True cost to run EV like paying $17.33 per gallon if not for $22 billion in government subsidies.

alpg88

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
5,208
Quite frankly, sick and tired of the City's not-so-secret war against cars and drivers. That whole congestion pricing B.S. is not the first shot fired. Not even close.
That is because mta is ran by morons and corrupt unions, in cahoots with corrupt city hall. congestion pricing pushed by them, cuz mta loses money, they always lose money, and never change the way they operate. I know several people who work there, only 1 is actually doing work, and cares to do it properly, others are slackers, who do not give a damn, mta would be actually better if they just got fired with no replacement, but because union, they can not be fired, I guarantee if they get rid of union, and lazy workers, change managements, and mta will actually make money.
 

bigburly912

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
3,361
Location
Virginia
Have you all seen the test where an f150 lightning only got 80 miles while pulling a trailer?

Our fleet trucks are supposed to be going to lightnings starting next year. Boy I can't wait for that.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,502
Location
Flushing, NY
Well the reason you can't go out until 10pm is high heart and humidity, in the summer, but once humidity and heat go down it is perfectly fine, however amount of cars on streets is the same, I live in the same city, I live in Brooklyn.
I live by belt parkway, unless some idiot with oversized turbo floors it, and BOV start making sounds like a howitzer, i can't say noise bothers me much, i do not even notice it. modern cars are pretty quiet, in fact most of the noise is a tire noise.
Well, the diesel trucks are certainly noisy. I hear those private sanitation trucks from 5 blocks away. A lot of it has to do with the overall ambient noise level in your area. People get used to noise to the point it just blends into the background. However, it still puts you under measurable stress. I'm not in a noisy neighborhood, but even I noted a huge difference when we were in lockdown. It was just so much more pleasant.

I'm already noticing how nice and quiet Amazon's new delivery trucks are. I used to be able to hear when I'm getting a delivery if the window was open by the sound of the engine. Now I hear nothing. They're actually quieter than most e-bikes.

Much the same line of reasoning applies to air pollution. People in cities might not even realize how much the air smells simply because they're used to it. If I'm out riding at 10 PM, and an SUV goes by, I'm coughing trying to get the smell out of my lungs for the next block or two. The gas-powered mopeds or scooters are even worse. Don't get me started on those leaf blowers, which stink up the air from two blocks away, plus sound like a 747 revving the engines for takeoff.

That is because mta is ran by morons and corrupt unions, in cahoots with corrupt city hall. congestion pricing pushed by them, cuz mta loses money, they always lose money, and never change the way they operate. I know several people who work there, only 1 is actually doing work, and cares to do it properly, others are slackers, who do not give a damn, mta would be actually better if they just got fired with no replacement, but because union, they can not be fired, I guarantee if they get rid of union, and lazy workers, change managements, and mta will actually make money.
The MTA really needs to get their financial house in order. Their work rules result in gross overstaffing, plus keep people in obsolete jobs. You know the old acronym MTA = Money Thrown Away.
Quite frankly, sick and tired of the City's not-so-secret war against cars and drivers. That whole congestion pricing B.S. is not the first shot fired. Not even close.
I'm not a fan of the current congestion pricing plan. I'd rather we have different tiers, like pay x dollars when you enter city limits, then further charges if/when you cross over into denser areas. I'd also have pricing based on time of day. Late nights when there is no congestion the toll drops to zero. The plan as it stands now might even make traffic worse in some areas. The idea is, or should be, to reduce traffic when it's at its worst. This plan falls way short.

Furthermore, I realize there are some situations where driving is the best option. You mentioned with your work schedule it would take much longer by subway. My brother goes 15 miles from the Rockaways to Flushing. Even driving that's a 40 minute plus commute each way. On public transit probably twice that. Anyway, if the city takes measures which encourage those who seldom or never use their cars to get rid of them, that's a good thing. It frees up parking and road space for those who drive regularly. It's a standing joke that lots of car owners in Manhattan only start their cars on alternate side days. They're afraid to use them lest they not be able to find parking when they return.
 

idleprocess

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
7,197
Location
decamped
Have you all seen the test where an f150 lightning only got 80 miles while pulling a trailer?
Been a couple dozen of those now. The result comes as no surprise - towing slaughters efficiency for ICE and EV alike. It's obviously immensely more all-around convenient to refuel than recharge.

