BMW's CEO says phasing out gas won't help the climate

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I’ll tell you what I’ll do my friend. I’m sure we’ll all be on this forum 10 years from now. If 10 years to now you can fully charge any electric vehicle in under 10 minutes of pulling in on zero charge I will fly to any city you are in and take you to the best steakhouse in that city. But if not, and it still takes an hour to charge a vehicle to only 50% and nothing has changed then you have to do the same for me. Are you on? Because I’m telling you it ain’t gonna happen. Now that doesn’t mean electric car sales won’t go up. I think they will. And honestly I think they’re pretty cool. They don’t they definitely have a place in our society and out perfect first certain family members in certain circumstances. I still believe at the end of the day capitalism will win over government intervention in this as it always does. The consumer will dictate what’s needed and electric vehicles definitely have a place in that just not a dominance.


Who said what? It’s not necessary? You and I both know that the environmental toll is higher from EV vehicles. A gentleman explained above. Mining for the materials, disposal of batteries, charging of the batteries and the energy it takes all have an equal or more environmental impact (And that’s still a minimum compared to other sources on the earth) than fuel-efficient cars with catalytic converter‘s on them. You’re right this is about the money and it has nothing to do with the environment. Once again I’ll say this. Those who are dead serious and actually believe this stuff actually act on it. I will give you an example. My senior year in high school the English teacher was a hard-core environmentalist. This was in the 1980s. The man was thoroughly convinced the world was coming to an end at man’s hand because we were destroying the environment. He lived off grid with solar panels used Rainwater to shower with and for his bathrooms and he rode his bicycle to the high school every day. Now I disagreed with everything that man believed but I had respect for him because he acted upon what he believes. It’s very difficult to take environmental alarmist seriously that hang out on a luxury muscle car forum and drive the most gas guzzling vehicles in existence second only to pick up trucks.. Just saying.

Having said that I enjoy the conversation with you. You are very reasonable and polite in your discourse. I appreciate that.

I'm making rezzies at Sizzler!

I'm not so sure the EV is worse or as bad for the environment from a long term perspective. I think for now there is some growing pains, and it's going to be harder before it becomes easier. I happen to think, from a non-enthusiast point of view, the EV is simply the more efficient delivery model for energy.

Think about this:

1). An ICE vehicle is a miniature factory on wheels that turns fossil fuels into energy and emits the byproduct into the air. Each car must be regulated and maintained to ensure that the engine is compliant with emissions standards.

2) Fossil fuels are used to transport millions of gallons of oil and fuel a year to various locations in the refining and supply chain

3) Fossil fuels are finite.

4) The ICE can only use fossil fuels, and if the fossil fuel chain is broken or depleted, there are no other options for that vehicle.

Then think about the EV:

1) An EV is already using usable energy. There are no emissions.

2) Energy is transported through the grid. Besides maintenance costs and energy loss, there are no additional expenses to transport per unit energy for electricity ie a tanker truck needs to burn fuel each time it's utilized, a wire does not.

3) Electricity is practically infinite compared to fossil fuels when you consider renewable energy sources. Recycling and battery technology will improve, just like it did for emissions in the ICE, further improving environmental impact.

4) The EV is flexible. We can burn coal and oil to generate energy, but we can also use solar, hydro, wind etc. newer technologies have a higher chance of being backwards compatible. Ie a new energy source will be utilized earlier in the supply chain to generate energy that the user end EV can use seamlessly. This is unlike an ICE which will need equipment and tuning to use even something like ethanol etc.

To me, it's just way more efficient and the potential is much greater. Is it going to solve all of our problems? No, but it's one step closer.

As far as putting my money where my mouth is, I'm realistic. The EV isn't 100% there yet for all circumstances. For my part, I commuted for 6 years in an electric BMW i3. Partly because it's better for the environment, but also because I saw an incentive in convenience and expenses through rebates. That's the role the government is playing in encouraging a well potentially helpful technology. Yes, I still burn fuel in my 500hp German muscle car. I'm just being realistic.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by jmg

I'm making rezzies at Sizzler!

