".  I'd like to know what a "viable" $20K EV market" is.  Do you mean there aren't as many used ev's for sale as used Foresters? Or the laws of supply and demand don't apply to ev's?

Who was talking about "EVs push(ing) ICE cars out completely"?  I bet that when cars started displacing horses, precisely the same arguments were made.  "Them automobiles won't be viable until blah blah blah."  And vast quantities of similar bogus arguments.  At least they weren't aware of climate catastrophe and so had the luxury to waste time in dumb arguments.

As for range issues, consider this surprising but compelling argument that lots of charging stations along with long-range ev's may be a mistake for now.
http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/motor-mouth-we-dont-need-teslas-superchargers

If you can't get around unless you have a vehicle that can be prepared in 5 minutes to go 700km, then why do people try to get around by walking, cycling, mopeds or public transportation?  As we argue about how to arrange the Titanic's deck chairs, at least let's try not to sound like simpletons and idiots (as some of the other responses did).

20 years from now people will find it hard to believe the reasons, ranging from flimsy to utterly ridiculous, people gave to resist switching to cleaner vehicles.

[X-Traction]

Does every Tesla buyer get a free box of rose tinted glasses?

Nice.  To respond in kind:

Does every ICE-engine car owner voluntarily and happily wear soot-coated blinders? And try to think with brains impaired by carbon monoxide fumes?

[ktm525]

From a macro standpoint, that's true, but from a microeconomic viewpoint, individual choices designed to minimize costs today take EVs out of the running for a significant percentage of people.  Someone with a $20K tops budget has no EV option.  You can talk about future costs until you're blue in the face, but if you can afford $20K max, that's the deal.

Also understand that from the same viewpoint, the lack of charging infrastructure and range issues means that the person buying that $20K as their only means of transport is also out of the running for an EV.

I hope it changes - it is - but TODAY, an EV is a luxury car.

When I read this comment, the car that came to mind was a used Leaf.  Smart Electric responded:

Saw a used Chevy Volt for sale in northern GTA dealer, $17K, loaded car, very luxurious inside, quick off the line acceleration and 50+ km all  electric range.

Given the 180000 km 8 year powertrain warranty, that's a buy IMHO.   Costs very little to drive with cheap fuel with overnight electricity, it's like driving 20c/L gas price!

So yeah, if your budget is <$20K, there's an EV for you.

Also, I paid less than $20K taxes included for my EV, and it goes 80 km all electric in any weather and accelerates off the line faster than any economy car, and most mid sized cars!

Your response to that was:

Since when does a few used Volt form a viable $20K EV market?  Until a $20K EV with 400km range and extensive charging infrastructure is in place will EVs push ICE cars out completely.

Your original position was: "Someone with a $20K tops budget has no EV option.".  Smart Electric easily demonstrated this was not true.  Rather than even refer to this, let alone agree SE was correct, you claimed: "Since when does a few used Volt form a viable $20K EV market?".  I'd like to know what a "viable" $20K EV market" is.  Do you mean there aren't as many used ev's for sale as used Foresters? Or the laws of supply and demand don't apply to ev's?

Who was talking about "EVs push(ing) ICE cars out completely"?  I bet that when cars started displacing horses, precisely the same arguments were made.  "Them automobiles won't be viable until blah blah blah."  And vast quantities of similar bogus arguments.  At least they weren't aware of climate catastrophe and so had the luxury to waste time in dumb arguments.

As for range issues, consider this surprising but compelling argument that lots of charging stations along with long-range ev's may be a mistake for now.
http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/motor-mouth-we-dont-need-teslas-superchargers

If you can't get around unless you have a vehicle that can be prepared in 5 minutes to go 700km, then why do people try to get around by walking, cycling, mopeds or public transportation?  As we argue about how to arrange the Titanic's deck chairs, at least let's try not to sound like simpletons and idiots (as some of the other responses did).

20 years from now people will find it hard to believe the reasons, ranging from flimsy to utterly ridiculous, people gave to resist switching to cleaner vehicles.

But they aren't cleaner and that's the rub. . From the enviro damage mining the elements for the batteries (until they replace Litho) to the source of their electricity. Nuclear? Coal? Windmills? Goat farts?

[X-Traction]

From a macro standpoint, that's true, but from a microeconomic viewpoint, individual choices designed to minimize costs today take EVs out of the running for a significant percentage of people.  Someone with a $20K tops budget has no EV option.  You can talk about future costs until you're blue in the face, but if you can afford $20K max, that's the deal.

Also understand that from the same viewpoint, the lack of charging infrastructure and range issues means that the person buying that $20K as their only means of transport is also out of the running for an EV.

I hope it changes - it is - but TODAY, an EV is a luxury car.

When I read this comment, the car that came to mind was a used Leaf.  Smart Electric responded:

Saw a used Chevy Volt for sale in northern GTA dealer, $17K, loaded car, very luxurious inside, quick off the line acceleration and 50+ km all  electric range.

Given the 180000 km 8 year powertrain warranty, that's a buy IMHO.   Costs very little to drive with cheap fuel with overnight electricity, it's like driving 20c/L gas price!

