Lightning Raptor

[DFS]

The State of california has been trying to push advancements in cars beyond the natural normal market advancement for decades with limited success. Whatever deadline they've currently set will surely be set back again when it becomes bluntly obviously that the goal was not realistic. I don't think current deadlines will be any different.

Right now, only 5% of all vehicles sold are EV, or something like that. It's going to be a decade before even have the capacity to produce 50% of all new vehicles. And we have not really started addressing how the resources to produce batteries are acquired, or how they are disposed. I honestly would be too surprised if we start seeing an SJW revolt against planet killing EVs a few years from now, once they get bored with attacking fossil fuels and find neo-woke enlightenment.

I hope you are correct, what's different now in my opinion, is that all of the major vehicle manufactures are making the same pledges (a cash grab no doubt), but we seem to be on a trajectory that will be death by a 1000 cuts rather than a rapid transition. Hopefully the markets can continue to resist the 100 EV market that isn't even feasible or more environmentally friendly than ICE vehicles. The problem always boils down to a sound byte infogram addicted society with an attention span of 1 ms and no ability to critically analyze the BS they are fed daily. Guess we will see!

 

[melvimbe]

I hope you are correct, what's different now in my opinion, is that all of the major vehicle manufactures are making the same pledges (a cash grab no doubt), but we seem to be on a trajectory that will be death by a 1000 cuts rather than a rapid transition. Hopefully the markets can continue to resist the 100 EV market that isn't even feasible or more environmentally friendly than ICE vehicles. The problem always boils down to a sound byte infogram addicted society with an attention span of 1 ms and no ability to critically analyze the BS they are fed daily. Guess we will see!

Ford said something like 50% EV by 2030, I think. I think Ford understands that when 2030 comes around no one will remember what they promised 10 years ago and hold them to it. As well, Ford surely knows better than to make that rigid of a 10 year plan when they know they will need to adapt as the market changes.

Look at it this way. Ford knows how much raw materials are needed to make that many batteries, and knows tat have no way of predicting what it cost 10 years from now to purchase that material and whether or not it will be profitable to do so. That's all assuming current battery tech and materials.

I guess I agree that it will be a '1000 cuts', but I just don't think it will result in death. The trajectory is effected by politics, for sure, but it's not as if the market, reality, and logic will completely disappear.

 

[SilverBolt]

I can currently do the 600 mile drive from Portland to my place in Montana without stopping for fuel. When an electric can do that and survive in a Montana winter I will be interested.

 

[PorterW1111]

Battery degradation is not linear. It'll hit a threshold and then rapidly decline. Tesla guarantees 70% of battery capacity retention up to 150k miles on a Model S - by 200k I would bet it's less than 50%.

For anyone wanting to keep their EVs long term, they'll have to plan for battery replacement as part of the cost of ownership.

and how many engine components(cam phasers hahah) or transmissions is the standard truck going through before/at 200K? my only point here is all vehicles need major component replacements as they age why is the battery thought of as any different.

 

[melvimbe]

and how many engine components(cam phasers hahah) or transmissions is the standard truck going through before/at 200K? my only point here is all vehicles need major component replacements as they age why is the battery thought of as any different.

To me, because it's more of an unknown scenario that I don't fully grasp. Doing a Google search, says that a battery replacement would cost between 3-7k. That's not to say would it would cost 5 years from now when I would actually need it, or how difficult it would be to find a place to get it done. You are correct though that the overall cost of ownership is cheaper for EVs that ICE vehicles, factoring in expected maintenance.

 

[Pinned]

and how many engine components(cam phasers hahah) or transmissions is the standard truck going through before/at 200K? my only point here is all vehicles need major component replacements as they age why is the battery thought of as any different.

It's not any different, and I'm not saying it's worse. But it's also not talked about in EV conversations as if the vehicles don't have any faults other than the current limited range.

IMO the EV marketing and crowd generally doesn't like to talk about the fact that the cars are built in a way where they become obsolete even quicker than gas cars. Often the total emissions of an EV are higher over their useful lifespan than a gas car too. The total energy consumption is generally much higher than the companies claim as well. A battery having a useful lifespan that is equivalent to the breakeven emissions point in comparison with a gas car just seems odd. All to say, the cars really don't seem much better for the environment - they are a symptom of corporations pushing the onus of environmental responsibility onto individuals rather than taking responsibility for their own polluting.

It's not really any better or worse - but I'll definitely wait for increased range and battery life span before making the switch myself.

 

[melvimbe]

It's not any different, and I'm not saying it's worse. But it's also not talked about in EV conversations as if the vehicles don't have any faults other than the current limited range.

IMO the EV marketing and crowd generally doesn't like to talk about the fact that the cars are built in a way where they become obsolete even quicker than gas cars. Often the total emissions of an EV are higher over their useful lifespan than a gas car too. The total energy consumption is generally much higher than the companies claim as well. A battery having a useful lifespan that is equivalent to the breakeven emissions point in comparison with a gas car just seems odd. All to say, the cars really don't seem much better for the environment - they are a symptom of corporations pushing the onus of environmental responsibility onto individuals rather than taking responsibility for their own polluting.

It's not really any better or worse - but I'll definitely wait for increased range and battery life span before making the switch myself.

I was with you up till the blanket statement regarding 'corporations'. Not really about your statement specifically, but you often see statements about evil corporations without getting much more specific then that. Which industries or specific companies? What role does competition and a global market place play in pushing energy inefficient practices. Like with EV vs ICE vehicles, are the alternatives really better?

A lot of the time, 'corporations' is just an unspecified entity to throw blame and/or hatred against for the problem of the day, particular when it's a complex problem that isn't easily understood. And of course, we never give corporations any credit for the massive improvements in society that they bring, just the problems we accepted that came along with it.

 

[jondle]

There is so much misinformation here. I really encourage everyone back to Engineering Explained on Youtube. He is a car guy and an engineer. He used to have an S2000 and now has a supercharged Miata. He isn't an EV guy. He does a ton of videos on cars and really does fact-based analysis including citing where he gets data.

In summary, the initial build of an EV is worse than ICE, but after 6 years, in the worst case (Tesla Model S in WV), they break even. Average car comparison to average car, that comes down to 2 years. So the longer you have the EV, the better it is. Also, as the grid source improves over the years of car ownership, the EV's "green'ness" increases, which is not something that happens in ICE. It also makes a substantial difference where you live. In ID much higher percentage of grid electricity is renewable than say WV.

Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? Myth Busted

If Gas Cars Are Banned, Can The Grid Handle Electric Cars?

I don't own an EV, I have a Raptor and a 370z. I won't be replacing either of those with an EV any time soon. I love my Gen1 V8, but that doesn't mean electric is evil or even a bad idea. Is it right for every situation? Obviously not, but saying they aren't better for the environment is just not factual....assuming you've agreed that excess CO2 in the air is bad. Most family households have two vehicles. I don't see many cases where it doesn't make sense that one of those could be electric. Maybe not if you are an automotive enthusiast, which most people on this forum are, but that isn't the majority of people as a whole.

 

[jzweedyk]

Also, if you have an electric Raptor, you can/should prioritize solar on your house, which could accommodate the increased electricity usage.

That won't help charging the EV overnight.
Don't get me wrong, I think there are many advantages of the EV, but many things need to be resolved, before we totally convert. I just get a little upset at the hype that this is going to save the planet.

 

[OrdinaryStory]

The great state of California is telling us to conserve energy during this heat wave to avoid rotating blackouts. I imagine our future is going to shine bright with exponential growth of EVs. What can possibly go wrong with clean energy?