-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
More anti-ev gibberish
- Thread starter qwk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
I'd like to go ahead with this. Here is my list of past and future marks for that bar :wink:
Tesla will fail to
- make a battery that lasts longer than a year
- bring the Roadster into customers hand
- acquire a government loan
- find a manufacturing site
- find buyers for Model S
- make a car that can go 300 miles on one charge (with a pack smaller than 110kWh)
- bring Model S to production
- make 5,000 Model S in 2012
- sell 20,000 Model S in 2013
- revolutionize the dealership network with its store concept
- erect a super charger network in U.S.
- cover all of Europe with superchargers
- change the world of transportation
I give 1 to 6 a check. Interestingly, no 12. was stated on this forum.
Mod please merge this with More Anti-EV Gibberish
Check out the misinformation in this letter from Exxon!!
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/12/14/how-many-gallons-of-gasoline-would-it-take-to-charge-an-iphone/?utm_source=paid.outbrain.com&utm_medium=cpc
Check out the misinformation in this letter from Exxon!!
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/12/14/how-many-gallons-of-gasoline-would-it-take-to-charge-an-iphone/?utm_source=paid.outbrain.com&utm_medium=cpc
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Wow, Petersen clone. At least there are some good comments. Hopefully someone mentions Tesla Model S being sold out before it's even available.
CyberDutchie
Active Member
John Petersen is at it again:
OECD Analysis Suggests That Electric Cars Are Not Ready For Prime Time
OECD Analysis Suggests That Electric Cars Are Not Ready For Prime Time
Last edited:
I broke my own rule and replied to this article, as follows:
John, thanks for flagging this interesting study. This is not an official OECD policy document, as you suggest, but rather a discussion paper prepared by one researcher in France. Still, worth a read.
A key flaw of the study is the author's assumption that the pricing of BEVs is set without regard to the tax incentive policies of the target markets, the "primes" of the article's title. As any basic economic text tells us, though, any tax or incentive accrues in part to the buyer and in part to the seller, the so-called "tax incidence." Renault is fully aware that the French government covers €5,000 of the cost, and so Renault would rationally increase its price to reflect some portion of this savings. But the author uses the selling price of the car as a proxy for societal resources used in the car's manufacture. Flawed assumptions lead to flawed results.
Another point that bears close scrutiny is the assumed driving distances. Here is the relevant paragraph:
"Owners of the electric cars studied can expect to pay €4 000 to €5 000 more than a fossil-fuelled passenger car over the vehicle’s lifetime under typical use scenarios (30-35 km/day, 365 days/yr). However, a higher use scenario – say that of a delivery van travelling 90 kms a day during weekdays—would, on the contrary, save its owner about €4 000 over the vehicle’s lifetime. Under high travel scenarios (fleet use, deliveries, taxis), one might expect that a market
already exists for electric cars if potential buyers have confidence in the advertised driving ranges and dealer support for these vehicles. Even without the €5 000 purchase subsidy, people travelling longer daily distances would likely already benefit from an electric car."
So, the conclusion that EV cars are more costly assumes annual driving of about 12,000km annually, while savings accrue for vehicles that drive about 22,000km annually. It's about €4k plus or minus, so let's call the break-even 17,000km annually. The average American car puts on about 12,500 miles, or 20,000km, each year, strongly suggesting that a majority of Americans would save money driving an EV.
Then there's this interesting sentence: "Our analysis excludes possible energy security benefits." Given that the U.S. and other OECD countries have spent the last decade, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives fighting two wars to maintain our energy security, this omission cannot be overlooked in judging whether EVs create societal benefits. North America's power grid does not rely on imported energy sources (with a few unimportant exceptions).
So, while Prof. Crist's paper certainly adds to the literature on BEVs, its conclusions should not be taken as gospel.
John, thanks for flagging this interesting study. This is not an official OECD policy document, as you suggest, but rather a discussion paper prepared by one researcher in France. Still, worth a read.
A key flaw of the study is the author's assumption that the pricing of BEVs is set without regard to the tax incentive policies of the target markets, the "primes" of the article's title. As any basic economic text tells us, though, any tax or incentive accrues in part to the buyer and in part to the seller, the so-called "tax incidence." Renault is fully aware that the French government covers €5,000 of the cost, and so Renault would rationally increase its price to reflect some portion of this savings. But the author uses the selling price of the car as a proxy for societal resources used in the car's manufacture. Flawed assumptions lead to flawed results.
Another point that bears close scrutiny is the assumed driving distances. Here is the relevant paragraph:
"Owners of the electric cars studied can expect to pay €4 000 to €5 000 more than a fossil-fuelled passenger car over the vehicle’s lifetime under typical use scenarios (30-35 km/day, 365 days/yr). However, a higher use scenario – say that of a delivery van travelling 90 kms a day during weekdays—would, on the contrary, save its owner about €4 000 over the vehicle’s lifetime. Under high travel scenarios (fleet use, deliveries, taxis), one might expect that a market
already exists for electric cars if potential buyers have confidence in the advertised driving ranges and dealer support for these vehicles. Even without the €5 000 purchase subsidy, people travelling longer daily distances would likely already benefit from an electric car."