I'm not so sure the EV is worse or as bad for the environment from a long term perspective. I think for now there is some growing pains, and it's going to be harder before it becomes easier. I happen to think, from a non-enthusiast point of view, the EV is simply the more efficient delivery model for energy.

Think about this:

1). An ICE vehicle is a miniature factory on wheels that turns fossil fuels into energy and emits the byproduct into the air. Each car must be regulated and maintained to ensure that the engine is compliant with emissions standards.

2) Fossil fuels are used to transport millions of gallons of oil and fuel a year to various locations in the refining and supply chain

3) Fossil fuels are finite.

4) The ICE can only use fossil fuels, and if the fossil fuel chain is broken or depleted, there are no other options for that vehicle.

Then think about the EV:

1) An EV is already using usable energy. There are no emissions.

2) Energy is transported through the grid. Besides maintenance costs and energy loss, there are no additional expenses to transport per unit energy for electricity ie a tanker truck needs to burn fuel each time it's utilized, a wire does not.

3) Electricity is practically infinite compared to fossil fuels when you consider renewable energy sources. Recycling and battery technology will improve, just like it did for emissions in the ICE, further improving environmental impact.

4) The EV is flexible. We can burn coal and oil to generate energy, but we can also use solar, hydro, wind etc. newer technologies have a higher chance of being backwards compatible. Ie a new energy source will be utilized earlier in the supply chain to generate energy that the user end EV can use seamlessly. This is unlike an ICE which will need equipment and tuning to use even something like ethanol etc.

To me, it's just way more efficient and the potential is much greater. Is it going to solve all of our problems? No, but it's one step closer.

As far as putting my money where my mouth is, I'm realistic. The EV isn't 100% there yet for all circumstances. For my part, I commuted for 6 years in an electric BMW i3. Partly because it's better for the environment, but also because I saw an incentive in convenience and expenses through rebates. That's the role the government is playing in encouraging a well potentially helpful technology. Yes, I still burn fuel in my 500hp German muscle car. I'm just being realistic.

They have been saying your #3 for years yet the latest reports says there is hundreds of years worth of fossil fuels left and some geologists are saying it just might be infinite. I promise you brother EV has nothing to do with the environment. It never has. It is and has always been about money. Power, influence and money. All I ask for is an even playing field. Let me choose. I told you I liked EV. If at some point in time I discover one that’s practical for myself or one of my family members I will jump all over it. Just don’t force me. After all of this is America. Freedom baby.

PS-. I’m in the panhandle of Florida this week. They just raised residential and commercial electrical prices by over 25% in one shot.

[FCX5]

Originally Posted by packet

I may be misinformed on this (and welcome being enlightened), but everytime I see the EV case pushed, I ask 'what about the infrastructure to power it?'

To that, I never get a concrete response. For instance, I don't see any new nuclear plants being built out either in the US / Canada - it's all pie in the sky 'we'll figure out something in the future' living on the hope of the future.
And the future does hold many wondrous things, but it would be prudent to start planning rather than leave it to chance or lack of direction.

All that makes me rather skeptical of the motives of the parties involved ..

Are you saying people with EVs are not charging their cars? We put more miles in our EV than ICE in 2021. FWIW. I am assuming what you are referring to is when will EV's be mainstream compared to ICE? That is a good question. It is a similar transition from regular mobile phones to smartphones - initially people thought it would take 50 years to get the bandwidth and that the cost of accessing the network would be too expensive for most people...

There are lots of people working on the technological problems. EVs and how they are charged (clean vs fossil fuel) are two different topics. IMHO.

[paquet]

Sorry, yes - I should've phrased it better - my question is indeed "where is the infrastructure plan to support mainstream?"

