Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
correlation does not equal causation but nice try.
that's your opinion and you're entitled to it I don't agree.
that's odd because I seem to remember power outages and I couldn't get electricity anywhere. And then I've been out in the field for days sometimes over a week and there's not a little magical electrical genie that follows me around.
but I don't even have to think about that nonsense.
I would prefer to refuel it's quicker it's easier it's cheaper. Keep in mind the machine I have that burns fuel cost me $4,000 to purchase, and about $400 a year to insure. If I factor in the cost of insurance and a car payments for a brand new electric car it costs more to operate.
I don't believe you
I still don't believe you
go drive through 14 inches of water in your electric car have fun. I'm not going to buy one so I don't have to worry about it.
Perhaps you might want to remember 1973/4. That gas shortage went a year with very limited supplies of gasoline. So any long trip in an ICE was problematic...sometimes impossible. And that easily surpasses the problems in TX or CA.
As to water performance you will likely lose most of the time with an ICE versus a EV. You seem not to understand how complex an electrical system is in an ICE. It will vary on the particular circumstances but an ICE has no advantage. Either vehicle will die when some harness point or device floods and dies.
I would also note that our Cadillac Aliante would eat its battery once a quarter in the 200xs. So the battery problems can exist in ICE as well as EVs.
Perhaps you might want to remember 1973/4. That gas shortage went a year with very limited supplies of gasoline. So any long trip in an ICE was problematic...sometimes impossible. And that easily surpasses the problems in TX or CA.
I was born in the 80s such a thing has never happened in my lifetime. Multiple days of being without power is something that's happened to me multiple times.
Quote:
As to water performance you will likely lose most of the time with an ICE versus a EV. You seem not to understand how complex an electrical system is in an ICE. It will vary on the particular circumstances but an ICE has no advantage. Either vehicle will die when some harness point or device floods and dies.
I was an auto mechanic for 15 years. I am extremely in tuned to the complexities of electronic systems in cars. Sure going through high water and affect some systems in a conventional vehicle. But no either vehicle will not necessarily die driving through flood water I've done it in my vehicle I did it in 2015 and my vehicle still hasn't died.
Quote:
I would also note that our Cadillac Aliante would eat its battery once a quarter in the 200xs. So the battery problems can exist in ICE as well as EVs.
Yeah that's the nature of GM's. Normally when I replace a battery or replace an alternator in those.
Also a battery problem is $115 fix and I can do it in 15 minutes in my driveway. Much simpler not only can I do it but I can pay someone else to do it and it takes a few minutes.
I was born in the 80s such a thing has never happened in my lifetime. Multiple days of being without power is something that's happened to me multiple times.
I was an auto mechanic for 15 years. I am extremely in tuned to the complexities of electronic systems in cars. Sure going through high water and affect some systems in a conventional vehicle. But no either vehicle will not necessarily die driving through flood water I've done it in my vehicle I did it in 2015 and my vehicle still hasn't died.
Yeah that's the nature of GM's. Normally when I replace a battery or replace an alternator in those.
Also a battery problem is $115 fix and I can do it in 15 minutes in my driveway. Much simpler not only can I do it but I can pay someone else to do it and it takes a few minutes.
You are claiming multiple days rather than multiple months. Just demonstrates that there have been ICE problems worse than the electric ones.
I am an EE and I designed that sort of electronics for 35 years. Did not need to deal with the flooding problem but I understand it pretty well. Four of my engineers for the first couple of decades were recruited from Delco. They would point out how easy we had it not having to deal with flooding, rain, snow, ice etc.
You are claiming multiple days rather than multiple months. Just demonstrates that there have been ICE problems worse than the electric ones.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here I never said anything about months or days.
If this is about periods where fuel isn't available I'm talking about zero months, zero days, zero hours where it wasn't available. Comparing a zero to a number isn't much of a comparison.
74 was the time you referenced for fuel being unavailable. The was almost a decade before I was born. The last time I lost power for a couple of days was last month.
Quote:
I am an EE and I designed that sort of electronics for 35 years. Did not need to deal with the flooding problem but I understand it pretty well. Four of my engineers for the first couple of decades were recruited from Delco. They would point out how easy we had it not having to deal with flooding, rain, snow, ice etc.
Engineers operate in a theoretical world. I've actually had to repair poor designs.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here I never said anything about months or days.
