ICEs and EVs

[boatgeek]

In other words, we agree.

I think I hear crickets coming from another direction. /shrug

Probably because most of us don't feel the need to feed the troll.

As far as censorship, I think it's fine and dandy that TRF gives people a long leash of being a jerk. I've benefited from that myself, in not getting a hand slap when I probably deserved one. I also think that my pressing the "Ignore" button on certain people is no more censorship than my declining to watch Jerry Springer re-runs. I choose how to spend my time, and if I feel like muting those who have a really lousy signal to noise, then that's my decision. It's not just about whether I agree with them--there are dozens of people who disagree with me on this thread and others that I've engaged in discussion with. Mostly fact-based though I admit to getting rude when the links that people post to "prove" their point actually shows the opposite.

I do find it fascinating that the person who complains about the total lack of respect for the opinions of others is also constitutionally unable to accept a contrary opinion, even when backed up with several sources.

 

[Ez2cDave]

I do find it fascinating that the person who complains about the total lack of respect for the opinions of others is also constitutionally unable to accept a contrary opinion, even when backed up with several sources.

No sources were cited by the other party or parties, whatsoever. Absolutely nothing was posted to corroborate their beliefs, or even to justify their ad hominem attacks, directed at me. I repeatedly asked them to "cite their sources" ( as I did ), but to no avail. The only logical conclusion is that their sources would not hold up to public scrutiny. You, quite frankly, are one of those people . . . Cite your sources, so all of us can be, potentially, "enlightened" !

 

[CalebJ]

No sources were cited by the other party or parties, whatsoever. Absolutely nothing was posted to corroborate their beliefs, or even to justify their ad hominem attacks, directed at me. I repeatedly asked them to "cite their sources" ( as I did ), but to no avail. The only logical conclusion is that their sources would not hold up to public scrutiny. You, quite frankly, are one of those people . . . Cite your sources, so all of us can be, potentially, "enlightened" !

This is a lie. Not a misunderstanding or an exaggeration. Just a flat out lie stated on the record in a public forum. But it's hardly your first.

 

[Ez2cDave]

"Vermont ZEV Action Plan - In 2013, Vermont and seven other states agreed to create a collaborative Zero Emission Vehicle program aimed at putting 3.3 million ZEVs on the road by 2025. A Vermont Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan has been created in response, which includes Vermont-specific actions that address the goals put forth in the eight-state action plan. As a result of the Vermont ZEV Action Plan, the Guidance for Requirements to be Included in State Grants for Publicly Funded Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) was created."

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/f...documents/Guidance_for_Public_EVSE_grants.pdf

View attachment 590714

There's a lot about goals and promotion in there. Not a word about mandating or banning.

OK . . . https://evstatistics.com/2021/03/current-and-future-likely-zev-and-or-lev-states

QUOTE :

"California has a unique authority under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act to maintain motor vehicle emission standards that are stricter than the federal standards, as long as the federal government has issued a waiver.

• California refers to its motor vehicle emission standards as the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) standards.
• Additionally, as part of its larger Advanced Clean Cars Program, California’s Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) program requires major manufacturers of passenger cars and light trucks (up to 8,500 pounds) to attain a certain number of ZEV credits depending on the number of vehicles produced and delivered for sale in the state. ZEVs include plug-in electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.

Other states may adopt California’s standards under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, but they may not develop independent standards:

• As of February 2021, nine other states have adopted both California’s ZEV program as well as the LEV standards: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
• Colorado will adopt both LEV and ZEV standards for the 2022 vehicle model years.
• Three other states — Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Washington – and the District of Columbia are following California’s LEV standards, but have not adopted the ZEV program. Together, all 15 of these states are referred to as “Section 177 states.”

END QUOTE :

Vermont has adopted California's "ZEV Program", therefor their position is the same as California . . . Otherwise, they would not be in compliance but, since Vermont has adopted it, they are acting in unison. California is ALL ABOUT "mandating" & "banning" . . . Vermont has adopted their standards.

Dave F.

View attachment 590725

OK . . . Straight talk . . . California's ZEV Program has been adopted by Vermont :

https://dec.vermont.gov/air-quality/mobile-sources/zev

This is what the ZEV Program they adopted is about, basically . . . a "TECHNOLOGY-FORCING COMPONENT" . . . FORCING = MANDATE !

