Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 12 Nov 2019, 10:44:20

Armageddon wrote: New study says 50% of Americans are making under $25,000.

That is a flat out lie. The real number is 19.1 percent while 41.7 percent make between $35K and $100K.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203 ... in-the-us/
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9879
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby Armageddon » Tue 12 Nov 2019, 11:54:50

America’s Middle Class is Vanishing. Nearly Half of Workers Earn Less than $30,000

https://howmuch.net/articles/how-much-a ... e-in-wages


Here's another number that may surprise you – to be in the top half (50%) of all earners you need to earn more than $29,999.99 a year. The number of people earning less than $30,000 accounts for 48.06% of the population.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 12 Nov 2019, 14:46:19

Armageddon wrote:America’s Middle Class is Vanishing. Nearly Half of Workers Earn Less than $30,000
Don't be so pessimistic.
$30000 per year is a lot of money.
If only this poor guy in Sudanese or Mozambique village could get 10% of that he would be the wealthiest man in his neighbourhood.
All women around would be his.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5612
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby Armageddon » Tue 12 Nov 2019, 15:39:35

EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Armageddon wrote:America’s Middle Class is Vanishing. Nearly Half of Workers Earn Less than $30,000
Don't be so pessimistic.
$30000 per year is a lot of money.
If only this poor guy in Sudanese or Mozambique village could get 10% of that he would be the wealthiest man in his neighbourhood.
All women around would be his.



:)
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 12 Nov 2019, 16:47:04

Armageddon wrote:America’s Middle Class is Vanishing. Nearly Half of Workers Earn Less than $30,000

https://howmuch.net/articles/how-much-a ... e-in-wages


Here's another number that may surprise you – to be in the top half (50%) of all earners you need to earn more than $29,999.99 a year. The number of people earning less than $30,000 accounts for 48.06% of the population.

And yet, in the real world, 2018 GDP per capita in the US was roughly $55,000.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... per-capita

Or per the IMF, more like $65,000 in 2019.

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper ... EO/USA/DEU

But of course, the FUDster averages in part time wages to try to portray economic doom in America. And of course, he doesn't disclose that in his comment. :shock:

Yup. I trust him to tell the undistorted truth just as much as I trust Trump to.

But of course, since he says he's an expert in economics, that makes everything he claims so, so accurate. Regardless of source or context. :roll:
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7387
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 12 Nov 2019, 19:47:34

Well stated OC.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9879
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby EdwinSm » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 02:29:09

O-S I know you get tired of the negative news, but are you correct responding to a post about personal income, with a response showing the per capita GDP?

I think that the above post was not up to your usual high standard of rebuttal.

[ps, you also seem to be mixing up Mean, Median, Mode etc, using 'mean' where Arm used 'median']
EdwinSm
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu 07 Jun 2012, 03:23:59

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 04:13:59

Arm's reference is only counting wages earned and counts part time workers the same as a full time employed person. It takes a lot of after school burger flippers and retired Walmart greeters to balance out one full time job. It also ignores the fourteen percent of the population that is under fourteen and too young to work and the nineteen percent of the population drawing social security. Also there are millions drawing some form of Government assistance varying from food stamps to medicare and section eight housing but those figures overlap the others in many cases. At present about twenty percent of the population is on Medicaid/ Obama care with an average benefit of $5700 per year.
Median household income is a much better measure of how Americans are doing today and at $60,000 per household we are doing pretty well.
Consider that the median income in China is about $10,000 USD.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9879
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby Armageddon » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 16:10:01

Americans Aren’t Buying Into The EV Hype

Sales of electric vehicles (EVs), hybrid vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles in the United States slumped in Q3 much more than the slight decline in the overall passenger car market, due to a lack of choice on the U.S. greener car market, analyst company Canalys said in new research.

Like I said, Americans don’t want EV’s.....if given the choice.


https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/ame ... e-ev-hype/
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 17:42:15

Armageddon wrote:Americans Aren’t Buying Into The EV Hype

Sales of electric vehicles (EVs), hybrid vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles in the United States slumped in Q3 much more than the slight decline in the overall passenger car market, due to a lack of choice on the U.S. greener car market, analyst company Canalys said in new research.

