[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Patton250 and M5Rick both stated it well, without the government forcing component, there would be no market for EV. If the EV market grew organically as a new fuel source say because of hydrocarbon depletion, then the discussion would be focused more on the cars, but that is not the case. And the concerns regarding EV range, recharge rates, convenience, total environmental impact and cost are legitimate issues, all which do not match any ICE equivalent.

This Forum is full of discussion regarding ICE vehicles and members posting their opinions on what vehicle is best. And the design of ICE vehicles is as much dictated by government standards for emissions, fuel consumption, and safety, all of which I have personally discussed over my tenure on E90 Post.

My other argument against ICE banning mandates are they limit advancement in development and adoption of other fuel efficient technologies, such has pure series hybrids, which I post about all the time on car forums. My background in engineering and science tells me BEV are limited by physics and chemistry to reach equivalency to ICE at the same price point. Essentially mandating BEV severely limits other technologies that maybe and are (IMO) better solutions. Series hybrid EV and parallel hybrids EV are very good solutions as alternates to BEV.

Why should none of those such discussions be had on an automotive internet forum? Why should such discussions not be had, which may get others to think more about the leadership they choose through the electoral process. As long as the discussions remain civil, I see no issue with it and rather encourage it.

You can discuss whatever you like as far as I'm concerned (as far as the management around here is concerned... ). I mean you have already been doing so for 100 pages. I just don't agree that they "are" political. Pretty much anything can be political if that's the lens you wish to view it through.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

You can discuss whatever you like as far as I'm concerned (as far as the management around here is concerned... ). I mean you have already been doing so for 100 pages. I just don't agree that they "are" political. Pretty much anything can be political if that's the lens you wish to view it through.

When politicians write legislation that mandates the use of battery electric vehicles, then by definition, EV are political.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

When politicians write legislation that mandates the use of battery electric vehicles, then by definition, EV are political.

Like I said, if you want to focus on the politics that's your choice, but then EVERYTHING is political because I'm sure I could find a political aspect to pretty much anything. Just because YOU can't seem to talk about EVs without bringing up politics doesn't mean other people can't. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

Like I said, if you want to focus on the politics that's your choice, but then EVERYTHING is political because I'm sure I could find a political aspect to pretty much anything. Just because YOU can't seem to talk about EVs without bringing up politics doesn't mean other people can't. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The thread is "Still want an EV". There has been lots of discussion about the pros and cons of EV's. I think a lot of folks aren't happy with the notion the government is going to force EV's upon them when frankly EV's as they stand now and for the fore seeable future don't fit the needs of a very large percentage of the population. Allow EV's to grow their market share organically and then lets talk about Do you still Want and EV.

The discussion I think naturally moved to all the challenges facing production, infrastructure and energy production, the practicality, range anxiety, environmental impact on battery life, impact of mining and the social aspects of those who must do the mining.

I think it's safe to say, all of those points are part of the discussion and they have entered into it because of politics.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

The thread is "Still want an EV". There has been lots of discussion about the pros and cons of EV's. I think a lot of folks aren't happy with the notion the government is going to force EV's upon them when frankly EV's as they stand now and for the fore seeable future don't fit the needs of a very large percentage of the population. Allow EV's to grow their market share organically and then lets talk about Do you still Want and EV.

The discussion I think naturally moved to all the challenges facing production, infrastructure and energy production, the practicality, range anxiety, environmental impact on battery life, impact of mining and the social aspects of those who must do the mining.

I think it's safe to say, all of those points are part of the discussion and they have entered into it because of politics.

i will add... would EVs be remotely as advanced if politics didn't get involved?

tax breaks, infrastructure etc? so yea, politics are part of the EV discussion entirely... as far as tech... i appreciate what Tesla has done but question whether it is fair for them to get a tax break (especially at the price range they operate at)... so yea, its 110% politics

[M5Rick]

With the referendum-less 2030 date here of no new gas cars to be sold then we have a capital city leader forcing an 'ultra low emission zone' on London dwellers in a few months to coincide with the 'dumbing down' process of fuel cars together with a host of anti-car measures which have already been implemented, like 24 hour bus lanes, cars banned from some streets,20mph zone in a lot of inner London and spy cameras.
This 'ulez' is being strongly challenged actually by the current gob ment and being taken to hi cou rt. You may have read that many ppl with older cars have had enough and anti-ulez action groups are removing the cams concerned to back up the cou rt challenge.
The ulez agenda has a limited budget.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