QUOTE :

"Vermont’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program, authorized under section 177 of the Clean Air Act, has been a centerpiece of Vermont’s air quality efforts since 1996. The Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program, which is a technology-forcing component of the LEV program, has been a major contributor to the successful commercialization of hybrid-electric vehicles and ultra-low-emission technologies. To date, 13 states have adopted the ZEV Program (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington).

END QUOTE:

View attachment 590729

Bold, color changes, and exclamation points really help sell your argument when facts fail. Well played.

All of that information is from quoted, reliable sources, whether you agree with it, or not.

Face it . . . Vermont has adopted California's policies, as have several other states. In doing so, they agree with this . . . Period !

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-25/california-poised-to-ban-sale-gas-powered-cars-2035

Cite your sources for your statements, if you can . . . I did !

More facts, reliable, cited sources . . . Sorry, but if you disagree, cite the sources for your position !

https://www.avalara.com/blog/en/north-america/2022/11/downstream-effects-of-banning-gas-vehicles.html

**********************************************************************************************************

https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a34136303/heres-why-californias-executive-order-banning-gasoline-powered-car-sales-is-deeply-flawed

Not a single quote or site you've posted has implied that Vermont is banning ICE or mandating EV.

Vermont has adopted California's ZEV policies . . . California's ZEV polices mandate EV's and ban the sales of ICE vehicles . . . Fact !

Vermont has adopted CA's policies . . . CA's policies mandate EV's and ban sales of EV's . . . Therefor, VT's policies are CA's policies.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035

Another concern . . .

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/30/1152627751/new-cars-in-california-must-be-zero-emissions-by-2035-can-the-power-grid-handle

YOU just posted . . .

This is a lie. Not a misunderstanding or an exaggeration. Just a flat out lie stated on the record in a public forum. But it's hardly your first.

Caleb,

Here is JUST ONE exchange . . . ALL of my posts have corroborating URL's . . . YOUR posts have NONE . . . ZERO , only put-down's and denigration of my posts. The forum quotes prove it.

So that make YOU the "liar" . . . The TRUTH is always "unpopular", with people like you, Caleb !

Unless, you are unwilling or unable to provide information, from verifiable online sources, the only logical conclusion is that you, Caleb, are "full of crap" . . . Cite your sources and prove otherwise, if you can !

If you fail to participate, that only further proves my point . . . So, stop being childish and post up some "verifiable sources" for your beliefs about EV's, or shut up !

 

[CalebJ]

Again with the nauseating color changes, exclamation points, announcements to 'shut up!', etc.

None of it proves any points or changes the fact that you simply come here and lie repeatedly.

The first time I noticed was in a covid thread where you posted a chart and a link to the website it was sourced from. Unfortunately, the source provided numbers in direct conflict with your own chart. You'd invented the numbers on the spot, turned them into a simple spreadsheet chart, and presumed no one would check.

In the links above, you've posted articles and summarized them with statements that were the polar opposite of the source material. When questioned on it, you either change the subject or claim that the rest of us are simply too ignorant to understand what you post.

I, and many others, have repeatedly dissected your claims and posted numerous legitimate sources to walk you through the issues.


It simply doesn't matter how big your font is, what colors you choose to use, the number of exclamation points, etc. If what you say is simply one lie after another, there's no sense in reading your posts. And here in this thread, I am once again reminded of why you belong on the ignore list. There is nothing in the words you post that makes them worth the bandwidth to read.

 

[boatgeek]

No sources were cited by the other party or parties, whatsoever. Absolutely nothing was posted to corroborate their beliefs, or even to justify their ad hominem attacks, directed at me. I repeatedly asked them to "cite their sources" ( as I did ), but to no avail. The only logical conclusion is that their sources would not hold up to public scrutiny. You, quite frankly, are one of those people . . . Cite your sources, so all of us can be, potentially, "enlightened" !

Your epicly misinformed thread on supercars and performance has unfortunately been deleted, so I can't cite all of the times I gave you data and links there. All to no avail.

But let's go back to this post, which you just can't seem to quit. The claim you made is:

Really ? What about all of the states that are mandating EV's ?