Like I said, Americans don’t want EV’s.....if given the choice.


https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/ame ... e-ev-hype/

That is just a product of the cheap gas we have today and the infancy of the EV market. Over the next fifteen years or so the offerings will improve and gas prices will fluctuate. Let the Dems win this next election and tack on a $1.00/ gallon carbon tax and people will "want" an EV.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9879
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby Armageddon » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 18:18:30

vtsnowedin wrote:
Armageddon wrote:Americans Aren’t Buying Into The EV Hype

Sales of electric vehicles (EVs), hybrid vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles in the United States slumped in Q3 much more than the slight decline in the overall passenger car market, due to a lack of choice on the U.S. greener car market, analyst company Canalys said in new research.

Like I said, Americans don’t want EV’s.....if given the choice.


https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/ame ... e-ev-hype/

That is just a product of the cheap gas we have today and the infancy of the EV market. Over the next fifteen years or so the offerings will improve and gas prices will fluctuate. Let the Dems win this next election and tack on a $1.00/ gallon carbon tax and people will "want" an EV.



I own 10,000 oz of physical silver. EV’s require a decent amount of silver. The world has been using more silver than its been producing for the past 5 years and this trend will continue with all these green technologies coming on. They all require silver. I hope every person in the world buys an EV. I’m pulling for them.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 20:34:22

Armageddon wrote:I hope every person in the world buys an EV. I’m pulling for them.


Oh really? Kind of silly to brag about betting so much of your money on it when upthread you say this:

Armageddon wrote:I am for certain that most US citizens won’t switch to EV’s. Not as long as they have a choice...EV’s will always represent a very small percentage of vehicles...They will never switch to an EV in any mass scale. It’s just reality.


Some perspective is in order, from here:

Electric cars use silver, silver is contained within circuit boards. However, only small trace amounts are used as it is an expensive metal.

How many circuit boards are produced today currently for other devices like PC motherboards, smartphones, and other consumer electronics? If this kind of silver usage was such a problem, we'd see silver prices skyrocket long before now.

BTW, eWaste can and is being recycled, most often to recover precious metals like silver and gold. It's not like all this stuff will just wind up in landfills.

---

BTW, back to some real news rather than doomer speculation:

https://electrek.co/2019/11/12/vw-break ... q4PQCVrIjI

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3033
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 11:27:37

The Mustang Mach-E has been revealed in what I would describe as a copy-cat Tesla approach, both in the reveal and the product itself. Not that it's bad, just unoriginal.

https://www.ford.com/suvs/mach-e/2021/

One thing I predicted, though, was that competitors would hold onto a screen behind the wheel, and Ford took a pot-shot at Tesla over this during the reveal, which I loved.

When I look at the specs, what bothers me the most, and this is true of most non-Tesla EVs, is the poor efficiency. For one thing, you take a pretty sizeable hit if you opt for AWD. And to achieve 300 mile range you have to buy into a 98kwh battery. The price-point for a battery pack this big is shockingly low, though. But where the bad efficiency bites you in the end is charging times. Sure, you get 300 miles range, but then you have to charge 98kwh each time to get your 300 again during a road trip. My Kona gives me 300 miles in optimal conditions with only 64kwh. I know the Mustang is a bigger car but not so much bigger that it should require 98kwh.

Other than that, it seems like an excellent car with good tech, over the air updates, etc...

I think this vehicle and the VW ID4 will set a new bar in the low to mid price range and provide good competition to Tesla. The Polestar 2 looks like it's going to be too expensive to fit in this segment and the others are all strictly luxury pricepoints.

I think these cars aimed for true mass production rather than compliance car volumes will force the other automakers to eventually step up their game. For instance, I think GM is way overdue to reveal whatever they want to follow the Bolt.

---

I did find Ford's equivocation on ICE vs. EV to be rather sad, btw. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too with the Mustang Mach-E side by side with the new CO2-belching GT. I don't think the word "climate change" was mentioned once. They really don't have the moral high ground the way Tesla does, or even VW (driven by contrition it may be). But if you don't buy cars to make a political statement, none of that matters.

It does, however, signify a sort of industry-wide existential crisis where they have a legacy of gearhead muscle-car culture and they have to wrestle with the inevitability of the end of the internal combustion engine. It's hard to keep selling your gas cars while simultaneously conceding that ICE is dead-man-walking, but from a financial standpoint they can't transition to EVs overnight. So I sense sort of half-heartedness in promoting both drivetrains.

