"Electric Vehicles are Actually Worse for the Environment than Internal Combustion Cars"

[Jer]

I refuse to own an electric vehicle, and will fight against it as long as possible.

This is the mindset I don't understand. Do you actively fight against people who choose whole milk because you drink skim or vice versa? Why not just choose what you want/need and not feel the need to fight against items you don't?

Just like I don't feel the need to force EVs on you just because it was my choice. I do feel compelled to at least counter misinformation and offer up that they're FAR better then most people realize. They're also more viable for most people even though they don't realize it as well and likely think they they're vehicles made for someone else.

[clodhopper]

I dont care if you want to drive an EV if it works for you. Not a practical option where I am. The issue I have is the amount of taxpayer money being spent to subsidize EV purchases, tilt the economics of the industry and pick winners/losers. If EVs are truly a practical option, then EVs would become viable in an organic manner.

[Jer]

I dont care if you want to drive an EV if it works for you. Not a practical option where I am. The issue I have is the amount of taxpayer money being spent to subsidize EV purchases, tilt the economics of the industry and pick winners/losers. If EVs are truly a practical option, then EVs would become viable in an organic manner.

It not only works for me but is the best vehicle I've ever owned in a long list of pretty nice vehicles if I do say so myself. I've been a car guy whole life and have always done my own work as well as modifications so I tend to think my experience is worthy of bringing up compared to the average driver who doesn't even know how many cylinders their car has. As to it not being an option where you are... I don't have enough details to say if that's the case. I assume you have electricity so, at least from a fundamental standpoint, I would say it is. It seems more details would be needed to see why you determined flatly that it isn't an option. My good friend lives North of Scottsbluff Nebraska outside of Minatare on a farm loves his Tesla Model S. He's a lot further from a large city or whatever it is you think you need access to to own an EV.

Preaching to the choir on that last statement. If you ever pop into the EV/Tesla forums/groups to tell them how not interested you are in EVs ( ) you'll find me attempting to champion the cause of how stupid most all subsidies are. Lots of pro-EV people often cite just how heavily subsidized the gas/oil industry is and how how long that's been going on. Tough to argue with that when discussing a "fair" playing field but I'd rather see them eliminate ALL subsidies and stop trying to pick winners but... this is the political climate we live in currently as much as I don't approve. Also a totally different conversation.

Honestly, I kinda wish we would have started a new thread to discuss EVs openly and honestly rather than in this thread. From the start, I despised that it features a click-bait title that already gets people in entirely the wrong headspace before they even read the content within. I think a lot of people on this forum in particular aren't open to new concepts or anything that goes against what they've held to be true forever. They also tend to have some incredibly outdated information as it pertains to this topic with which they base their decision. I think it would be far more beneficial to everyone here if we had a neutral titled thread where people could just have a nice respectful back and forth to hopefully get new info (positive & negative) to add to their list to consider during their next buying decision. If EVs still aren't for you, cool. Just make that decision from a strong point of knowledge rather than something you heard once from someone a while back.

[MrPrena]

Cant be half pregnant. Either get rid of ALL or not complaint about subsidies.


To even a playing field, we need to get rid of ALL Agricultural subsidies.
Here comes $8/dozen egg and $10 gal milk!
Good bye to $10 lbs streak. It will be $35 lbs without subsidies.

Here comes cheap central American agricultural foods to US!

[MrPrena]

Eta: some really take Ricardian, Heckscher?Ohlin, and Stolper?Samuelson theory to beyond feasible limitation.

It might be best for entire 300mil population making semi conductors and software developing @optimum level of output (assuming there are demand for all), but someone has to clean toilet. Someone has to farm and butcher meat. Someone had to make automobile.

Yes those models work but not everyone can do same shit. This is very reason some jobs like fast food and markets wages are increasing.

If all 10/10 wanna be president and no wh toilet cleaner, toilet cleaning wage will increase to fill the labor demand with tax payers $. This why idiots only complaints about their 400k wage job, and cry about fast working making $20/hr is unfair.

Same goes with agriculture and other subs.
Need to diversify. What if all eu adopt solar and we are still nat gassing?
We just lost market share to potentially export many of our solar stuff to eu.

[Martinjmpr]

Subsidies aren't necessarily a bad thing. Anything you get a tax break on is in reality a subsidy. Home ownership, child care, charitable donations, education - I could go on.

There's also nothing new about government offering subsidies to benefit specific industries or to incentivize specific behavior. You think the West would have been settled if not for the 160 free acres of land offered to settlers through the Homestead Act? Or that mining would have flourished if not for the "subsidies" (in the form of royalty-free minerals) in the General Mining Law of 1872? Or that the Transcontinental Railroad would have been built if the builders hadn't been granted big chunks of land in exchange for building track?