And you link to this Vermont program. The unfortunate problem for your argument is that the Vermont program has nothing whatsoever about mandating EVs. It's all about encouraging adoption, which is a very different thing. If you had actually read the whole document, you might have known that. But you either didn't or you willfully misrepresented what it says. Par for the course from you.

(Edit) The wildest thing about this entire episode is that I gave you a link to a plan by WA and CA to ban sales of new ICEs (not the same as banning ICEs entirely, but far closer). In response, you keep doubling down on the VT study where you are flat out wrong instead of bring closer to accurate.

 

[Ez2cDave]

And you link to this Vermont program. The unfortunate problem for your argument is that the Vermont program has nothing whatsoever about mandating EVs. It's all about encouraging adoption, which is a very different thing. If you had actually read the whole document, you might have known that. But you either didn't or you willfully misrepresented what it says. Par for the course form you.

Yes, indeed, let's re-examne that !

I'll start with this QUOTE . . .

"To date, 13 states have adopted the ZEV Program (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington)."

ALL of those states have ADOPTED the ZEV Program ( including VERMONT, right ? )

Now, on to the "rest of the story" . . .

Really ? What about all of the states that are mandating EV's ?

https://dec.vermont.gov/air-quality/mobile-sources/zev

QUOTE :

"To date, 13 states have adopted the ZEV Program (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington)."

END QUOTE :

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/charging-into-the-future-the-transition-to-electric-vehicles.htm

https://www.mesapress.com/opinion/2022/10/17/california-residents-cant-turn-their-air-conditioning-on-but-will-be-forced-to-drive-electric-vehicles

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisc...alifornias-electric-car-mandate-clmate-change

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/12...ectric-vehicles-phasing-out-combustion-engine

Dave F.

"Vermont ZEV Action Plan - In 2013, Vermont and seven other states agreed to create a collaborative Zero Emission Vehicle program aimed at putting 3.3 million ZEVs on the road by 2025. A Vermont Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan has been created in response, which includes Vermont-specific actions that address the goals put forth in the eight-state action plan. As a result of the Vermont ZEV Action Plan, the Guidance for Requirements to be Included in State Grants for Publicly Funded Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) was created."

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/f...documents/Guidance_for_Public_EVSE_grants.pdf

OK . . . https://evstatistics.com/2021/03/current-and-future-likely-zev-and-or-lev-states

Vermont has adopted California's "ZEV Program", therefor their position is the same as California . . . Otherwise, they would not be in compliance but, since Vermont has adopted it, they are acting in unison. California is ALL ABOUT "mandating" & "banning" . . . Vermont has adopted their standards.

Dave F.

OK . . . Straight talk . . . California's ZEV Program has been adopted by Vermont

https://dec.vermont.gov/air-quality/mobile-sources/zev

This is what the ZEV Program they adopted is about, basically . . . a "TECHNOLOGY-FORCING COMPONENT" . . . FORCING = MANDATE !

QUOTE :

"Vermont’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program, authorized under section 177 of the Clean Air Act, has been a centerpiece of Vermont’s air quality efforts since 1996. The Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program, which is a technology-forcing component of the LEV program, has been a major contributor to the successful commercialization of hybrid-electric vehicles and ultra-low-emission technologies. To date, 13 states have adopted the ZEV Program (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington).

END QUOTE:

Bold, color changes, and exclamation points really help sell your argument when facts fail. Well played.

All of that information is from quoted, reliable sources, whether you agree with it, or not.

Face it . . . Vermont has adopted California's policies, as have several other states. In doing so, they agree with this . . . Period !

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-25/california-poised-to-ban-sale-gas-powered-cars-2035

Cite your sources for your statements, if you can . . . I did !

More facts, reliable, cited sources . . . Sorry, but if you disagree, cite the sources for your position !

https://www.avalara.com/blog/en/north-america/2022/11/downstream-effects-of-banning-gas-vehicles.html

**********************************************************************************************************

https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a34136303/heres-why-californias-executive-order-banning-gasoline-powered-car-sales-is-deeply-flawed

Not a single quote or site you've posted has implied that Vermont is banning ICE or mandating EV.