It's almost like cigarette manufacturers having to skirt around the wellknown fact that smoking causes cancer or the Duff beer ads in the Simpsons talking about drinking (responsibly). They can't really play dumb anymore but their business model can't allow them to demonize their own legacy product.

This baggage is a problem, but their overall competence in manufacturing and support make them a wiser purchase than Tesla which has stumbled and fumbled its way forward on every front.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3033
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 19:13:31

I suppose it is good marketing to have this Ford EV closely match or exceed Tesla's range and acceleration etc. for now at least. With top end model having 300 mile range and the proposed GT version a virtual drag racer. The first adopters will want and pay to be the best on the street.
But the vast majority of drivers do not need 300 miles of range or neck snapping acceleration. In reality the average owner could do quite well on 125 miles a day range and performance no faster then the Ford escape ICE 2.0 liter engine. Even the all wheel drive version is more then the vast majority "Need" as apposed to want. Let gas get up past $7.00 a gallon and the demand for the low end models will outstrip the market for tire firers. Tax incentives and the price of gas vs, electricity in the future are of course hard to estimate today so a clear idea about how fast EVs get adopted remains elusive.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9879
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 19 Nov 2019, 00:07:55

vtsnowedin wrote:In reality the average owner could do quite well on 125 miles


It's not so simple, really. EV mileage is a pretty wide spread when you factor in weather or intentionally capping charges to less than 100% to maximize pack longevity. For me, we're talking about a guess-o-meter spread between 300 max starting off at 100% charge down to maybe 190 starting off at 90% in winter weather (we've had some early flurries, hard to guestimate). With a car that has a peak range of 125 at 100% charge in warm weather could lead to dangerously low range in a worst-case scenario of snow and hills. So I really think 200 is a minimum, preferably more.

Even with fast DC charging popping up, charge speed is still a limiting factor. I never have to visit a gas station anymore but I also don't really want to visit a charging station if I can avoid it. It's nice to think that I could charge up in a mall or restaurant parking lot or something, but as EVs become more and more popular, charging stalls are getting clogged. I was just at a restaurant the other day that had two stalls and both were occupied. Having to be at the right place at the right time to charge on the go is a pain in the ass. With gas stations, you're in and out fast enough that lines rarely form. With EV chargers, if the stall is busy, nobody's gonna wait. Looking for a charger can be sort of like looking for an open parking space downtown. It can be a big time-sink. The only charger you can really count on being available is at home, which means the more range you have when you start out each morning the more freedom and convenience.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3033
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 19 Nov 2019, 04:20:35

The number of chargers will grow to keep pace with EV sales just as gas stations sprang up all over America with the advent of the model T. When Ford drove his quadracycle in the streets of Detroit he used a new product (white) gas that people were using for pump up gas lanterns in places where piped in city coal gas was not available. Early car owners bought their gas at general stores and blacksmith shops until the first purpose built filling station was built in 1905 and those were still rare when the Model T hit the streets in 1908.
But consider that the average commute time in the USA is under thirty minutes each way so even if you averaged 60 mph on your trip (35 is more likely) the average commuter is traveling less then 60 miles per day so needs only three hours of charging with 240 volt home chargers now available to top off the car each night. Now consider that half of drivers are below that need level and a majority of them live south of New jersey in areas where snow and extreme cold is seldom a problem. A 300 mile range would last a week without ever plugging in the car so who really "Needs" that much range? The industry can happily supply new EVs to the millions of drivers that don't live 100 miles from work on top of a snowy mountain and then worry about those hardy souls some fifty million units from now.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9879
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 19 Nov 2019, 10:40:02

vtsnowedin wrote:A 300 mile range would last a week without ever plugging in the car


You're regurgitating talking points from 15 years ago when EV nuts were saying lead acid conversions with 40 mile range could have been mainstream.

It's just not how people view cars. You don't commute to work and back on a gas tank with only enough gas in it to make it back on vapors. Personal mobility is an on-demand resource. Knowing all you have is barely enough to get to and from your dayjob doesn't give you the peace of mind to do anything other than your normal everyday routine. The second you have an impulse to go somewhere else or an emergency, you're screwed.
At the very least, you're gonna have to first sit around at a charging station (far longer than a gas station). That's why first-gen EVs usually required that you hold onto a second vehicle, which led to things like the Volt where the gas motor took the place of the second vehicle.

