Electric cars are a pipe dream

I have said all along that it is going to take time.
Admittedly fossil fuels are finite, so if man still exists on earth 1000+ years from now his energy system may nearly have returned to the 100% non fossil fuel base it had 250 years ago; but for more than 100 years, the fossil fuel percentage will be more than 50% of the total energy base. - Getting it down to that from the current 80% is a huge capital cost which seems unlikely to be possible in only a 100 years.
I really feel that I have given this thread everything it needs. ...
You made the claim that mankind was switching to alternative energy, away from fossil fuels as his energy base. I have twice asked you to provide some fact supporting that, but thus far have only received your assertions that it is true.

I don't think you have even the slightest understanding of the capital cost / requirements that would imply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adoucette. I am not required to answer any fucking (benign) question you pose. I chose to answer it indirectly. The fact you can't or refuse to absorb the minutiae of my answer proves you are just an idiot.

Of course you don't have to answer it.

But this is the first time you have admitted that you didn't answer the question.
Before you were actually claiming you had.

So now it's actually pretty funny how much you have danced around, so reluctant to answer a simple question about the topic we are discussing.

Wonder why that is?

Your agenda to justify over consumption is duly noted. LOL.

Again, I'm not a big oil user so I have no agenda. You claim that this is an over consumption, I just point out that it is what it is for reasonably rational reasons. Since you apparently can't appreciate our differences you put it down to us being ignorant.

We're not.

Arthur
 
Of course you don't have to answer it.

But this is the first time you have admitted that you didn't answer it.
Before you were actually claiming you had.

I didn't admit that I didn't answer it. I said I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION YOU POSE. This isn't an admission that I didn't answer the question LOL. I stated that I answered your quesion indirectly, and that you didn't like my answer. So fucking what that you didn't like or get my answer. The answerer DOES NOT have to satisfy the asker dumbass.



Again, I'm not a big oil user so I have no agenda. You claim that this is an over consumption, I just point out that it is what it is for reasonably rational reasons. Since you apparently can't appreciate our differences you put it down to us being ignorant.

I don't claim that YOU are an over consumer. I claim that your agenda is to justify the idea that AMERICA is fine in its over consumption. Something you have continually asserted in this thread.

Do you think that you are the physical embodiment of your nation? Crazy.

I think your concentration levels are failing LOL.
 
You still haven't proven EV is a pipe dream. Why not just give up.

EV is a growing REALITY. Get over it.

Did you read this thread before you started posting?

Most of my arguments with you were about things like the fact that battery swapping was not a viable consumer choice for most people, that fusion power is not on the horizon, that putting power strips in the road is not going to happen etc etc.

Of course EV is a growing reality.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2624125&postcount=413

Arthur
 
I didn't admit that I didn't answer it. I said I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION YOU POSE. This isn't an admission that I didn't answer the question LOL. I stated that I answered your quesion indirectly, and that you didn't like my answer. So fucking what that you didn't like or get my answer. The answerer DOES NOT have to satisfy the asker dumbass.

Still DANCING I see.

Why is that?

What is it about that question that has got your knickers in a twist that you are going batshit crazy over it?

LOL

I don't claim that YOU are an over consumer. I claim that your agenda is to justify the idea that AMERICA is fine in its over consumption. Something you have continually asserted in this thread.

Not once.
I've pointed out that our level of consumtion is pretty much what is required based on the nature of the size and low population density of our country, our level of growth, our manufacturing, and thus is NOT significant over consumption.

A subtle point you don't seem to understand.

Do you think that you are the physical embodiment of your nation?

Nope, and since I don't use much oil myself nor work for an oil company I don't have any particular horse in this race that's why I don't have any particular agenda, just trying to explain why our inate differences account for much of our higher per capita use of oil.

Arthur
 
Still DANCING I see.

Why is that?

What is it about that question that has got your knickers in a twist that you are going batshit crazy over it?
Me? I answered the question. You are the one pushing the point, not me.


Your stance is BS.

Americans could reduce the size of their cars. In ten years time I think you will see that they have.

You have skirted this issue; can you address this:
UD:
I live near Lakenheath airforce base. That is in the UK. All the americans around here drive oversize cars. What is their excuse dumbass? Their only excuse is that they can buy fuel on base at US prices. If that wasn't enough they container over their piece of shit gas-guzzlers from the US. JEEZUUZ. What a waste. But I guess they cab afford it so that's OK. Explain that one???

Why do the Americans that reside at RAF Lakenheath drive big gas-guzzlers? Answer the fucking question.
 
People will move away from oil use as tech improves.
I think this is a key point.

Honestly, I don't know why I pay about half what you pay for a gallon of gas. But I do know that, by itself, Texas is about 3 times the size of Great Britain with about 1/3 the population. We are much less densely packed. This, IMHO, is the primary reason we are having difficulty developing a viable system of public transportation. This is not going to change anytime soon.

But when EVs become economically competitive with gasoline and the technology of EVs advances enough to make it viable to travel the distances we need to travel, then yes - people will move away from petroleum as a fuel source.
 
I think this is a key point. ...
The technology of the Volt is quite impressive, but the problem, as always, is economics. How well will they sell when the $7500 (plus more in some states) is phased out? When much less expensive IC cars are available with 40mpg it takes a lot of driving to break even, but then, with a lot of driving the Volt transforms into an IC car too.
 
Americans could reduce the size of their cars. In ten years time I think you will see that they have.

I doubt they will be much smaller, though that is the trend because our Urban population is going up. Still I think the F-150 with a V8 (or equiv) is still likely to be our number one seller, as it has been for the last 28 years.

Come back in 2021 and we'll see.

You have skirted this issue; can you address this:
UD:

Why do the Americans that reside at RAF Lakenheath drive big gas-guzzlers? Answer the fucking question.