While I get it's impossible to predict the future, this lack of infrastructure planning (at least being publicly shared) bothers me - as I see it as a uniquely western world problem... (Asia - aka India, China don't give a crap)

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by packet

Sorry, yes - I should've phrased it better - my question is indeed "where is the infrastructure plan to support mainstream?"

While I get it's impossible to predict the future, this lack of infrastructure planning (at least being publicly shared) bothers me - as I see it as a uniquely western world problem... (Asia - aka India, China don't give a crap)

I think you are absolutely spot on to have concerns about this. Not only the infrastructure but the time it takes to fully charge an automobile so that the driver can carry on a decent amount of miles. This is a massive problem and there is no way both these things will be fixed anytime soon. If I turn out to be wrong I will admit it. But for now it takes less than five minutes for me to pull over and dump 15 gallons of gas into my car and then go 400 straight miles before I then have to pull over again for five minutes and fill it up.

[paquet]

Originally Posted by FrankMstein

Clean Energy Transmission
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal’s more than $65 billion investment is the largest investment in clean energy transmission and the electric grid in American history. It upgrades our power infrastructure, including by building thousands of miles of new, resilient transmission lines to facilitate the expansion of renewable energy. It creates a new Grid Deployment Authority, invests in research and development for advanced transmission and electricity distribution technologies, and promotes smart grid technologies that deliver flexibility and resilience. It also invests in demonstration projects and research hubs for next generation technologies like advanced nuclear reactors, carbon capture, and clean hydrogen.

Until congress appropriates the money for specifics (ie: pork) it won't get done. This is why voting and representing the people is important not just representing their portfolio/special/crazy (Q) interests.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ental-justice/

It sounds lovely - but it also sounds stalled - which is surprising to me - if it's a bill, then funding should be already planned / figured out / working (I know - I'm showing my ignorance of US politics here...)

EDIT: it's not a bill yet?
And I so hate the suffix of "justice" being attached to anything and everything of late.

[FrankMstein]

This may answer the questions, some for charging stations where some above seem to be *concerned* about. It was 7.5b (now 5b) until whackos needed some consoling. That should put one in just about every small town. Enough to alleviate concerns over trips.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...-happens-next/

[02M3ForMe]

Originally Posted by jmg

I'm making rezzies at Sizzler!

I'm not so sure the EV is worse or as bad for the environment from a long term perspective. I think for now there is some growing pains, and it's going to be harder before it becomes easier. I happen to think, from a non-enthusiast point of view, the EV is simply the more efficient delivery model for energy.

Think about this:

1). An ICE vehicle is a miniature factory on wheels that turns fossil fuels into energy and emits the byproduct into the air. Each car must be regulated and maintained to ensure that the engine is compliant with emissions standards.

2) Fossil fuels are used to transport millions of gallons of oil and fuel a year to various locations in the refining and supply chain

3) Fossil fuels are finite.

4) The ICE can only use fossil fuels, and if the fossil fuel chain is broken or depleted, there are no other options for that vehicle.

Then think about the EV:

1) An EV is already using usable energy. There are no emissions.

2) Energy is transported through the grid. Besides maintenance costs and energy loss, there are no additional expenses to transport per unit energy for electricity ie a tanker truck needs to burn fuel each time it's utilized, a wire does not.

3) Electricity is practically infinite compared to fossil fuels when you consider renewable energy sources. Recycling and battery technology will improve, just like it did for emissions in the ICE, further improving environmental impact.

4) The EV is flexible. We can burn coal and oil to generate energy, but we can also use solar, hydro, wind etc. newer technologies have a higher chance of being backwards compatible. Ie a new energy source will be utilized earlier in the supply chain to generate energy that the user end EV can use seamlessly. This is unlike an ICE which will need equipment and tuning to use even something like ethanol etc.

To me, it's just way more efficient and the potential is much greater. Is it going to solve all of our problems? No, but it's one step closer.