We're BEYOND that now. And battery costs are such that deliberately advocating for <200 mile range is like advocating for desktop PCs with less than 4GB RAM or smart phones with 320x200 screens. There might be a market for this sort of basement tier, but not so much for a typical first-world car buyer, at least in the US.

For instance, there is an electric Mini coming out, but it has sh*t range. People will buy it in europe for the brand and because they tend to be more tolerant of low range, but it won't sell here in the US. Anything less than 200 miles is DOA.

The industry knows this which is why none of the Mustang Mach-Es will have less than 200 miles range and probably none of the VW MEB cars in the US will either. I also don't think the lower range Kona is even available in the US because they know it wouldn't sell. You just have a few compliance cars out there still purely to meet regulations but as soon as the companies making them bring out a "real" EV then cars with such low range will never be sold again...ever.

So for all the reasons I've stated, 200 is the cutoff. Could you get by with less, especially with more chargers? Yes. But with inconveniences that nobody feels they have to endure anymore. Would people tolerate such inconveniences in a post-peak gas-spike apocalypse? They sure would! But we don't live in that world yet.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3033
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 19 Nov 2019, 11:08:44

You misunderstand my view. I am not advocating the production of EVs with <200 miles range. 200 is in my view more then enough for the average buyer so provides a margin for error and should sell well. It is the 300 mile range versions costing $20,000 more then the 200 mile version that I think are excessive and only for first adopters and competitive types.
If you have a car with 200r and you only drive it 60 on your usual day a few hours charging while you are sleeping (off peak rates I would hope) will keep it topped off with no waiting at charging stations.
The world will not have to go through an apocalypse to spur the sales of EVs. Gas prices only need to rise to the point that total cost per mile of an EV is less then that of a similar sized ICE vehicle. When that happens you will have groups of buyers coming in looking to the bottom line instead of flash and sex appeal. When that happens that $20,000 for a 100r will have to come down a lot or the 200r cars will become the major seller.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9879
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 19 Nov 2019, 18:26:28

vtsnowedin wrote:I am not advocating the production of EVs with <200 miles range. 200 is in my view more then enough for the average buyer so provides a margin for error and should sell well.


I agree with that.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3033
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 10

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 20 Nov 2019, 04:36:34

EdwinSm wrote:O-S I know you get tired of the negative news, but are you correct responding to a post about personal income, with a response showing the per capita GDP?

I think that the above post was not up to your usual high standard of rebuttal.

[ps, you also seem to be mixing up Mean, Median, Mode etc, using 'mean' where Arm used 'median']

Fair enough re the different type of figures. I was trying to show that his usual FUD re Americans being so poor is nonsense, instead of only pointing out the blatantly obvious, re the part time workers included.

OTOH, I'm not "mixing up" mean and median (as I'll explain here). I don't see how mode has anything to do with this.

Obviously, Armageddon's post implies he's talking about the median, by saying "nearly half" of the workers. However, he resorts to the distortion game by including part time workers in his claim to make things look worse (as per usual for him). People might choose to work part time for a variety of reasons (like being retired, or going to school, or working multiple part time jobs). It doesn't automatically imply deprivation, much less poverty.

Now, as far as the GDP per capita data goes, I went where the good sources for that figure seemed to be, re my search. By DEFINITION, this figure is an average, and it's stated as such in the sources I gave, so it's not like there's anything misleading about that.

I was trying to offer a "sanity check" on his implication about how "terrible" things are for US citizens. I suppose household income might have been a better choice in hindsight. Since folks like he and shorty constantly ignore such data which various folks have pointed out over and over again, I tried another approach. (When giving that data, I used median household income in the US, as median makes sense in that context. I don't see how "median GDP per capita" would make any sense.)

Ah! I remember now - I was thinking that since household income would include any investment income, I was looking for something to correlate more to wages -- i.e. stuff produced, so I went to GDP. I think I was tired or careless and didn't think enough about the impact of GDP per Capita being an average vs. the median figure he was using.

I appreciate the feedback. Constructive feedback is helpful, and I let my irritation over his frequent attempts at distorting the state of the economy to try to "make his case" impact my response -- and that's completely my bad.

(Unlike a number of folks on this site, when I mess up and someone points that out with data or a rational discussion/argument, I'll freely admit it, if I agree I made a mistake. OTOH, unlike certain folks here, I TRY to make fair arguments and use "reasonable" data sources, vs. using whatever "ammunition" I can find to push a certain agenda.)
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7387
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests