More anti-ev gibberish

[Mookuh]

The big error he makes is that he fails to subtract the cost of the ICE drivetrain to find the incremental cost of the EV drivetrain, which is the relevant point of comparison.

This really agitates me. His assumed 40,000$ per "Electric drive system", which probably includes the battery, isn't that far off if we consider the 85 kWh version of the Model S, which will not be all of the 20,000/year production. The increase from 40 kWh to 85 kWh is 20,000$, I guess the basic battery + drive train + power electronics etc. could add up to another 20,000$ in the base model.

But the fact that this includes the entire engine and other components while what he compares it to is, well, sort of an appendix to an existing motor makes his article complete and utter bogus. Why not quote the price of a Performance Signature S? After all, the only thing I get from spending that money is fuel savings. No performance, no reduced noise pollution, no ability to plug in at home and not visit gas stations... I could rant some more, but I'd just waste my (and possibly your) time. *sigh*

 

[JRP3]

This one cracked me up from Petersen in response to a poster who pointed out his fallacies:

You are deliberately misrepresenting facts I've explained in detail and putting your own deceptive spin on the underlying market dynamic.

I find your conduct offensive beyond words.

I think he was standing in front of a mirror :biggrin:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/608361-stop-start-realities-and-ev-fantasies#comment-5796981

 

[rabar10]

This one cracked me up from Petersen in response to a poster who pointed out his fallacies:
I think he was standing in front of a mirror :biggrin:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/608361-stop-start-realities-and-ev-fantasies#comment-5796981

More of that quote from JP:

I perfectly understand the mentality of the target demographic for the Tesla Model S, a generation that was coddled by doting parents who shielded their precious infants from all of life's harsher realities. The result was self-absorbed irresponsibility that has no qualms about picking their neighbor's pocket to buy cool but incredibly wasteful toys and rationalize their arrogance at every turn.

..sigh. Moving away so I don't need to go on blood-pressure meds.

 

[dsm363]

And this is from an American that lives in a castle in Switzerland (I love Switzerland just referring to the castle part)? Jeez.

 

[Mookuh]

And this is from an American that lives in a castle in Switzerland (I love Switzerland just referring to the castle part)? Jeez.

That's not wasteful, he's recycling historic real estate! To 100%, too! (Tho I'd like to see his electricity/heating bill on that thing, and his reason for why he would need that much space)

 

[hcsharp]

Somehow producing 7,500 to 10,000 electric cars a year is level playing field as producing 250,000 ICE competitor cars. The whole point of the $7,500 federal credit is to help lower the cost of the cars until they are being produced at comparable levels.

This is EXACTLY how subsudies work. That and for items that have higher upfront costs, but save money in the long run. Again perfectly applicable to electric cars.

Yes and No. The government has to pay for most of the externalities resulting from burning fossil fuels. The purpose of the subsidy is to ultimately save the government money on these external costs that are not being properly paid for by those who consume fossil fuels. It often bothers me when critics of the subsidies claim they were enacted by a government that thought it knew more about marketing than the automobile industry. That's not the case. They were enacted because it was estimated to be cheaper than the external costs they will prevent. That is part of what VolkerP is saying:

...
This professor of economics has some serious limited view of his field. Economics right now fail to take into aspect the external costs of fossil fuel, let alone their limited availability.

While I agree that oil is a limited resource, it's debatable the extent to which this will impact prices in the future. I seem to be in a minority but I believe the current price of oil reflects the future scarcity. Further, technology is expected to reduce demand. I don't think future price changes for gasoline/diesel will depart significantly from the general rate of inflation except for short periods of volatility. The market is currently reacting to high prices by reducing demand.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I have enough stress in my professional life fighting off deceptive and intentionally misleading critics, so I don't read Peterson in my leisure time. I suggest this strategy as a quality-of-life improvement to you all.

 

[dsm363]

I have enough stress in my professional life fighting off deceptive and intentionally misleading critics, so I don't read Peterson in my leisure time. I suggest this strategy as a quality-of-life improvement to you all.

I agree with you. I've stopped reading him as well. That and he gets paid more the more clicks his stories get.

 

[JRP3]

I'm like a crack addict, I know it's bad but I keep going back for more :cursing: :biggrin:

 

[JRP3]

While I agree that oil is a limited resource, it's debatable the extent to which this will impact prices in the future. I seem to be in a minority but I believe the current price of oil reflects the future scarcity. Further, technology is expected to reduce demand. I don't think future price changes for gasoline/diesel will depart significantly from the general rate of inflation except for short periods of volatility. The market is currently reacting to high prices by reducing demand.

What about increasing demand from growing markets that are just now starting to purchase vehicles in volume? China comes to mind.

 

[vfx]

Can someone explain electric cars to me?

 

[bonnie]

Can someone explain electric cars to me?

That's a terrifying thread. You should have warned us. Those are some mean judgmental people. Wow.

 

[JRP3]

Par for the course for "that type". Paul Scott is doing a good job, I'm avoiding getting involved in ANOTHER EV battle.

 

[vfx]

That's a terrifying thread. You should have warned us. Those are some mean judgmental people. Wow.

This one is actually not bad. The Mods seemed open and balanced. Paul is simply outnumbered. Some of the discussions are beyond my scope so I'm not comfortable stepping in.

 

[Dave EV]

Paul is simply outnumbered.

Understatement of the day! Reading the comments was rather like watching a train-wreck in slow motion.

 

[dsm363]

What a messed up thread over there. Couldn't finish all of it. We should invite Paul Scott over here to a safe place:smile:

 

[hcsharp]

What about increasing demand from growing markets that are just now starting to purchase vehicles in volume? China comes to mind.

That's already calculated into the current price which reflects a higher price than current demand can account for. I also believe it will be at least partly offset by technology developments. There are people on Wall Street who spend large amounts of money to develop sophisticated methods of predicting the growing demand in emerging markets in addition to other factors influencing supply and demand such as better EV batteries, etc.

 

[JRP3]

I saw MPT chimed in but I'm afraid with a little bit of misinformation. As has been discussed before, his statement

EVs are so efficient that on coal alone they’re better than a Prius, anything else and it just gets better and better.

is not accurate on a well to wheels basis.

 

[VolkerP]

OK, as long as many customers believe that EVs don't save overall emissions when charged from the U.S. grid - please send the cars over here! German grid right now runs off 40% solar, 4% wind, 56% conventional (including biomass, hydro, waste incineration).

 

[JRP3]

That's what you produce, but do you import power from other sources?