As far as putting my money where my mouth is, I'm realistic. The EV isn't 100% there yet for all circumstances. For my part, I commuted for 6 years in an electric BMW i3. Partly because it's better for the environment, but also because I saw an incentive in convenience and expenses through rebates. That's the role the government is playing in encouraging a well potentially helpful technology. Yes, I still burn fuel in my 500hp German muscle car. I'm just being realistic.

Exactly.

On top of all this, the (sad?) reality for high-performance ICE enthusiasts like ourselves is that, for the average person, the EV ownership experience is meaningfully superior. Smoother, quieter, punchier drive with more interior/storage space and you start the day with a fresh (and cheap) 200-400 miles of range every morning and it requires much less upkeep and it won’t kill you if you accidentally leave it on in your garage. Game over.

I test drove a Taycan and I’m no longer concerned about whether an EV can work as a fun car. We haven’t seen a true EV sports car yet (at least one that’s less than 7-figures); I believe BMW/Porsche/etc will deliver when it’s time.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by FrankMstein

This may answer the questions, some for charging stations where some above seem to be *concerned* about. It was 7.5b (now 5b) until whackos needed some consoling. That should put one in just about every small town. Enough to alleviate concerns over trips.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...-happens-next/

I apologize but your post makes no sense. at least not to me. What are you saying? One charging station in every small town in America will take care of millions of electric vehicles? I don’t think that’s what you meant so before I ridicule you for that please clarify. Thanks.

On a sidenote don’t you think properly placing charging stations and setting that up would be best done by business people and not government? Progress generally does a better job when it’s for profit which of course revolves around consumerism rather then some bureaucrat taking taxpayer money and throwing it into a pot. History proves that over and over and over and over and over again.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by 02M3ForMe

Exactly.

On top of all this, the (sad?) reality for high-performance ICE enthusiasts like ourselves is that, for the average person, the EV ownership experience is meaningfully superior. Smoother, quieter, punchier drive with more interior/storage space and you start the day with a fresh (and cheap) 200-400 miles of range every morning and it requires much less upkeep and it won’t kill you if you accidentally leave it on in your garage. Game over.

I test drove a Taycan and I’m no longer concerned about whether an EV can work as a fun car. We haven’t seen a true EV sports car yet (at least one that’s less than 7-figures); I believe BMW/Porsche/etc will deliver when it’s time.

Just wondering when in life did you start to feel comfortable speaking for average people? I know lots of average people and not one of them has said an EV experience is meaningfully superior. Not one.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Patton250

They have been saying your #3 for years yet the latest reports says there is hundreds of years worth of fossil fuels left and some geologists are saying it just might be infinite.

Well, in theory everything is finite. Fossil fuels are finite, but if you are arguing that there's so much of it, that it's practically infinite then there is an argument for that. However, accessing that fuel is going to become more of an issue as time goes by. Fracking and deep sea drilling are already pretty common practices. If it was easy to get, why are we resorting to such measures? Why have so many wars been fought for oil? Why are we relying so much on foreign oil? Economically speaking, as an American, i'd rather we be more energy independent. Why not be a leader in renewable energy? We have the land, resources and weather for hydro, wind, and solar.

My other #3 said that "Electricity is practically infinite compared to fossil fuels when you consider renewable energy sources." So I kind of tried to address this idea. It takes hundreds of millions of years to form a fossil fuel, so it's not considered renewable by any practical means for human kind. We're only about 300k years old.

Originally Posted by Patton250

PS-. I’m in the panhandle of Florida this week. They just raised residential and commercial electrical prices by over 25% in one shot.

Yeah, well it's Florida. FPL's rate hike was approved by the state board and Commissioner Mike La Rosa, who was appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis. You can take it up with them. However, there's always some crazy scheme going on and allegedly the FPL was involved in helping the GOP. Maybe this was their "reward"?