Vermont has adopted California's ZEV policies . . . California's ZEV polices mandate EV's and ban the sales of ICE vehicles . . . Fact !

Vermont has adopted CA's policies . . . CA's policies mandate EV's and ban sales of EV's . . . Therefor, VT's policies are CA's policies.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035

Another concern . . .

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/30/1152627751/new-cars-in-california-must-be-zero-emissions-by-2035-can-the-power-grid-handle

BOTTOM LINE . . . VERMONT has ADOPTED the "ZEV" program . . . In doing so, they are in AGGREEMENT with California.

Nowhere, did it state that VERMONT only adopted PART of the "ZEV" program . . . End of story !

 

[boatgeek]

Yes, indeed, let's re-examne that !

I'll start with this QUOTE . . .

"To date, 13 states have adopted the ZEV Program (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington)."

ALL of those states have ADOPTED the ZEV Program ( including VERMONT, right ? )

Now, on to the "rest of the story" . . .




















BOTTOM LINE . . . VERMONT has ADOPTED the "ZEV" program . . . In doing so, they are in AGGREEMENT with California.

Nowhere, did it state that VERMONT only adopted PART of the "ZEV" program . . . End of story !

You know what? I'll model behavior you might like to try. I was wrong. VT will phase out sales of new ICE vehicles in 2035. We can quibble a bit about whether that's "mandating EVs," but that's not particularly useful here.

So mea culpa. So let's go back to your original claim and I'll show you why I didn't believe you:

Really ? What about all of the states that are mandating EV's ?

https://dec.vermont.gov/air-quality/mobile-sources/zev

QUOTE :

"To date, 13 states have adopted the ZEV Program (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington)."

END QUOTE :

Nowhere in that website does it say that the "ZEV Program" is a phaseout of sales of new ICE vehicles. I suppose that if you are conversant with what Section 177 of the Clean Air Act means, you might have known.But I'm guessing that most people don't know one Section 177 from Section 120.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/charging-into-the-future-the-transition-to-electric-vehicles.htm

This is all about job opportunities in the EV industry, and nothing whatsoever about bans on ICE car sales.

https://www.mesapress.com/opinion/2022/10/17/california-residents-cant-turn-their-air-conditioning-on-but-will-be-forced-to-drive-electric-vehicles

No mention of Vermont or the "ZEV Program" so there's no way to connect the multistate "ZEV Program" to bans on ICE sales in CA or VT.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisc...alifornias-electric-car-mandate-clmate-change

We're finally getting closer! This one says that VT is "expected to adopt" the CA ban. You can probably extrapolate to this passing, but it's never a good idea to assume with a state legislature.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/12...ectric-vehicles-phasing-out-combustion-engine

This one's all about WA, OR, and CA. No mention of Vermont.

So out of 5 links, three were completely irrelevant to Vermont, never even mentioning the state. One did describe the program but only in opaque bureaucratese. And one described the program but in a prospective way, rather than something that had been approved. Here's the problem: by the time I got to the second link and it was totally irrelevant to the subject at hand, I stopped reading. Because why should I make the effort of consolidating and packaging up research if you're not going to do it? Yes, that's probably a moral failure on my part, but I think it's a very human one. Particularly so when you have a habit of splashing links all over without apparently having read them. Remember that time you posted up a study about Leaf mileage/range and tried to claim it said something about supercar-like performance?

TL;DR: If you want people to read your links, make them relevant. An article about job opportunities in the EV sector nationwide is not at all relevant to VT banning sales of new EVs.

 

[Ez2cDave]

TL;DR: If you want people to read your links, make them relevant. An article about job opportunities in the EV sector nationwide is not at all relevant to VT banning sales of new EVs.

And stiil, through all of that, you offer no source to verify what you say . . .

 

[Ez2cDave]

Extreme fire risk with EV´s exposed to salt water - Coast Guard issues alert to not allow on ships ​

https://www.ctif.org/news/coast-guard-issues-safety-alert-avoid-loading-evs-salt-water-damage-ships

06 Feb 2023

The U.S. Coast Guard is warning the shipping industry of the extreme risk of loading electric vehicles with damaged Lithium-Ion batteries onto commercial vessels.