If this is about periods where fuel isn't available I'm talking about zero months, zero days, zero hours where it wasn't available. Comparing a zero to a number isn't much of a comparison.
74 was the time you referenced for fuel being unavailable. The was almost a decade before I was born. The last time I lost power for a couple of days was last month.
Engineers operate in a theoretical world. I've actually had to repair poor designs.
-Nope. Scientists and Physicist can sometimes deal with things in a theoretical way. At various times I played Physicist to determine how certain processes actually worked. But mostly I had the engineering role and had to explain to management when things did not work in the real world. And the service department would gladly point out any problems that came along.
And I completed 10 years as an engineer in 1973. It was in April of 1973 when the gasoline crash began. It was difficult to keep going locally but doable. However long trips would be virtually impossible. There simply was no workable way to refuel in a passing through location. The disaster rolled down in 1974 and was pretty well gone before years end. So for over a year long distance travel was pretty much not possible.
So this is simply to put the electrical failures in perspective. Most less than a week to a few that got to a month. As opposed to a problem lasting over a year.
-Nope. Scientists and Physicist can sometimes deal with things in a theoretical way. At various times I played Physicist to determine how certain processes actually worked. But mostly I had the engineering role and had to explain to management when things did not work in the real world. And the service department would gladly point out any problems that came along.
I didn't mean anything against engineers, maybe I stated that wrong. Engineers a lot of the times do with possibilities, and there are often times circumstances which cannot be foreseen. I have been an arguments with engineers over this sort of thing and they're so out of it that their design was perfect they blame me for sabotaging it.
Quote:
And I completed 10 years as an engineer in 1973. It was in April of 1973 when the gasoline crash began. It was difficult to keep going locally but doable. However long trips would be virtually impossible. There simply was no workable way to refuel in a passing through location. The disaster rolled down in 1974 and was pretty well gone before years end. So for over a year long distance travel was pretty much not possible.
I wasn't even a glimmer in my parents eye in 1974. in my entire life I've never experienced this so it's a much more rare event. One I'm not really even worried about
Quote:
So this is simply to put the electrical failures in perspective. Most less than a week to a few that got to a month. As opposed to a problem lasting over a year.
It doesn't though. You're talking about an extremely rare event one so rare that people in their forties may never have even experienced it. It doesn't put it into perspective you're doing the what if thing.
I'm not interested in going out to lynx and having to compile your argument but thanks.
you claiming that they're better is your opinion and that's fine you can think whatever you want. My position is if it was a true thing that they would represent a much larger part of the market.
power outages have happened a lot more to me than not being able to get fuel I don't think the latter has happened to me before.
to fully charge a completely drained battery takes a lot longer than it does to fully fill a completely empty fuel tank.
I don't care how much you insist my criticisms are lies or nonsense. That's normally a deeply emotional reaction. Just FYI I'm not attacking anything with my criticisms, least of all you. So this shrill over defensive act really isn't necessary.
get another straw man fallacy that is a crutch of the dishonest. I don't believe you that they are perfectly fine being submerged in 14 inches of water.
you haven't demonstrated that you showed me a video of people driving through water with electric vehicles what happened to them after that moment?
Just because it doesn't get destroyed right at that moment doesn't mean nothing happens to them. Sometimes water damage takes weeks.
I don't have to make up anything 100% of your arguments are in bad faith.
Let's try to do a good faith argument then. I think you're saying others are making claims that they simply aren't. Who is saying EVs are perfect or that they are submarines? No one, right?
I don't think it's in good faith for someone to actually provide links to studies showing heavy traffic and their emissions causing health issues for people nearby and then for you to simply dismiss them and say they aren't there. Why not actually take a look at them? It's not really that absurd to think that burning a lot of fuel in proximity near other people long term is going to cause health issues.
I don't think it's good faith to just say someone is being shrill when they tell you that you're either exaggerating or misinformed on something and you keep insisting it's not true with no proof. There are plenty of examples of EVs filling up in much less than two hours at fast charging stations though usually people don't charge to full because the last 10% especially is slower. Yes, it's slower than fully filling up a tank--that's the main disadvantage of EVs alongside fewer fast charging stations versus gas stations, lower range on a full tank and some vehicle segments where EVs either don't currently exist or have higher initial purchase prices.