But that's not the market for electric trucks; they're primarily meant to slot into the commuter and lifestyle roles which the automakers make bank on. Could work for a number of trades working principally in-city but that's going to have to trickle down over time as large slices of that demo isn't buying new.

Our fleet trucks are supposed to be going to lightnings starting next year. Boy I can't wait for that.
I work for an ISP that's begun sourcing E-Transits for installation and maintenance techs in urban areas. Their claimed 126 mile range is probably close to double the average daily mileage and I'm confident that fleet management has run the numbers on low/median/high usage cases, contingencies, and probable range degradation. What they're not replacing are cable plant vehicles, construction vehicles, nor any vehicles in rural areas.
 

alpg88

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
5,208
Have you all seen the test where an f150 lightning only got 80 miles while pulling a trailer?

Our fleet trucks are supposed to be going to lightnings starting next year. Boy I can't wait for that.
Well at least it did not snap the frame, lol
 

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
13,312
am i reading correct only 80 miles a a tank of gas? imagine crossing the country on that lol
 

LuxLuthor

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
10,629
Location
MS
Diesel powered equipment produces poisonous pollutants and greenhouse gas when used to drill or pump wells. Therefore, replacing diesel-powered equipment with engines that use natural gas or solar panels will reduce the large amount of harmful gases emitted and lower the overall damage to the environment.

I don't agree that drilling for fracking causes poisonous pollutants, and could care less about greenhouse gases which I consider a hoax. Solar panels are not viable in many areas, and certainly not for running active and moving construction equipment. All sources of energy are damaging to the environment, including the production, shipping, installation, and battery storage of solar panels, which don't work on cloudy days, storms, snow, and nighttime. No problem running engines on natural gas which is what I have said throughout this discussion. It's cheap and plentiful.

BTW, it looks like everyone is missing the forest for the trees. What has fracking enabled us to do very well? Drill holes, deep holes, including horizontal. Guess what energy source is right there for the taking when you drill, no matter where? Geothermal. Why not put the same people who would be doing fracking to work drilling deep holes under former coal or natural gas power plants? Win-win. They stay in work. The conversion is really easy, as all you're doing is replacing the heat source in the power plant. Turbines, alternators, transformers, connection to the grid, it's already there.

If you are saying that geothermal for fixed locations is efficient, and assuming it is actually possible to do reasonably priced conversions (which I have no idea of the actual feasibility vs. another good idea), then I'm not sure why it's not already being done. I suspect there are significant issues that make it untenable.

Once the conversion is done, operating expenses are basically just maintaining the generating and power distribution equipment. I wouldn't be surprised if the power generation cost comes out to less than solar, which is now about $0.01/kW-hr commercially. Moreover, unlike solar, geothermal is 24/7/365. No need for grid storage.

Yeah, with just a wee bit of reading, geothermal is another pipe dream that requires specific locations, and has significant pollution and downsides. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-geothermal-energy

The future should be in using our oil and gas reserves, generate money for our own country (instead of sending dollars to Arab, Brazil, and other hostile countries), reduce our debt, increase wealth for citizens, and eventually setup a new infrastructure for hydrogen fuel creation and dispersal, rather than overtaxing the electrical grid.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,502
Location
Flushing, NY
If you are saying that geothermal for fixed locations is efficient, and assuming it is actually possible to do reasonably priced conversions (which I have no idea of the actual feasibility vs. another good idea), then I'm not sure why it's not already being done. I suspect there are significant issues that make it untenable.
Basically, the issue is you either need fairly hot rock near the surface (i.e. geologically active areas), or you have to go down really deep, far deeper than current drilling technology can manage. The former means conversions are viable in places like the American southwest. As for the latter, there are new drilling techniques which might make it feasible:

 

LuxLuthor

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
10,629
Location
MS
Basically, the issue is you either need fairly hot rock near the surface (i.e. geologically active areas), or you have to go down really deep, far deeper than current drilling technology can manage. The former means conversions are viable in places like the American southwest. As for the latter, there are new drilling techniques which might make it feasible:


Perhaps it works in certain locations, but nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas work just fine. If you dismiss climate change/global warming as a legitimate issue, none of these alternative energy sources or EV's are needed. We have the existing oil and gas reserves and infrastructure already in place. You can explore alternatives as private ventures and then see if there is an organic demand, rather than mandated, subsidized programs. So far EV's, solar, wind, geothermal are not wanted on a widespread basis.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,502
Location
Flushing, NY
Perhaps it works in certain locations, but nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas work just fine. If you dismiss climate change/global warming as a legitimate issue, none of these alternative energy sources or EV's are needed. We have the existing oil and gas reserves and infrastructure already in place. You can explore alternatives as private ventures and then see if there is an organic demand, rather than mandated, subsidized programs. So far EV's, solar, wind, geothermal are not wanted on a widespread basis.
Well, commercial scale solar is actually the cheapest option to generate power. It'll only get cheaper in the future as more efficient panels come online. Just based on pure economics it makes sense. At this point we can and should start phasing out any solar subsidies. They did what they were intended to do, jump start solar. Now it can compete on its own merits.

EDIT:

I just found this:

New Study Shows Steep Decrease In Renewable Energy Costs With No Signs Of Slowing

So yeah, this stuff is competing on its own economic merits at this point. The organic adoption you want is actually happening solely because it makes economic sense.

I'm all in on nuclear power, and hope fusion comes online relatively soon. Fusion has none of the issues of fission. It basically removes any excuses to continue burn stuff for power.

EVs have a big advantage over ICEs, namely total cost of ownership. We're fast approaching the point where we can phase out any subsidies and let them compete on their own merits. I think the crossover point for purchase price parity with ICEs is $100/kW-hr batteries. We're just about there (edit: We ARE there according to the article I just linked to). Add in lower maintenance costs, plus the potential to "refuel" for free if you have home solar, and EVs make huge economic sense for many people.

Cities are where EVs shine. I don't even care if they're never adopted in rural areas. Just mandate ZEVs within the borders of large cities. That gives the most bang for the buck in terms of reducing exposure to air pollution. Better yet, start reducing private auto use in large cities. The problem isn't limited to just air pollution or noise. Cars kill lots of people in cities, 200 alone in NYC annually on average.
 
Last edited:

aznsx

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
1,564
Location
Phoenix, AZ USA
One thing I'd like to know, which hasn't been addressed to my knowledge, is this: If the government wants to pass laws that mandate (force) electric cars on us, then what about the millions of us that live in apartments and don't have personal garages?

Thank you.

That's all I have to say on this subject.
 

yearnslow

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
257
Location
Cape Town
One other aspect of EV's, is the parallel and inevitable introduction of AI, which will eventually put a lot of people out of work.
Self driving trucks etc.... The corporations will love that!

It seems to me that all these 'advances' in engineering and technology, generally, are being done at the behest of few greedy
Self interested corporations and those politicians with shares in said companies.
All marketed, rather falsely, as benefitting society as a whole..... which it won't.

As was stated earlier, this transition is not being allowed to happen 'organically', but rather being forced down peoples throats
under the rather vague threat of climate disaster, from people whose predictions have been systematically unreliable, and in some instances,
Just plain wrong and/or lies.
Whatever it costs to implement these changes, you will be paying for it, and will be rewarded with higher unemployment, lower standards of living and an even more pompous elite class.
 

M@elstrom

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
2,180
Location
Sunraysia, Australia
Perhaps it works in certain locations, but nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas work just fine. If you dismiss climate change/global warming as a legitimate issue, none of these alternative energy sources or EV's are needed.


Agreed, we could have cleaner energy today if Thorium nuclear reactors were further developed and built, solar panels and wind generators have limited life cycles and recycling strategies have yet to adequately catch up.
 

alpg88

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
5,208
Good old days, lol

1698665482250.png
 

bykfixer

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
20,202
Location
John 3:16
One other aspect of EV's, is the parallel and inevitable introduction of AI, which will eventually put a lot of people out of work.
Self driving trucks etc.... The corporations will love that!

It seems to me that all these 'advances' in engineering and technology, generally, are being done at the behest of few greedy
Self interested corporations and those politicians with shares in said companies.
All marketed, rather falsely, as benefitting society as a whole..... which it won't.