[jmg]

Interesting read on early gas stations in the US:

https://www.familytreemagazine.com/h...-gas-stations/

History of Gas Stations
By David A. Fryxell

This year, car buffs might consider a pilgrimage to the corner of Baum Boulevard and St. Clair Street in Pittsburgh, where a historic marker commemorates the “First Drive-In Filling Station.” That breakthrough in automotive convenience made history 100 years ago in 1913. Baum Boulevard was then already known as “automobile row” because of the many car dealerships lining the street. Drivers could pull right in to the “Good Gulf Gasoline” station with their new vehicles and fill ’er up. The station offered free air and water, and sold the country’s first commercial road maps.

Before the advent of the service station a century ago, fueling up was an adventure for our ancestors. The first places to sell fuel—appearing not long after the first cars—were pharmacies, as a side business. Bertha Benz refilled the tank of the first automobile driven across country at the city pharmacy in Wiesloch, Germany, on Aug. 5, 1888. She was driving the newly constructed Patent Motorwagen automobile from Mannheim to Pforzheim with her 13- and 15-year-old sons as passengers, to prove to her husband Karl that his invention was marketable. The car ran not on gasoline but on highly volatile petroleum ether, which pharmacies stocked.

By 1900, the United States had 4,000 cars (compared to 20 million horses), but gasoline was still considered a waste by-product of producing kerosene. Pioneering motorists had to take a bucket to the general store, hardware dealer, drugstore or local refinery and fill up from a gasoline barrel. A few enterprising (and fearless) salesmen sold gasoline from pushcarts equipped with hoses.
In 1905, as the United States manufactured 25,000 automobiles a year, Sylvanus Freelove Bowser developed a pump to safely transfer gasoline from a barrel into a car’s tank. Bowser had previously invented a successful kerosene pump. Today, Bowser Avenue in his hometown of Fort Wayne, Ind., is named after him, and fuel pumps in New Zealand and Australia are still known as “bowsers.”

Bowser’s invention launched a new “filling station” business, typically offshoots of other merchants. Gasoline was sold right on the sidewalk, causing traffic jams as cars pulled to the side of the road to refuel. Even early businesses devoted solely to selling gasoline—such as the world’s first purpose-built gas station in St. Louis in 1905 or the station Standard Oil opened in Seattle in 1907—relied on curbside pumps. By 1910, when American roads held a half-million automobiles, this began to pose a problem.

The drive-in gas station was the solution, helping usher in a golden age for the American automobile. Pittsburgh’s history-making Gulf station sold 30 gallons of gas at 27 cents a gallon on its first day, and drive-in “service stations” spread almost as fast as the automobile itself. The 1911 breakup of the Standard Oil monopoly also boosted competition and gas station growth, as newly minted oil companies battled for market share.

Seeking a competitive edge and new revenue, stations expanded beyond filling up customers’ tanks. Initially, there was little market for other automotive services, since Fords were designed for easy owner maintenance; every Ford came with a “grease cup” so the driver could lubricate his own car. As General Motors began to pass Ford in sales, however, “greasing palaces” were added to gas stations. Sinclair opened the first three stations equipped with lubrication equipment in 1926.

By 1929, the US census counted 121,513 filling stations (enumerated as “service stations” after 1948), totaling nearly $1.8 billion in sales. The Depression only added impetus to the business, which attracted newly unemployed industrial workers with an entrepreneurial bent. By 1933, the number of stations had grown 40 percent over precrash figures, although sales per station plummeted almost as much. Stations also shifted from being owned by the oil giants, staffed by salaried employees, to independent operations leased by local dealers. This arrangement was first tested in Iowa by Standard Oil of Indiana and came to be called the “Iowa plan.”

Oil companies remained involved in the design of even most independent gas stations, however. These corporate icons were crafted by some of the nation’s top architects, including Frank Lloyd Wright and Mies van der Rohe. Most, though, took the form of what architect Robert Venturi would later call a “decorated shed.” The typical “oblong box” gas station was flat-roofed and contained two bays, one with a hydraulic lift and the other with a central floor drain where cars could be washed. Restrooms were accessed from the exterior of the station.