You're talking about a tall truck being in 14 inches of water, right? I'm talking about sedans that are much lower going through water. This vehicle is covered here: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-mode...h-flood-video/ and the first commenter is supposedly the owner and still talks about his EV. Keep in mind that's a pretty low sedan which isn't something that most ICE sedans of that height would have had an easy time with. There's weirder stuff like the below, but it's not like everyone follows up with how their vehicles are faring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBYFo6fXPvU
In principal though, you can seal electronics and EVs don't require air intake for combustion. Does this mean that they're built to be submerged? Probably not to any particularly strong extent because the cost of making sure it can wade through anything is too high, but there's nothing inherent about EVs that prevent it either whereas there is something inherent to ICE vehicles due to the need for air intake for combustion.
Excellent discussion from Engineering Explained. The short answer is yes, switching to EVs, over a period of decades, appears very doable for power companies to increase service for.
With Level 2 charging at home. Sure. They accommodate the central AC units running during the day. It will just be a second peak at night if adoption at the scale they're anticipating takes place.
Now, that may create a second billing peak as well. Further dis-incentivizing EVs. Tesla supercharger rates already have the economics of a full charge to the equivalent of a 50 mpg gas car at $3.00/gal. Only getting more expensive.
Be careful with limited time subsidies, they'll move you to the bucket they want you in, then pull the carpet out from under you. It will soon cost just as much to operate as a gas car.
- Electricity prices rising
- States wanting to recoup lost revenue with an EV tax since no gasoline tax is paid by these drivers
- Tesla supercharger credits dry up, and charging prices rise
- Per-minute penalties for staying at supercharger after full
- Alternative energy system prices increasing before the old prices even had an ROI on the horizon
EV/alt energy never NEVER have made economic sense as a primary energy source. It will take bureaucratic legislation to penalize (handicap) cheap energy and fuel prices with tariffs to leave the general public with EV's as the more attractive - cheaper - option.
It will never be cheaper on the free market so long as it's enough to be "progressive" and "green". The right will eat it up as being self-sufficient off grid. It sells without having to make economic sense.
Let's try to do a good faith argument then. I think you're saying others are making claims that they simply aren't. Who is saying EVs are perfect or that they are submarines? No one, right?
you are arguing against hyperbole.
Quote:
I don't think it's in good faith for someone to actually provide links to studies showing heavy traffic and their emissions causing health issues for people nearby and then for you to simply dismiss them and say they aren't there.
I didn't say they weren't there I said I wasn't interested. To mischaracterize a statement is bad faith.
Quote:
I don't think it's good faith to just say someone is being shrill when they tell you that you're either exaggerating or misinformed on something and you keep insisting it's not true with no proof.
it's not arguing in good faith to simply claim someone's misinformed.
Quote:
There are plenty of examples of EVs filling up in much less than two hours at fast charging stations though usually people don't charge to full because the last 10% especially is slower. Yes, it's slower than fully filling up a tank--that's the main disadvantage of EVs alongside fewer fast charging stations versus gas stations, lower range on a full tank and some vehicle segments where EVs either don't currently exist or have higher initial purchase prices.
I would say lack of energy production and therefore range limits is the main disadvantage for electric vehicles
Quote:
You're talking about a tall truck being in 14 inches of water, right? I'm talking about sedans that are much lower going through water. This vehicle is covered here: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-mode...h-flood-video/ and the first commenter is supposedly the owner and still talks about his EV. Keep in mind that's a pretty low sedan which isn't something that most ICE sedans of that height would have had an easy time with. There's weirder stuff like the below, but it's not like everyone follows up with how their vehicles are faring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBYFo6fXPvU
anecdotes are not arguments.
Quote:
In principal though, you can seal electronics
then you would have a problem with overheating. Electronic components often have vents and openings so that air will circulate around them. if they seal them up then they're going to overheat and they're not going to last very long and I don't want them for that reason.
Quote:
and EVs don't require air intake for combustion. Does this mean that they're built to be submerged? Probably not to any particularly strong extent because the cost of making sure it can wade through anything is too high, but there's nothing inherent about EVs that prevent it either whereas there is something inherent to ICE vehicles due to the need for air intake for combustion.
yes there is something inherent to electric vehicles that prevents them from running through high water. Typically the drive motors are at the wheel, only several inches above the ground. The air intake on my vehicle is a few feet above the ground.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