I didn't bother because it's pretty obvious.

We have different tax structures.
The cost of your vehicles, which includes a substantial VAT tax, are quite a bit more expensive then the same vehicle purchased over here.

I looked up the Passat, and where as you can get a nice 2 liter 2012 Passat in the US for about $22,000 with sales tax, is about $40,000 in the UK.

Secondly, if you have a car and it's not that old, you take a real bath when you sell it, so if the Air Force will ship their existing car over for you and you can get gas at US prices, then in many cases it might make sense to do so even if the car isn't what you would buy if you lived over in the UK. (Many of our Air Force bases in the states are HUGE and are located in places where driving distances are also lengthy).

Then there is the fact that oversea tours at any given base aren't that long (2 to 3 years) and so the economics of selling your car here before you go to the UK, then buying another much more expensive car in the UK and then taking another bath when you sell it in just a few years simply doesn't seem to make much sense.

Again you simply presume us to be ignorant but there is likely a perfectly rational explanation that you would probably see if you weren't so bigoted against Americans.

Arthur
 
I didn't bother because it's pretty obvious.

We have different tax structures.
The cost of your vehicles, which includes a substantial VAT tax, are quite a bit more expensive then the same vehicle purchased over here.

I looked up the Passat, and where as you can get a nice 2 liter 2012 Passat in the US for about $22,000 with sales tax, is about $40,000 in the UK.

Secondly, if you have a car and it's not that old, you take a real bath when you sell it, so if the Air Force will ship their existing car over for you and you can get gas at US prices, then in many cases it might make sense to do so even if the car isn't what you would buy if you lived over in the UK. (Many of our Air Force bases in the states are HUGE and are located in places where driving distances are also lengthy).

Then there is the fact that oversea tours at any given base aren't that long (2 to 3 years) and so the economics of selling your car here before you go to the UK, then buying another much more expensive car in the UK and then taking another bath when you sell it in just a few years simply doesn't seem to make much sense.

Again you simply presume us to be ignorant but there is likely a perfectly rational explanation that you would probably see if you weren't so bigoted against Americans.

Arthur

Complete BS.
 
Complete BS.

What part?

The huge cost difference between identical cars is easy to look up.

it will come nicely equipped around $20,000

http://blogs.vw.com/2012-passat/

vs

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-cc/which-model/compare/overview/

Lowest price UK model 2011 model from £23,170 vs US 2012 model "nicely equipped" = $38,000

The fact that you take a big loss due to depreciation if you sell a car in the first 3 years of ownership is not news to anyone who has ever done it. Indeed, for the first 3 or 4 years of a car loan many buyers would not make nearly as much from selling the car as the outstanding loan amount. Worse, our take home pay is based on paying income tax, not VAT tax, so most military personal would be in for significant sticker shock when they saw the cost of the same model car in the UK. People in the military talk so this key piece of information would be known prior to shipping out to the UK.

The fact that they get gas at US prices so there is no impact of the higher UK prices on their decision to keep a larger US car.

The fact that the Air Force will transport the car for them as part of their oversea assignment makes it a much easier decision.

The fact that Oversea rotations are not typically that many years and it's highly unlikely that they would want to bring a car with the steering wheel on the Right hand side back to the US?

Like I said, which part is BS?

Arthur
 
Last edited:
You still are under the delusion that driving further requires a bigger engine. What do Airforce staff need with a big engined vehicle?
 
They should sell the car and rebuy over here. Thay can always resell over here at higher uk prices. the loss is of little account. The use of oil in the transportation is a waste.

I suppose you condone eating food from the other side of the world instead of locally produced seasonal fare?
 
Depreciation is universal. And even if it is higher in US or UK or wherever the oil wasted in transport is going to become less justifiable in the future.

Though I do concede nuclear ships/planes could be utilised to make transport more GW friendly.
 
You still are under the delusion that driving further requires a bigger engine.

No, a bigger car requires a bigger engine and if you are going to be driving an average of 24,000 miles a year in the US vs less than 8,000 miles a year in the UK is indeed an argument for both a somewhat bigger car with a bigger engine.

You know why Hyundai gives a 100,000 mile warranty on their cars?
Well when Hyundai first marketed their cars here they actually thought we obeyed the posted speed limits.
Well their small engines, geared for the 55 mph posted limits simply couldn't take the 70 mph that we drove them.
When they realized their mistake and put in larger engines, geared for our actual speeds, to get buyers back they had to offer 30,000+ more miles on their warrenty because of the image they had created.

At any given speed, Larger engines allows higher gearing which equals lower RPM which equals longer engine life.
Since we put 24,000 miles on our cars, we need the engines to last about 2 to 3 times as long as engines in cars driven only an average of 8,000 miles a year.
When I look at the car models for sale in the UK, they also offer big engines, just there aren't as many people who need them. But if you are going to drive a lot of miles every year, then like us you will also buy the larger car/engine combination.

For instance you were mentioning earlier about the 150 mph speed on the Autobahn, and the only Passat that will do 150 mph is the 6 cylinder version.
None of the 4 cylinder models will do so.

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-cc/which-model/engines/top-speed/


Indeed, my last car was a 84 Mercedes 500 SL Gray market car bought in Germany and shipped back to the US (by a friend of mine, I bought it from him when he moved to the UK for a few years)

Now it was a real beast

1984-mercedes-benz-500sl.jpeg


This isn't mine, but same model, mine was dark green with tan interior and it would FLY.

What do Airforce staff need with a big engined vehicle?

Probably don't in the UK, but you'd have to go back to what they used it for in the states to know if the car was over-sized.

They might have a trailer or a boat in storage back in the US that they didn't ship over, etc etc.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
Back
Top