As was stated earlier, this transition is not being allowed to happen 'organically', but rather being forced down peoples throats
under the rather vague threat of climate disaster, from people whose predictions have been systematically unreliable, and in some instances,
Just plain wrong and/or lies.
Whatever it costs to implement these changes, you will be paying for it, and will be rewarded with higher unemployment, lower standards of living and an even more pompous elite class.
That's the big plan.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,551
Location
NYC
Furthermore, I realize there are some situations where driving is the best option. You mentioned with your work schedule it would take much longer by subway. My brother goes 15 miles from the Rockaways to Flushing. Even driving that's a 40 minute plus commute each way. On public transit probably twice that. Anyway, if the city takes measures which encourage those who seldom or never use their cars to get rid of them, that's a good thing. It frees up parking and road space for those who drive regularly. It's a standing joke that lots of car owners in Manhattan only start their cars on alternate side days. They're afraid to use them lest they not be able to find parking when they return.
Oh no, let me clarify; there is NO subway service anywhere remotely near the neighborhood where my 3rd shift job is located. NONE! Don't want to give away specifics, but the neighborhood is definitely part of NYC. Tons of activity, people, and shops. Massive lack of parking. Zero subway service. Has been that way since I've lived in NYC since 1979. City has no plans to change that! Two bus lines. Outside of Rush-hour, very sporadic with usually very long waits in-between. Weekends? Oh! You better take a cab or an Uber! That's how bad it is in that neighborhood. My current neighborhood where I live at, bus service is fantastic. Though not late at night and definitely not to my Work neighborhood.

Subway? Nearest one in my neighborhood is literally 24 blocks away from my home. It's just amazing how horrendously poorly certain neighborhoods that are well within NYC itself, are lacking when it comes to public transportation.

Thing is though, the City is not doing anything at all to encourage people to get rid of their cars. Whether they seldom use them or need them on a daily basis to get to and from work. The City is just idiotically and obnoxiously waging a war against cars and their drivers. It would be a different story if the City, for example, actually expanded public transportation to very busy and crowded NYC neighborhoods that have been horribly under serviced for over 50 years! City's not doing that. Not at all.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,502
Location
Flushing, NY
Thing is though, the City is not doing anything at all to encourage people to get rid of their cars. Whether they seldom use them or need them on a daily basis to get to and from work. The City is just idiotically and obnoxiously waging a war against cars and their drivers. It would be a different story if the City, for example, actually expanded public transportation to very busy and crowded NYC neighborhoods that have been horribly under serviced for over 50 years! City's not doing that. Not at all.
I totally agree. Counting the new segment of the SAS to 125th Street, we will have spent over $10 billion on subway expansion in Manhattan, the borough which needs it the least. Meanwhile, large parts of the city, including where I live, are nowhere near a subway. You actually have it good compared to me in that you're only 24 blocks from a subway. I'm 2.7 miles from the nearest one. Before we implemented the Metrocard with free subway-to-bus transfers I used to walk that distance both ways most days to avoid the second fare. Besides, the bus didn't save much time over walking. The wait was often 10 minutes or more, the ride itself 10 to 20 minutes, depending upon the time of day. Walking took me maybe 35 minutes tops. BTW, the bus connection to the subway more or less doubles the travel time to Manhattan. I get on at Forest Hills, which is an express stop on the Queens Blvd. line. Only three more stops until Manhattan-Roosevelt Avenue, Queens Plaza, and 23rd Ely. The bus takes 15 minutes on average to go 2.7 miles. The train moves. It covers I think 7.3 miles in 17-18 minutes. It might be even faster now. With CBTC they bumped the speeds on the Queens Blvd. line to 50 mph.

There was talk of building the so-called second subway before WWII which would have put nearly everywhere in NYC within 1 mile of a subway station. Unfortunately, the war came, and after that we lost interest in public transit in this country. The $10+ billion spent on the SAS could have covered a lot of Queens and Brooklyn still lacking subway service, especially if built at the going world rates of ~$200 million per mile.

I'm somewhat sympathetic when the city makes driving more difficult without also offering viable alternatives. We might not be able to expand the subway right now, but we can offer better coverage right now with buses, along with more frequent midday and late night service.

As for congestion pricing, my prediction is the MTA will get the money, spend most of it on another round of retroactive pension increases, not service expansions, then come back, cup in hand, begging for more. Better public transit in this city starts with making the MTA more accountable. As they are now, they're basically a black hole which sucks up money with little to show for it.
 
Last edited:

rwolfenstein

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
526
Quite frankly, sick and tired of the City's not-so-secret war against cars and drivers. That whole congestion pricing B.S. is not the first shot fired. Not even close.
I remember talking to a retired DOT worker who advised me that the reason roads and highways arent not improved to reduced congestion was to push more people to start riding mass transit. So if that thought process was from the late 80s into the 90s, I dont imagine that it has changed much.
 
Top