So, the conclusion that EV cars are more costly assumes annual driving of about 12,000km annually, while savings accrue for vehicles that drive about 22,000km annually. It's about €4k plus or minus, so let's call the break-even 17,000km annually. The average American car puts on about 12,500 miles, or 20,000km, each year, strongly suggesting that a majority of Americans would save money driving an EV.
Then there's this interesting sentence: "Our analysis excludes possible energy security benefits." Given that the U.S. and other OECD countries have spent the last decade, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives fighting two wars to maintain our energy security, this omission cannot be overlooked in judging whether EVs create societal benefits. North America's power grid does not rely on imported energy sources (with a few unimportant exceptions).
So, while Prof. Crist's paper certainly adds to the literature on BEVs, its conclusions should not be taken as gospel.
Norbert
TSLA will win
JP writes, comparing at a national or even global level: "No matter how you slice and dice the numbers, electric drive can't be relevant in the foreseeable future."
Well, at that level, the amounts of money spent on EVs (or any resources consumed by them) are not relevant either. So why is spending so much of his time on them?
Well, at that level, the amounts of money spent on EVs (or any resources consumed by them) are not relevant either. So why is spending so much of his time on them?
Steph
Member
Good that you question his motivations. He is playing a game.
It's pretty clear. He is no idiot.
Good answer, Robert, tough falling on deaf ears probably. Living in a Castle in Switzerland makes it very convenient to ignore the fate of member of the U.S. armed forces.
Well everybody claims that his ability to foresee the future is above average... In case of JP I think that experiences gathered in a long life might get in the way to correctly judge a disruptive technological development. Add to that being long on a stock position that competes with Tesla on government loans.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Since I can't comment directly on his articles any longer I just did a quick Insta Blog instead.
EV's Are Ready For Prime Time - JRP3 - Seeking Alpha
Of course he probably won't see it but at least I can still attack his nonsense in some manner. I'm still out there Johnny boy, tin foil hat and all! :cursing: :biggrin:
Very nice and great disclosure!
Disclosure: I own TSLA and I think EV's are cool.
Disclosure: I am long TSLA.
On that point he is massively wrong - a modest switch to EVs could have a huge impact. My biggest worry about our economy is oil supply. Yes, I'm talking Peak Oil.
No, don't get out your tin hat. We're not going to run out of oil. Instead, we will merely have an economic catastrophe.
What happens when we can no longer increase oil supply while demand is booming in India and China? We're about to find out. If you think this is decades in the future you need to get your head out of the sand. We could be sitting on an economic time bomb just years away. It's not clear exactly how far off this scenario is, but when supplies are stressed even a small disruption - war, hurricanes, etc. - could trigger massive global economic problems.
What can we do to prevent that from happening? Reduce demand for oil. Transportation fuels account for 70% of US oil consumption. If you could knock that down a little, say by moving 5% of the vehicle fleet over to electric power, then we buy ourselves some time. Eventually the reality of peak oil will settle in and people will start moving to alternatives more quickly. In the meantime we will have prevented a major economic recession.
Also the economic catastrophe won't be a single big recession; it will be a series of them. High oil prices will trigger a recession, triggering a price drop, followed by economic recovery, followed by a price spike, lather, rinse, repeat.
Don't forget that oil is also the world's most important industrial chemical. Almost everything is manufactured using the stuff. It's too important to be burning it.
I think this is a good point to nail him on as well. How many negative articles has he put out on this subject in the last year? It can be pointed out that he seems to have an agenda. Though Robert did do a good job of torpedoing his source, I think bringing his agenda and credibility into question would also be appropriate.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
I was really glad to see that this breaking headline on CNN is *NOT* about an EV. Feel free to share this screenshot with EV bashers who go on about the fire risks of EVs...
EDIT: Fixed.
EDIT: Fixed.
Last edited:
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
Here's another one:
Tesla Model S: The Battery Car Market's Moon Shot | TheDetroitBureau.com
So he's saying 3-4 hours for the HPC I guess (which is actually faster than what Tesla says for the HPC on the 85 kWh pack at 4 hours 43 min. Of course he picks 18 hours as the more conventional option. Even charging on a 14-30 at 24 A, Tesla estimates 16 hours.
My post if it doesn't get approved:
Tesla Model S: The Battery Car Market's Moon Shot | TheDetroitBureau.com
So he's saying 3-4 hours for the HPC I guess (which is actually faster than what Tesla says for the HPC on the 85 kWh pack at 4 hours 43 min. Of course he picks 18 hours as the more conventional option. Even charging on a 14-30 at 24 A, Tesla estimates 16 hours.
My post if it doesn't get approved:
Last edited:
Similar threads