Like I said, if you want to focus on the politics that's your choice, but then EVERYTHING is political because I'm sure I could find a political aspect to pretty much anything. Just because YOU can't seem to talk about EVs without bringing up politics doesn't mean other people can't. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

LOL. I've posted on many threads regarding EV on the Forum STRICKLY about the battery tech. I'll reprise such a post:

A decent EV with decent range and decent charge recovery rate is on the order of $55K, which is about $15K - $20K above the average new ICE car transaction price. The lithium-ion battery tech currently in use has basically plateaued at a low cost point of $153/kWh (per DOE). The battery tech cost curve has nearly flattened out, which means there is not a lot of room left to increase energy density of the lithium-ion technology and reduce the production cost of LI batteries. A 300+ mile EV needs a 70kWh battery to achieve that range (under ideal conditions) and the best EVs recover about 80% range between 20 and 40 minutes (under ideal conditions). There are numerous stories about the next advancement in battery technology, which anyone can research and find the same stories dating back at least 10 years. Any new battery technology is going to have to start at the $153/kWh cost that is the current industry standard and offer far better energy density to reduce battery size to get a 300-mile EV significantly below a $55K price point.

The charging infrastructure is inadequate at this moment to support a mass adoption of EV above the 7% share they sit at now in the total automotive marketplace and probably won't be capable 10 years from now. Most people find ICE the better alternative to EV based on MSRP, range, and recharging convenience. Electricity price per kWh as a function of annual income is only going to increase in the next 10 years rather than decrease, which will decrease the fuel cost advantage EV has over ICE. Gasoline actually is cheaper than electricity on a kWh basis 9 cents per kWh vs. 13 cents for electricity. The EV drivetrain is about double the efficiency of ICE, which is why EVs can achieve around 100+ MPGe on average vs. ICE. That is EV's only advantage over ICE but the total cost of operation is not better than ICE even with ICE's disadvantage of efficiency.

I'll be happy to debate and discuss how EV is going to achieve and even reduce the total ownership cost vs. ICE with you. I've asked many of the EV proponents to engage in such a debate and most just feedback "tech always gets better and cheaper, so EV batteries will too", and "the charging infrastructure will get better and EVs will eventually take only 5 minutes to recharge." But no one on this Forum explains how and when.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

The thread is "Still want an EV". There has been lots of discussion about the pros and cons of EV's. I think a lot of folks aren't happy with the notion the government is going to force EV's upon them when frankly EV's as they stand now and for the fore seeable future don't fit the needs of a very large percentage of the population. Allow EV's to grow their market share organically and then lets talk about Do you still Want and EV.

The discussion I think naturally moved to all the challenges facing production, infrastructure and energy production, the practicality, range anxiety, environmental impact on battery life, impact of mining and the social aspects of those who must do the mining.

I think it's safe to say, all of those points are part of the discussion and they have entered into it because of politics.

You know weeks back I posted the calculations that get EV to cost near the same as ICE and dtill the payback is around 50,000 miles. But the math only works with the $7,500 tax credit (US) in place. Tax credit = politics...

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

LOL. I've posted on many threads regarding EV on the Forum STRICKLY about the battery tech. I'll reprise such a post:

A decent EV with decent range and decent charge recovery rate is on the order of $55K, which is about $15K - $20K above the average new ICE car transaction price. The lithium-ion battery tech currently in use has basically plateaued at a low cost point of $153/kWh (per DOE). The battery tech cost curve has nearly flattened out, which means there is not a lot of room left to increase energy density of the lithium-ion technology and reduce the production cost of LI batteries. A 300+ mile EV needs a 70kWh battery to achieve that range (under ideal conditions) and the best EVs recover about 80% range between 20 and 40 minutes (under ideal conditions). There are numerous stories about the next advancement in battery technology, which anyone can research and find the same stories dating back at least 10 years. Any new battery technology is going to have to start at the $153/kWh cost that is the current industry standard and offer far better energy density to reduce battery size to get a 300-mile EV significantly below a $55K price point.