As CTIF.org has reported before, saltwater exposure can harm Lithium-Ion batteries, and cause a chemical reaction which creates a high fire risk. This was discovered in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian when a large amount of EVs with damaged batteries caught fire in southern Florida.

In the aftermath of the category 4 hurricane, first responders encountered numerous EV fires where investigations have determined were caused by exposure of the Lithium-Ion batteries to saltwater.

“Vessels, ports, and shippers should be aware of this extreme risk and avoid loading EVs with damaged Lithium-Ion onto commercial vessels,” the US Coast Guard safety alert reads.

An earlier safety alert (Safety Alert 01-22)was issued last March which highlights a recent incident where improperly discarded Lithium-Ion batteries caught fire in a container while en route to the Port of Virginia, where it was set to be loaded onto a ship. The container’s bill of lading allegedly listed the contents as “computer parts,” not lithium batteries.

A set of recommendations issued by the Coast Guard:

In an article in GCactain.com, the latest safety alert is referenced, where the Coast Guard strongly recommends that vessels, ports, shippers, and regulators take the threat of delayed ignition of saltwater damaged lithium-ion batteries seriously:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of the vehicle shipping requirements found in both the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR) and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code. All lithium batteries are hazardous materials regulated by the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). As such, they are required to comply with the Lithium Battery Guide for Shippers.
• Conduct review of additional requirements for shipping damaged lithium ion batteries located in the PHMSA Safety Advisory Notice for the Disposal and Recycling of Lithium Batteries in Commercial Transportation. Due to the large size of EV batteries, the packaging requirements to comply with damaged shipment regulations are inadequate. As such, IMDG special provision 376 specifically requires approval from the competent authority (PHMSA or US Coast Guard) prior to shipment of damaged lithium batteries.
• Remain vigilant and ensure damaged lithium-ion vehicle batteries are not loaded onto vessels for shipment, placed within port facilities, or enclosed in containers.

FEMA recently issued guidance for how to respond on EVs exposed to salt water

​

(The below information is directly from the US Fire Administration FEMA´s website)​

With EV sales expected to increase drastically in the next few years, there are growing concerns in the firefighting community about how to deal with EV fires.

The NHTSA emphasizes first identifying any flooded electric vehicles and then moving them at least 50 feet from any structures, other vehicles or combustibles.

NHTSA's 2014 guidance for first responders PDF and second responders PDF, developed in collaboration with the U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and others, was revised after the 2012 flooding from Hurricane Sandy submerged several hundred EVs in salt water, leading to several fires in Fisker EVs.

The 2014 bulletins now incorporate response guidance related to hazards from flooded EVs.

According to the NHTSA, residual salt within the battery or battery components can form conductive “bridges” that can lead to short circuit and self-heating of the battery, resulting in fires. The time frame in which a damaged battery can ignite has been observed to vary widely, from days to weeks.

For example, in the storm surge in Florida that accompanied Hurricane Ian in September 2022, many vehicles were submerged at least partially in salt water. In the following weeks, at least 12 EV fires were reported in Collier and Lee Counties. One on Sanibel Island burned 2 houses to the ground. (See also: Hurricane Isaias Shows Why Storm Fire Safety Matters)

Also, the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) has a webinar (available free of charge after registration) on response to EV battery fires associated with salt water submersion.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

This is an intense thread…! On a lighter note, are there any plans for fully electric minivans? I have a hybrid Toyota Sienna and love it. Efficient, great for my family, drives well and works well for HPR.

 

[CalebJ]

And stiil, through all of that, you offer no source to verify what you say . . .

He's literally responding to the sources -you- posted.

What are you even asking for a source FOR?!?

 

[COrocket]

This is an intense thread…! On a lighter note, are there any plans for fully electric minivans? I have a hybrid Toyota Sienna and love it. Efficient, great for my family, drives well and works well for HPR.

Closest thing I’ve seen so far is the VW ID.Buzz. You’d definitely have to have a nostalgic appreciation for a EV reboot of the classic VW van.

 

[Titan II]

...are there any plans for fully electric minivans?

I would think you would know how to use Google by now.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

I would think you would know how to use Google by now.