Texaco, which in 1928 was the first US company to sell its gasoline in all 48 states, set the style. In 1937 the company hired Walter Dorwin Teague to design its service stations—functional white buildings with green trim, specialized lubrication and washing bays, an office with plate glass windows to showcase automotive products, and “Men’s” and “Ladies” restrooms with Texaco-green tile floors and walls. The Texaco star “banjo” sign identified stations to passing motorists. You could “trust your car to the man who wears the star,” a uniformed attendant who would fill up your tank, wash your windows and check your oil.

Not every service station succumbed to homogeny, however. A Shell station in North Carolina was built in the shape of a shell. East Coast stations might look like lighthouses, while others mimicked teepees or windmills. In Zillah, Wash., at the height of the Teapot Dome scandal, a gas station was built in the shape of a teapot. In the ultimate example of form following function, a Missouri station was designed like a giant gas pump.

Regardless of form and function, the drive-in service station industry was set to undergo a radical change—self-service stations. The first threat to the job security of service-station attendants appeared in Los Angeles in 1947, when Frank Ulrich opened a self-service gas station. But the concept didn’t catch on until the oil embargo of 1973.

Today, only New Jersey and Oregon hold out against the self-service station—by statute in both states, enacted in 1949 and 1951, respectively. Oregon voters rejected a measure overturning the self-service ban in 1982.

[kyrix1st]

Originally Posted by jmg

...With a ICE only vehicle, you can't, it's ALL fossil fuels.

You sure about that?

[FrankMstein]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I apologize but your post makes no sense. at least not to me. What are you saying? One charging station in every small town in America will take care of millions of electric vehicles? I don’t think that’s what you meant so before I ridicule you for that please clarify. Thanks.

On a sidenote don’t you think properly placing charging stations and setting that up would be best done by business people and not government? Progress generally does a better job when it’s for profit which of course revolves around consumerism rather then some bureaucrat taking taxpayer money and throwing it into a pot. History proves that over and over and over and over and over again.

To think that government is going to build charging stations is ludicris. Why would you state that, why would they do that??? The government is NOT going to set up charging stations. The company I work for put one in and is going to get a piece of the 5b. Incentives for businesses, power infrastructure to increase output, staff to handle that, etc. will be what the 5b will cover.

To misquote me and leave out "just about" will get a reaction you do not want. certainly...not every really, you think...? Never did I say just every, never. I think the phrase I used was "just about every". You can quote me on that, correctly. Do you read into most things like that? Well I better get out ahead of this because I know where this is going...I also didn't imply it was tomorrow or the year after that or that the 5b will do all of that too.

[FrankMstein]

Originally Posted by jmg

Well, in theory everything is finite. Fossil fuels are finite, but if you are arguing that there's so much of it, that it's practically infinite then there is an argument for that. However, accessing that fuel is going to become more of an issue as time goes by. Fracking and deep sea drilling are already pretty common practices. If it was easy to get, why are we resorting to such measures? Why have so many wars been fought for oil? Why are we relying so much on foreign oil? Economically speaking, as an American, i'd rather we be more energy independent. Why not be a leader in renewable energy? We have the land, resources and weather for hydro, wind, and solar.

My other #3 said that "Electricity is practically infinite compared to fossil fuels when you consider renewable energy sources." So I kind of tried to address this idea. It takes hundreds of millions of years to form a fossil fuel, so it's not considered renewable by any practical means for human kind. We're only about 300k years old.




Yeah, well it's Florida. FPL's rate hike was approved by the state board and Commissioner Mike La Rosa, who was appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis. You can take it up with them. However, there's always some crazy scheme going on and allegedly the FPL was involved in helping the GOP. Maybe this was their "reward"?

I said most of this in another thread on a similar subject.

[02M3ForMe]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Just wondering when in life did you start to feel comfortable speaking for average people? I know lots of average people and not one of them has said an EV experience is meaningfully superior. Not one.

