Half price electric cars

42OhmsPA said:

Maybe later, I don't feel like digging through data on Easter Sunday.
This will get you started.

PA Climate Data

Click to expand...

Don’t think that was directed at you.

Nobodybusiness said:

Don’t think that was directed at you.

Click to expand...

Ha. I read the quote wrong. Need to stay off the forum when waiting for kielbasa scrapple and eggs on the Blackstone.

Nobodybusiness said:

It wouldn’t be happening without Government mandates..................

Click to expand...

But it is happening around the world nevertheless. It looks like you will still be able to buy a gas car.

robby said:

You do understand the difference between Weather and Climate?

Click to expand...

I know that he does, but I would also like to venture a guess.

Climate is a something that we can predict with so much certainty that the peasents need not question the assertions of those paid to create computer models who come to the conclusions which are required by those who approve their research grants.

Climate is easy to predict with computer models. That is how we know that the temperature will increase by 0.8° in 100 years.

Climate "change" is a perfect reason to destroy civilization and "Build Back Better" and so must not be questioned.

Weather on the other hand is a highly unpredictable force that is not easy to predict more than a week ahead of time. Meteorologists make observations, measurements and predictions on a very short timeline, and often in full view of the public.

Skepticism of the weather forecast is the norm for many people, skepticism of "Climate science" is blasphemy to a good portion of those same people.

This is a perfect microcosm of our situation really. Meteorologists practice the actual scientific method, and do their best to predict the upcoming trend with mixed success. They often put their work on the record for all to see and evaluate. They are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but many doubt their predictions.

Climate scientists on the other hand build computer models and use observations an data collected over many years with little success in predicting the actual trends. They hide their data and turn a blind eye to the reality of the low quality data that they often rely on to feed into their computer models, then hide the data and claim it is proprietary, because it shows the truth.

And yet the average person has little skepticism of the poseudoscience conclusions that they put forth as fact.

Ampster said:

But it is happening around the world nevertheless. It looks like you will still be able to buy a gas car.

Click to expand...

Today yes. Next week. Who knows.
This is the issue.
If EVs were truly the end all be all or even better than ICE then organic growth would be enough minus subsidies and Mandates.

Nobodybusiness said:

If EVs were truly the end all be all or even better than ICE then organic growth would be enough minus subsidies and Mandates.

Click to expand...

Except a large and powerfull industry is threatened and has spent a lot of time and money obstructing organic growth.

Ampster said:

Except a large and powerfull industry is threatened and has spent a lot of time and money obstructing organic growth.

Click to expand...

How?
Tesla is making vehicles.
So are others.
If they are so good it will prove itself.

Nobodybusiness said:

If they are so good it will prove itself.

Click to expand...

I agree in the long run that will happen. The economics for many will be a factor.

Ampster said:

But it is happening around the world nevertheless. It looks like you will still be able to buy a gas car.

Click to expand...

It only happens if we allow it. The more people see through the agenda the less power the agenda has. They can fake it for a while but the need to create the illusion that the changes are good and that fundamentally transforming society is a good thing. Many people who are duped are not willing to admit that they have been duped, individually or as a society. So as more dupes are created there is a likelihood that more people will fall prey to defending the delusion.

Reality must prevail over lies in order for humanity to stay somewhat free for any period of time.

A global control grid is being assembled and will allow for the total enslavement of humanity at the whim of those who imposed it on humanity in the name of "Saving the Earth"

But you can have your gas car for a while longer.

This is akin to the kidnapper who flashes a gun at you and tells you to get in his white van or he will shoot you. If you comply he will likely kill you in a much worse way, but it is likely that he won't shoot you if you flee. To add insult to injury to this hypothetical analogy, imagine that random people see this exchange and start telling you to just go with him, he might kill you! You then make a break for it and attempt to escape, but the onlookers apprehend you and turn you over to the perpetrator, for your own good of course.

Ampster said:

I agree in the long run that will happen. The economics fro many will be a factor.

Click to expand...

And, in the long run is how it should happen. The only reason it's not being allowed to happen that way is the false belief that we have 10 days, 4 hours, and 32 seconds to do it.

Ampster said:

I agree in the long run that will happen. The economics fro many will be a factor.

Click to expand...

The economics will change the paradigm. Then the economics will change. Electric car adoption taking place too quickly means that electricity costs will increase, assuming we can keep the grids together. All the economic benefits gained early adoption of BEVs will be gone once they are the norm. Governments are already devising tax per mile schemes to extract the money of the EV driver. Things will balance out and we will end up paying more for grid electricity, and more for hydrocarbon fuels too.

Releasing huge quantities hydrocarbons into the air from deep deposits during a short 200year+ period, where these have been sequestered for millions of years, absent from active atmospheric cycles, and then "hoping" they will have no impact is illogical. Doubling the amount of any chemical in the atmophere in some uncontrolled and irreversable experiment, is irresponsible.

The use of fossil fuels has polluting and health impacts far beyond climate effects, focusing just on CO2 is missing the consequences of many toxins present in the material humanity release.

Options that would 'solve' reduce the problems, run up against the economics of a new technology competing with well established ones. The new tech will generally cost far more initially, until economies of scale level these out. New technology takes time to mature, and the old don't just dissapear overnight. The transistions from wood - to coal - to oil and gas - to nuclear all took considerable time. We should not expect instant results, but we should not do-nothing either. For now I have my ICE Truck, and an EV, and support a mandate transitioning away from the worst polluting processes to less-polluting ones, sure.
Do I expect a new miracle 600mile range EV 1-Ton Truck to appear on the market tomorrow along with public chargers as common as fuel stations, and costing less than a new comparable ICE version Truck? no, of course not. Do I support the work being done to try developing one, yes.