I sometimes prefer to get opinions from people I respect instead of, or in conjunction with my own internet searches. This thread has a lot of people who know more about cars than me and I enjoy their feedback.

 

[boatgeek]

This is an intense thread…! On a lighter note, are there any plans for fully electric minivans? I have a hybrid Toyota Sienna and love it. Efficient, great for my family, drives well and works well for HPR.

I would love to see that too, but unfortunately the minivan seems to be a neglected area of the market. There's a plug-in hybrid (~30? miles electric, then gas) Chrysler Pacifica, but it has quality issues with its electronics. Or so says my friend who owns one. Apparently, it's good if it works from the factory, but some number just have issues that can't easily be resolved. Maybe that's gotten better over the last couple of years though.

That said, I'm not really in the market for a while. We're unlikely to replace the gas minivan with a new electric car until it starts having issues. Since it's currently at 40K miles, that'll probably be a while.

 

[Ez2cDave]

He's literally responding to the sources -you- posted.
What are you even asking for a source FOR?!?

Straight answer . . . Listen closely . . . I want him to cite the sources that makes what he says "correct", veriable sources of information, rather than just his "say-so" . . . I am asking him and YOU to "prove that you are right", not just the comments you make. The sources you cite will then be scrutinized, just as my sources have been scrutinized. That is why I post URL's, in the first place, to prove that it is not just "what I say" !

 

[CalebJ]

Straight answer . . . Listen closely . . . I want him to cite the sources that makes what he says "correct", veriable sources of information, rather than just his "say-so" . . . I am asking him and YOU to "prove that you are right", not just the comments you make. The sources you cite will then be scrutinized, just as my sources have been scrutinized. That is why I post URL's, in the first place, to prove that it is not just "what I say" !

You're not even attempting to make rational posts at this point.

He responded directly to your own sources. There was nothing whatsoever that could or should be cited because of that.

We have repeatedly posted sources in the past. It made no difference to you at the time, and then you simply lied to claim we had never done so. What could possibly be the purpose of such 'debate' when you don't have the self respect to even tell the truth in a conversation where your posts are visible for anyone to go back and fact check?

 

[kuririn]

On a lighter note, are there any plans for fully electric minivans?

Limited selection on the market now.
I like the Canoo. Taking pre-orders, base price under $35K.
Many more on the horizon:
https://topelectricsuv.com/featured/upcoming-electric-mpv-models/

 

[boatgeek]

And stiil, through all of that, you offer no source to verify what you say . . .

Well, I summarized the sources that you gave. The links are there. If you disagree with any of those summaries, feel free to cite them and what I missed. As noted above, I’m capable of admitting error.

Otherwise, it was my opinion. Do you want a link that says that I find your irrelevant links, “inappropriate” quotation marks, bold red text, and general trolling tiresome? I’m sorry, but you’ll just have to take my word on that.

 

[Ez2cDave]

You're not even attempting to make rational posts at this point.

He responded directly to your own sources. There was nothing whatsoever that could or should be cited because of that.

We have repeatedly posted sources in the past. It made no difference to you at the time, and then you simply lied to claim we had never done so. What could possibly be the purpose of such 'debate' when you don't have the self respect to even tell the truth in a conversation where your posts are visible for anyone to go back and fact check?

(1) Caleb, your attempt at "gaslighting" is very amateurish . . . Don't embarass yourself.

(2) He responded to my sources, WITHOUT providing his own sources to refute what I had to say . . . The only thing he posted were his opinions and "put-downs" of my posts, nothing more . . . The same as you are doing . . . Fact !

(3) OK, "I call" . . . Show the specific posts where you allege to have posted URL's to sources that support your position, directly addressing the information contained in the URL's posted in my posts ( I cited my sources ) . . .

The fact is, you can't, because you didn't, and there was NO LIE, on my part ( remember that I , specifically, quoted the posts ( of both of you ) , in chronological order, along with my corresponding posts !

My point is made, with crystal clarity . . . This is an argument that you simply can't win, Caleb !

Have you noticed that you and Boatgeek are the only ones acting in this manner, or has that little detail escaped you ?

 

[Ez2cDave]

Well, I summarized the sources that you gave. The links are there. If you disagree with any of those summaries, feel free to cite them and what I missed. As noted above, I’m capable of admitting error.