Depending on how you characterize it, the oil and gas industry is very heavily "subsidized" by the US taxpayer. From 1872 until the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, oil companies pumped tens of millions of dollars of oil out of public land and didn't pay so much as a single cent for it. Even the current scheme of oil and gas leasing has producers paying less in royalties than they would pay to private land owners, so that's a "subsidy" too.

And what are import duties on imported products if not a "subsidy" to the domestic producers of the same product (by giving a price break to the buyer of a domestic product?)

So I really don't have an issue with EV subsidies. I'm skeptical about the practicalities of EVs for all purpose use and I'm skeptical about the capacity of our current electrical grid to support widespread adoption of EVs. The other issue is that the current crop of EVs are suited for suburban-dwellers who have a garage and a place to plug in. Those who live in older neighborhoods, big cities, etc, where they have no garage, driveway or parking lot and might have to park 2 blocks away from their apartment - where do they plug in?

[clodhopper]

As to it not being an option where you are... I don't have enough details to say if that's the case. I assume you have electricity so, at least from a fundamental standpoint, I would say it is. It seems more details would be needed to see why you determined flatly that it isn't an option. My good friend lives North of Scottsbluff Nebraska outside of Minatare on a farm loves his Tesla Model S. He's a lot further from a large city or whatever it is you think you need access to to own an EV.

You know how it goes when you "assume"? I didnt say an EV could work but I dont like them. I said it doesnt work for where I live. I am glad for your Tesla friend in Nebraska. I dunno his situation and you dont know mine.

To each his own. The technology isnt quite to the point that it would work for me. I am sure that time is coming. We will see.

[clodhopper]

Subsidies aren't necessarily a bad thing. Anything you get a tax break on is in reality a subsidy. Home ownership, child care, charitable donations, education - I could go on.

There's also nothing new about government offering subsidies to benefit specific industries or to incentivize specific behavior. You think the West would have been settled if not for the 160 free acres of land offered to settlers through the Homestead Act? Or that mining would have flourished if not for the "subsidies" (in the form of royalty-free minerals) in the General Mining Law of 1872? Or that the Transcontinental Railroad would have been built if the builders hadn't been granted big chunks of land in exchange for building track?

Depending on how you characterize it, the oil and gas industry is very heavily "subsidized" by the US taxpayer. From 1872 until the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, oil companies pumped tens of millions of dollars of oil out of public land and didn't pay so much as a single cent for it. Even the current scheme of oil and gas leasing has producers paying less in royalties than they would pay to private land owners, so that's a "subsidy" too.

And what are import duties on imported products if not a "subsidy" to the domestic producers of the same product (by giving a price break to the buyer of a domestic product?)

I dont disagree with you. I am not saying that subsidies are always wrong. However, many do not. We subsidize everything anymore. When/how does the invisible hand of the free market work to everyone's favor when the govt is prespending your taxes on goods/services you didnt want in the first place? For example, mandated ethanol in our gas. EV cars are just one of a million things that are not essential, have their own environmental issues, yet the govt is spending our tax money to support EV makers directly and subsidizing buyers as well. If all that money is being spent, then either the product is not that good, or the people dont really want it. My suspicion is the technology has not reached the point where the product is cheaper than the alternatives, or equivalent anyway. That time is coming and when it does, people will be clamoring for the things and the govt wont need to push it.

We dont need the federal government twiddling every aspect of our lives and making decisions for us. Or maybe it is just the way I look at things.

Again, to each his own. If an EV fits your life, great. An no, I have no issues with people taking advantage of EV purchase subsidies. The program was voted in and you would be stupid to not use it. I also advocate that people take advantage of every tax deduction possible. I would rather see our political environment moving away from caretaker status.

[DDT951]

I think the "not practical" is a valid argument when.

1. Weather is very cold (lithium batteries are stored cold when they want to put batteries into "hibernation")
2. Long distance driving involved
3. Trailer towing or heavy loads (especially with long distances).

Gasoline / Diesel definitely has the advantage over batteries with 1) amount of energy that can be carried on a vehicle and 2) speed at which the energy can be replaced.

What I envision in my future (not immediate) is there will probably be mix of electric and hydrocarbon fueled vehicles. I could see keeping my pickup for the reasons listed above, but for a "city car" or "daily driver" electric would probably be really good.

[sroz]

I have heard that batteries typically last about 10 years before requiring replacement and the cost to replace can run you about $4k. A big negative for me as I tend to hold onto my vehicles for 15-20 years. My Toyotas/Hondas have easily done that with little or no repairs required.

If battery life is an issue, I also wonder the impact to the used EV car market. I would expect technology to make improvements in the areas of battery life/replacement cost, range and charge time.