The charging infrastructure is inadequate at this moment to support a mass adoption of EV above the 7% share they sit at now in the total automotive marketplace and probably won't be capable 10 years from now. Most people find ICE the better alternative to EV based on MSRP, range, and recharging convenience. Electricity price per kWh as a function of annual income is only going to increase in the next 10 years rather than decrease, which will decrease the fuel cost advantage EV has over ICE. Gasoline actually is cheaper than electricity on a kWh basis 9 cents per kWh vs. 13 cents for electricity. The EV drivetrain is about double the efficiency of ICE, which is why EVs can achieve around 100+ MPGe on average vs. ICE. That is EV's only advantage over ICE but the total cost of operation is not better than ICE even with ICE's disadvantage of efficiency.

I'll be happy to debate and discuss how EV is going to achieve and even reduce the total ownership cost vs. ICE with you. I've asked many of the EV proponents to engage in such a debate and most just feedback "tech always gets better and cheaper, so EV batteries will too", and "the charging infrastructure will get better and EVs will eventually take only 5 minutes to recharge." But no one on this Forum explains how and when.

Dude... you said EVs are political. I said they are not, you just choose to make them political. Then you go off on a bunch of irrelevant rants. Discuss whatever you want. I don't give a shit. I just don't agree EVs are political. You just proved it by somehow managing to say a bunch of stuff about EVs that was not political...

[Patton250]

Gentlemen tread lightly because I’m telling you I’ve seen this before on other threads and………..

[M5Rick]

^ It's not coming from us just an intelligently discussed fall out here of gub mints heavily involved in pushing something through that has not been handled democratically.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

^ It's not coming from us just an intelligently discussed fall out here of gub mints heavily involved in pushing something through that has not been handled democratically.

No brother that’s not what I meant. I meant that when another member comes on a thread and tells people that they are engaging in politics just about every time I’ve seen this……….

[M5Rick]

^ Then it's up to us not to fall into any trap

[gblansten]

Former 2020 M5 driver and loving my 2023 S Plaid. No regrets. It’s fun.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Nice!!!

Hopefully we'll see the final stages of this transition by 2028-2030.

Then final destination. 2035!!

Like tom brady in the hertz commercial..... EV??? Let's go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

Dude... you said EVs are political. I said they are not, you just choose to make them political. Then you go off on a bunch of irrelevant rants. Discuss whatever you want. I don't give a shit. I just don't agree EVs are political. You just proved it by somehow managing to say a bunch of stuff about EVs that was not political...

Then go ahead and make your case why EV are not political.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Then go ahead and make your case why EV are not political.

You already did it for me in your last post. Go to any EV forum or group and they can discuss EVs all day long without getting involved in politics.

Anyways just like 99% of political "debates" we will just go round and round in circles repeating the same crap over and over so I'll just end it here.

Best of luck and here's to another 100 pages!

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

lmaooooooooooooooooooooo

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

You already did it for me in your last post. Go to any EV forum or group and they can discuss EVs all day long without getting involved in politics.

Anyways just like 99% of political "debates" we will just go round and round in circles repeating the same crap over and over so I'll just end it here.

Best of luck and here's to another 100 pages!

Well, just to be accurate this discussion is the other 1%.

[Socal_R8]

https://carbuzz.com/news/porsche-evs...-recharge-time

800 mile range and 15 min charge times.....


btw, people who think the government only pushes an EV agenda and only subsidieses them should do some simple google searches on how the government has been doing that for decades with the Big Three and the oil industry and the trillions of dollars spent on it

https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla...-oil-industry/

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-...0-report-finds


.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

https://carbuzz.com/news/porsche-evs...-recharge-time

800 mile range and 15 min charge times.....


btw, people who think the government only pushes an EV agenda and only subsidieses them should do some simple google searches on how the government has been doing that for decades with the Big Three and the oil industry and the trillions of dollars spent on it

https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla...-oil-industry/

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-...0-report-finds


.

From the Yale piece:

"Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total. The remaining 92 percent were implicit subsidies, which took the form of tax breaks or, to a much larger degree, health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels, according to the analysis."

So, most all of the other implicit (i.e. implied) "subsidies" is unspecified (i.e. made up) non-business costs of environmental and health impacts.

I wonder what the trillions of implicit subsidies McDonalds Corp. and the fast food industry gets for selling its products.

Yale. Lol.

[BGM-M3COMP]

People really think this isn’t going to work. That’s why these guys hate us ev people posting. Because we’re raining on their parade and they really think 2035 isn’t going to happen.

But actually they’re right, 2035 isn’t going to happen. It’s actually going to happen sooner than we think. Target time 2028-2030!!!!!!

Watch how this technology advances in the next 5-8 years.

Lmaoooooooooooooo man this is exciting!!!