Otherwise, it was my opinion. Do you want a link that says that I find your irrelevant links, “inappropriate” quotation marks, bold red text, and general trolling tiresome? I’m sorry, but you’ll just have to take my word on that.

Admitting that you only posted your own opinion is a good starting point.

Now, if you can learn to lay off of the ad hominem attacks, it might actually become possible to have a civilized debate, based on cited facts, not opinions !

 

[jadebox]

This is an intense thread…! On a lighter note, are there any plans for fully electric minivans? I have a hybrid Toyota Sienna and love it. Efficient, great for my family, drives well and works well for HPR.

VW is introducing the ID.Buzz next year which is somewhat based on their classic microbus. It will have sliding doors and minivan-like seating.

 

[dr wogz]

 

[kuririn]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...-charging-network-to-rival-teslas/ar-AA1eobAB

 

[Donnager]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...-charging-network-to-rival-teslas/ar-AA1eobAB

From the link:

The companies wouldn't disclose the exact number of charging stations or financial details of the joint venture they're forming to put the network in place. They said the first of the U.S. chargers will be ready by next summer.

It will take years and billions of dollars to build out the network, which will need special electrical wiring, Brinley said.
The current charging network, being built by a hodgepodge of companies, is growing but is often unreliable or in poor locations.

What do you believe the return on investment is on a billion dollar charging station effort that may charge less money for service than Tesla? Will they be required to upgrade infrastructure to insure substations and local power systems can handle it? If they're not upgrading infrastructure, that suggests they will use excess capacity where it is available, not necessarily where it is needed. This infrastructure investment seems like a stretch when domestic automakers are just trying to pay the bills, unless subsidies (gov money) will assist. They have to be able to reclaim their investment for it to be worthwhile in a few years, or they will have to be subsidized (more likely), or the stockholders will drop their shares like a wet brick.

Have you seen anything that suggests that they expect this venture to be profitable after a few years without government assistance? If heavily subsidized, I expect it could be very profitable for the installers. If no subsidy, I have my doubts. They aren't doing this for the greater good, unless you consider government expenditures given to select individuals to supply the public "for the greater good".

 

[kuririn]

They aren't doing this for the greater good, unless you consider government expenditures given to select individuals to supply the public "for the greater good".

Of course not.
It's simple: They're doing it to sell more EVs.
By allaying public reticence regarding the availability of charging stations.
Most automakers are committed to going fully electric in the 2030 to 2040 timeframe.

 

[afadeev]

From the link:

The companies wouldn't disclose the exact number of charging stations or financial details of the joint venture they're forming to put the network in place.

A project without a budget, is not a project.
It is, at best, and indication of intent.
Either way, more chargers is better than fewer. And all are usable by all EVs, with the help of inexpensive adopters.
It's all good, even though I don't believe this initiative will make the jump from the world of PowerPoint slides and good intentions, into reality.

Will they be required to upgrade infrastructure to insure substations and local power systems can handle it?

There is zero indication that any such upgrades are warranted.
Electrical grid capacity fear-mongering is a common distraction tactic by the few who want to discourage EV adoption (for whatever reasons).

Have you seen anything that suggests that they expect this venture to be profitable after a few years without government assistance?

No private company would disclose project ROI information upfront.
If the investment is highly attractive - they would not want to alert competition to the opportunity.
If it isn't - people championing the project would not want to get in cancelled and get themselves fired.

a

 

[boatgeek]

Of course not.
It's simple: They're doing it to sell more EVs.
By allaying public reticence regarding the availability of charging stations.
Most automakers are committed to going fully electric in the 2030 to 2040 timeframe.

Not to mention that the Big Three might have learned something from their near-forfeiture of the small car (non-SUV, non-truck) market to Japanese and European carmakers. They fundamentally couldn't build a small car that people wanted to drive. By leaning hard into EVs, they are working to take back market share in that segment (not to mention others).

 

[Donnager]

There is zero indication that any such upgrades are warranted.
Electrical grid capacity fear-mongering is a common distraction tactic by the few who want to discourage EV adoption (for whatever reasons).

According to whom? Please provide a reference that suggests that your assertion is correct.