“Average people” are getting their first taste of actual EV ownership from a quality EV-focused brand with the Model 3 and Y. Both cars are selling extremely well and have only sold faster with time, so we’ve got objective data around that.

The only people who deny the clear and objectively measurable/observable benefits of EV ownership are those who have spent limited to no time with one and are repeating misconceptions that are not the reality.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by jmg

Well, in theory everything is finite. Fossil fuels are finite, but if you are arguing that there's so much of it, that it's practically infinite then there is an argument for that. However, accessing that fuel is going to become more of an issue as time goes by. Fracking and deep sea drilling are already pretty common practices. If it was easy to get, why are we resorting to such measures? Why have so many wars been fought for oil? Why are we relying so much on foreign oil? Economically speaking, as an American, i'd rather we be more energy independent. Why not be a leader in renewable energy? We have the land, resources and weather for hydro, wind, and solar.

My other #3 said that "Electricity is practically infinite compared to fossil fuels when you consider renewable energy sources." So I kind of tried to address this idea. It takes hundreds of millions of years to form a fossil fuel, so it's not considered renewable by any practical means for human kind. We're only about 300k years old.




Yeah, well it's Florida. FPL's rate hike was approved by the state board and Commissioner Mike La Rosa, who was appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis. You can take it up with them. However, there's always some crazy scheme going on and allegedly the FPL was involved in helping the GOP. Maybe this was their "reward"?

You see this is where I believe you and I live on two completely different worlds. We were completely energy independent not too long ago because of fracking. That’s all done now and we are back to foreign oil. Yet you make a statement like we always have been when that’s just not true. We have enough fuel on our own continent and in our own territorial waters to be energy independent with fossil fuels until your great grandchildren die. Probably longer.

The reason why FP&L raised their prices is not because politicians are helping them is because everything‘s going up. It costs a lot more to make electricity. I forget by what percentage but inflation is upcatastrophically in the last year. I don’t know why your side always gets away with bringing up politics. I used the L word in a sentence that had nothing to do with politics and got banned from this forum for 30 freaking days.

The number 3 I was referring to was your number 3 on fossil fuels. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I should’ve been more clear on that.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by FrankMstein

To think that government is going to build charging stations is ludicris. Why would you state that, why would they do that??? The government is NOT going to set up charging stations. The company I work for put one in and is going to get a piece of the 5b. Incentives for businesses, power infrastructure to increase output, staff to handle that, etc. will be what the 5b will cover.

To misquote me and leave out "just about" will get a reaction you do not want. certainly...not every really, you think...? Never did I say just every, never. I think the phrase I used was "just about every". You can quote me on that, correctly. Do you read into most things like that? Well I better get out ahead of this because I know where this is going...I also didn't imply it was tomorrow or the year after that or that the 5b will do all of that too.

No worries. Thanks for clarifying. No need to get all upset about it I was asking legitimately. Besides I didn’t quote you I just asked you to clarify. We’re good.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by 02M3ForMe

“Average people” are getting their first taste of actual EV ownership from a quality EV-focused brand with the Model 3 and Y. Both cars are selling extremely well and have only sold faster with time, so we’ve got objective data around that.

The only people who deny the clear and objectively measurable/observable benefits of EV ownership are those who have spent limited to no time with one and are repeating misconceptions that are not the reality.

I am personally glad Elon Musk is having success with Tesla. I think it’s awesome. I think it’s awesome to have something different than ice vehicles. I hope they also come up with other ways to make vehicles move. The more the better. I love competition. All I’m saying is that for now and especially Tesla it’s a niche market. Electric vehicles are not even close to being practical for the majority of Americans yet and they won’t be until there are charging stations everywhere there are gas stations and you can charge it in five minutes. Until that happens then it’s just going to be a neat car for most people and practical for very few. I have been in a Tesla and the quality of it does not impress me. My Toyota Camry hybrid feels more quality inside than a $90,000 Tesla. That’s my opinion.