So yeah, if your budget is <$20K, there's an EV for you.

Also, I paid less than $20K taxes included for my EV, and it goes 80 km all electric in any weather and accelerates off the line faster than any economy car, and most mid sized cars!

Your response to that was:

Since when does a few used Volt form a viable $20K EV market?  Until a $20K EV with 400km range and extensive charging infrastructure is in place will EVs push ICE cars out completely.

Your original position was: "Someone with a $20K tops budget has no EV option.".  Smart Electric easily demonstrated this was not true.  Rather than even refer to this, let alone agree SE was correct, you claimed: "Since when does a few used Volt form a viable $20K EV market?".  I'd like to know what a "viable" $20K EV market" is.  Do you mean there aren't as many used ev's for sale as used Foresters? Or the laws of supply and demand don't apply to ev's?

Who was talking about "EVs push(ing) ICE cars out completely"?  I bet that when cars started displacing horses, precisely the same arguments were made.  "Them automobiles won't be viable until blah blah blah."  And vast quantities of similar bogus arguments.  At least they weren't aware of climate catastrophe and so had the luxury to waste time in dumb arguments.

As for range issues, consider this surprising but compelling argument that lots of charging stations along with long-range ev's may be a mistake for now.
http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/motor-mouth-we-dont-need-teslas-superchargers

If you can't get around unless you have a vehicle that can be prepared in 5 minutes to go 700km, then why do people try to get around by walking, cycling, mopeds or public transportation?  As we argue about how to arrange the Titanic's deck chairs, at least let's try not to sound like simpletons and idiots (as some of the other responses did).

20 years from now people will find it hard to believe the reasons, ranging from flimsy to utterly ridiculous, people gave to resist switching to cleaner vehicles.

But they aren't cleaner and that's the rub. . From the enviro damage mining the elements for the batteries (until they replace Litho) to the source of their electricity. Nuclear? Coal? Windmills? Goat farts?

Fortunately I don't have to start from scratch.

http://www.autos.ca/forum/index.php?topic=96365.msg1200230#msg1200230

Every time ev's and hybrids come up for discussion, the comments tangent into efficiency and pollution impact.  There are all sorts of arguments about the pollution caused by making ev battery packs, comparisons to other means of travel, relative "greeness" of energy sources and on and on.

Finally, someone has gone to the trouble to quantify and compare all these factors.  So in future when such disagreements arise, just refer to this information.  The most interesting stuff about cars comes toward the end of the article: "Additional Infographic #2: Lifecycle emissions for gasoline vs electric cars."

It's about time such important data is easily available.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/02/25/analysis/essential-infographics-climate-conscious-traveller

[EV Dan]

In a lot less printed words:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9m9WDxmSN8
 The world is not facing any lithium extraction caused catastrophe. CO2 along with other greenhouse gasses on the other hand are raising the Earth's average temperature and that releases even more greenhouse gasses from permafrost. It's a chain reaction that will lead to global extinction of species, perhaps including humans, if not reversed urgently. CO2 is also increasing acidity of the oceans and that kills corrals and shellfish, and that in turn releases more CO2 from calcium being dissolved - the same chain reaction. We've screwed up royally and yet there are deniers...

[Ex-airbalancer]

There is 135 volts for sale on trader, across Canada , 23 under $20,000 that will not go to far to supply the nation

[ktm525]

In a lot less printed words:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9m9WDxmSN8
 The world is not facing any lithium extraction caused catastrophe. CO2 along with other greenhouse gasses on the other hand are raising the Earth's average temperature and that releases even more greenhouse gasses from permafrost. It's a chain reaction that will lead to global extinction of species, perhaps including humans, if not reversed urgently. CO2 is also increasing acidity of the oceans and that kills corrals and shellfish, and that in turn releases more CO2 from calcium being dissolved - the same chain reaction. We've screwed up royally and yet there are deniers...

Then how did anything survive through the Cretaceous when CO2 levels were much much higher than today? More CO2. More plants and guess what higher food production. The world ain't starving. Yields will continue to improve.

CO2= good.

[X-Traction]

In a lot less printed words:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9m9WDxmSN8
 The world is not facing any lithium extraction caused catastrophe. CO2 along with other greenhouse gasses on the other hand are raising the Earth's average temperature and that releases even more greenhouse gasses from permafrost. It's a chain reaction that will lead to global extinction of species, perhaps including humans, if not reversed urgently. CO2 is also increasing acidity of the oceans and that kills corrals and shellfish, and that in turn releases more CO2 from calcium being dissolved - the same chain reaction. We've screwed up royally and yet there are deniers...

Then how did anything survive through the Cretaceous when CO2 levels were much much higher than today? More CO2. More plants and guess what higher food production. The world ain't starving. Yields will continue to improve.

CO2= good.

All of your questions can be answered on skepticalscience.  This one in particular:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

How I wish the deniers would check their tiresome claims there before tirelessly posting their, um, incorrect information all over the Internet.