Ampster said:

Except a large and powerfull industry is threatened and has spent a lot of time and money obstructing organic growth.

Click to expand...

One side says corporations are the problem.
The other says that government is the problem.
They are right, especially when they join forces against humanity.

Large and powerful industry, governments, and non governmental organiztions working in concert to acheive their goals no matter the will of those subjected to their rule. Sounds like facism to me.

OffGridForGood said:

Releasing huge quantities hydrocarbons into the air from deep deposits during a short 200year+ period, where these have been sequestered for millions of years, absent from active atmospheric cycles, and then "hoping" they will have no impact is illogical. Doubling the amount of any chemical in the atmophere in some uncontrolled and irreversable experiment, is irresponsible.

Click to expand...

They don't have no impact, we should try and mitigate the downsides of any negative environmental impact that we have. Co2 is required for the lifecycle of the planet. Increasing from 250 parts per million to 500 parts per million of Co2 is a doubling. It is an essential trace gas that is not poison.

Greenhouses are often supplemented with Co2, and it stimulates growth which in turn creates more robust plants that require more Co2 to turn into oxygen. The better the plants grow the more oxygen they create, and the more Co2 they will consume.

OffGridForGood said:

The use of fossil fuels has polluting and health impacts far beyond climate effects, focusing just on CO2 is missing the consequences of many toxins present in the material humanity release.

Click to expand...

Yes this is the issue with our human caused Co2 leads to climate changing in a bad way mentality. It throws aside real environmental concerns.
Burning hydrocarbons has never been cleaner, and we will need those hydrocarbons to build a future were we don't rely on a centralized system of energy distribution as we do now. It is factually not possible to build a superior system without first using hydrocarbon fuel to build it. So lets use the thing that works and is actually scalable to the magnitude that we will require to build homes which are independent of centralized electricity, and vehicles that charge there too. We will need a lot of energy to create this world and we can't do without energy.

OffGridForGood said:

Options that would 'solve' reduce the problems, run up against the economics of a new technology competing with well established ones. The new tech will generally cost far more initially, until economies of scale level these out. New technology takes time to mature, and the old don't just dissapear overnight. The transistions from wood - to coal - to oil and gas - to nuclear all took considerable time. We should not expect instant results, but we should not do-nothing either. For now I have my ICE Truck, and an EV, and support a mandate transitioning away from the worst polluting processes to less-polluting ones, sure.
Do I expect a new miracle 600mile range EV 1-Ton Truck to appear on the market tomorrow along with public chargers as common as fuel stations, and costing less than a new comparable ICE version Truck? no, of course not. Do I support the work being done to try developing one, yes.

Click to expand...

I support the work being done too, I don't support forcing inferior systems into place before they a mature enough to achieve the desired goal.

We can't offshore EV production to lands that have little to no concern for the environment and expect to clean up our environment in a meaningful way.

There are no solutions, only compromises.
- Thomas Sowell

On this Transgender day of visibility, let us set aside our differences and celebrate the fact that we can get an electric car or a gas car or a car that identifies as both gas and electric.

He is risen! On this day I claim climate change for the hoax it is. Mt. St. Helens spewed more pollution in the air in one eruption then all of mankind in all his time on earth. The earth has gone through cycles of heat and cool since it's creation. This is just another one. That being said I would have an ev for use in a hundred mile radius just to not have to pay the prices for fuel. Keep our lincoln mkz for longer trips.

Brucey said:

Hertz did something incredibly stupid. They announced they were going to buy 100,000 Teslas at list price. No discounts. Did great things to share price.

Then reality sets in. Tesla started dropping their pricing, affecting the forecast resale pricing for Hertz. And then Hertz realized that the cost to repair the Teslas (mostly rented to rideshare drivers) was far higher than what they were used to with non Teslas.

The Hertz CEO who made that call is now spending time with family.

Click to expand...

Yes buy high and rent low is a disaster at volume. Too bad he did not go all in at just 5,000 or 10,000 max on the Teslas. No point in going high volume with no discount. Could have always bought more as long as paying list price.

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I'll say it again. If EVs were that good right now then everyone would own one or be lining up to buy one. They aren't ready for primetime (which means every driving situation), and won't be for a while. The market will dictate when the EV is ready for primetime, and right now the market says it's not. Yes all the current EV proponents and owners will tell you how great they are and the govt can mandate (bully) industry till they are blue in the face, but the market will shake off the both of them like a bad case of fleas!!!

MTM98290 said:

Increasing from 250 parts per million to 500 parts per million of Co2 is a doubling. It is an essential trace gas that is not poison.

Click to expand...

The concern about CO2 concentrations is not about it being poisonous, at least not to humans, it is about tipping the delicate balance of atmospheric chemistry and it's interaction with heat trapping in the biosphere. Other periods of history with near 420ppm CO2 are very different from our current system.
Humans rely heavily upon agriculture to exist, agriculture relys on predictable seasonal weather; and anything that may destablize the predictable nature of weather is a bad thing for both.

We see Tesla and Leaf all over in the SF Bay Area. It is as if everyone owns one or is lining up to buy one.

Traffic can be terrible around here, and for a few years after buying, the happy EV owners could proudly display a sticker allowing them to drive solo in the carpool lane.

It is just a "Sin Tax".