[02M3ForMe]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I am personally glad Elon Musk is having success with Tesla. I think it’s awesome. I think it’s awesome to have something different than ice vehicles. I hope they also come up with other ways to make vehicles move. The more the better. I love competition. All I’m saying is that for now and especially Tesla it’s a niche market. Electric vehicles are not even close to being practical for the majority of Americans yet and they won’t be until there are charging stations everywhere there are gas stations and you can charge it in five minutes. Until that happens then it’s just going to be a neat car for most people and practical for very few. I have been in a Tesla and the quality of it does not impress me. My Toyota Camry hybrid feels more quality inside than a $90,000 Tesla. That’s my opinion.

If you have a home or some sort of access to overnight charging, EVs are actually quite practical today. You don’t need as many charging stations when most people can just plug in at night and top up at ~10-30 miles/hour. It’s like having to produce and shop for fewer AA batteries now that most devices are rechargeable. Speaking for “average people” once again, most drive less than 100 miles a day. EV owners with simple 240V dryer outlets at home regularly go weeks/months without charging at 3rd party stations.

The majority of recent Model 3/Y owners I come across definitely aren’t the early adopter type and use their cars as cars. We’ve come a long way from 65-mile range Nissan LEAFs from 2011 that charged at 3-5 miles/hour at home. Now those were niche toys for early adopters, barely a step past proof of concept (I bought one back then and had to pay over MSRP, too). Even that primitive Nissan made it obvious that we’d all be in EVs eventually - they are way too good at A-B non-enthusiast driving and are super cheap and easy to run.

I agree that Tesla build quality still leaves something to be desired.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Patton250

You see this is where I believe you and I live on two completely different worlds. We were completely energy independent not too long ago because of fracking. That’s all done now and we are back to foreign oil. Yet you make a statement like we always have been when that’s just not true. We have enough fuel on our own continent and in our own territorial waters to be energy independent with fossil fuels until your great grandchildren die. Probably longer.

I didn't say we were always dependent. Regardless, fracking has enough of its own drawbacks to stop it and it doesn't change my point.

Originally Posted by Patton250

The reason why FP&L raised their prices is not because politicians are helping them is because everything‘s going up. It costs a lot more to make electricity. I forget by what percentage but inflation is upcatastrophically in the last year.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-.../inflation-cpi

FPL were making boat loads of money before the rate hike. A 25% increase covers much more than inflation.

Originally Posted by Patton250

I don’t know why your side always gets away with bringing up politics.

I've been a republican my whole life. In 2016 I saw it become more like a cult than a political party. Now I don't vote based on party lines. I assume everyone is looking out for their self-interests, that way I can see double standards like this:

Gas prices go up, it's the Dems fault.

Electricity prices go up and it's definitely overhead and inflation, but definitely not a DeSantis appointed Commissioner on the board that approved the rate hike.

Originally Posted by Patton250

The number 3 I was referring to was your number 3 on fossil fuels. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I should’ve been more clear on that.

Oh I knew, I was just pointing out how I said renewables make it practically infinite.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by jmg

I didn't say we were always dependent. Regardless, fracking has enough of its own drawbacks to stop it and it doesn't change my point.



https://tradingeconomics.com/united-.../inflation-cpi

FPL were making boat loads of money before the rate hike. A 25% increase covers much more than inflation.



I've been a republican my whole life. In 2016 I saw it become more like a cult than a political party. Now I don't vote based on party lines. I assume everyone is looking out for their self-interests, that way I can see double standards like this:

Gas prices go up, it's the Dems fault.

Electricity prices go up and it's definitely overhead and inflation, but definitely not a DeSantis appointed Commissioner on the board that approved the rate hike.




Oh I knew, I was just pointing out how I said renewables make it practically infinite.

Responding to this post property would be easy but has me getting banned permanently written all over it. . I’m just going to avoid it altogether. I think I’ll just stick to communicating on how awesome the pictures you take of your beautiful car are.