[Gurgie]

I'd say John was referring to the fact that there are A LOT more reliable used or even new cars for the $20k price point than a used Volt. That's just a plain hard fact, but for some reason a few of you can't see that as clearly.

Sent from my SM-G850W using Tapatalk

[Jaeger]

But they aren't cleaner and that's the rub. . From the enviro damage mining the elements for the batteries (until they replace Litho) to the source of their electricity. Nuclear? Coal? Windmills? Goat farts?

Take your soot-clouded blinders off.  Lithium is awesome for the environment.  And lithium mining is even MORE awesome for the environment.  Stop being a truth-denier! 

[EV Dan]

Since this is Musk related and hilarious. Not meant as a response to any particular post. They don't seem to deny the rocket's existence, it's just the landing is contrary of their perception of laws of physics 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLE-ocDoXrs

[ktm525]

In a lot less printed words:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9m9WDxmSN8
 The world is not facing any lithium extraction caused catastrophe. CO2 along with other greenhouse gasses on the other hand are raising the Earth's average temperature and that releases even more greenhouse gasses from permafrost. It's a chain reaction that will lead to global extinction of species, perhaps including humans, if not reversed urgently. CO2 is also increasing acidity of the oceans and that kills corrals and shellfish, and that in turn releases more CO2 from calcium being dissolved - the same chain reaction. We've screwed up royally and yet there are deniers...

Then how did anything survive through the Cretaceous when CO2 levels were much much higher than today? More CO2. More plants and guess what higher food production. The world ain't starving. Yields will continue to improve.

CO2= good.

All of your questions can be answered on skepticalscience.  This one in particular:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

How I wish the deniers would check their tiresome claims there before tirelessly posting their, um, incorrect information all over the Internet.

I never said CO2 doesn't drive climate. Lets assume it does. What is wrong with more plant growth?  The link above discusses high Co2 levels in the Ordovician. That wasn't my question.

[safristi]

Damn it is .....HOT here and I loves IT ...never seen so many mini kinis @ the pool this early..

[X-Traction]

In a lot less printed words:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9m9WDxmSN8
 The world is not facing any lithium extraction caused catastrophe. CO2 along with other greenhouse gasses on the other hand are raising the Earth's average temperature and that releases even more greenhouse gasses from permafrost. It's a chain reaction that will lead to global extinction of species, perhaps including humans, if not reversed urgently. CO2 is also increasing acidity of the oceans and that kills corrals and shellfish, and that in turn releases more CO2 from calcium being dissolved - the same chain reaction. We've screwed up royally and yet there are deniers...

Then how did anything survive through the Cretaceous when CO2 levels were much much higher than today? More CO2. More plants and guess what higher food production. The world ain't starving. Yields will continue to improve.

CO2= good.

All of your questions can be answered on skepticalscience.  This one in particular:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

How I wish the deniers would check their tiresome claims there before tirelessly posting their, um, incorrect information all over the Internet.

I never said CO2 doesn't drive climate. Lets assume it does. What is wrong with more plant growth?  The link above discusses high Co2 levels in the Ordovician. That wasn't my question.

This can certainly be a confusing subject, which makes it difficult to figure out who to believe.

There have been times when Co2 levels have been "high". But climate is a function of many factors.  For instance, the sun may not have been as hot back then, which could balance the heating effect of the high Co2.  There's also the issue of the rate of change of C02 levels, which in the present case probably is too rapid for the biosphere to adapt.

Co2 is only one thing of several/many things useful for plant growth.  If the climate is also too hot, and despite possible benefits of more C02, you get expansion of deserts and the range of plant-killing pests.  Forest lands become grasslands through fires and weakened trees.  Rising oceans flood plant-rich coastal swamps, lowloands and river deltas.  Permafrost melts and collapses the vegetation layer.  Beyond plant growth, there's also acidification in the oceans due to C02 absorption.  Fauna and flora are being destabilized as species follow or try to escape warmer temperatures by moving toward the poles.

A graph on this web page clearly illustrates that the changes happening now are unprecedented in speed.
www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/co2-101-why-is-carbon-dioxide-bad

Does this answer your question?

[X-Traction]

I'd say John was referring to the fact that there are A LOT more reliable used or even new cars for the $20k price point than a used Volt. That's just a plain hard fact, but for some reason a few of you can't see that as clearly.

John claimed someone could not buy an ev for less than $20,000.  When proven incorrect, he changed the subject to say there wasn't a viable market for used Volts.  I still don't know what he meant by that.

Your position is that there isn't a viable market for used Volts because there are relatively few of them for sale.  Well, there aren't many 1929 Rolls Royces for sale, but there's a viable market for them.

If demand exceeds supply, prices go up and some make other choices, while some Volt owners decide to cash out. Both decrease pressure on supply. If demand gets high enough, more people buy new ones, and in response Chev makes more Volts.  If supply exceeds demand, prices fall, attracting more buyers but reducing the number of Volt owners wishing to sell.  Used car markets naturally fall into equilibrium and "viable" has nothing to do with it.  It's a total red herring.