Originally Posted by MB37

Politicians push agendas from lobbyists. Follow the money, and it should answer most if not all of our questions why the government is pushing EV and why it is popular and for the moment and getting some backlash. In the grand scheme, a combination of tech purest bought into the tech from Tesla, and a few bought EV because they thought it was better for the climate. Then the politicians jumped in and sold it to everyone who would believe them. A lot of noise come and go.

I bought (not lease) an EV because I believe in the technology as it exist today and not because I think the infrastructure is going to get better, not because it will remain cheaper per mile driven (energy wise). The inherent technology of electric motor vs. ICE as a land propulsion is more efficient. I look at my childhood RC hobbies. If consumers actually evaluate their transportation needs, they will know if an EV is in the cards for them.

Pushing the climate issue, the infrastructure issue, and the range issue with EV is getting old. If you have those issues, don't get an EV. You're not ready for it, or to put it nicely, an EV may not meet your transportation needs.

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

The safest purchase in EVs are going to be Mercedes, VW/Audi/Porsche, Hyundai/KIA/Genesis, BMW, Ford, GM and Toyota. Everyone else is at risk including Tesla.

That said I think Rivian has a good shot because they have high market share. The R1T and R1S are both Top 10 best selling EVs. The R1S outsells the Model X which I think is a sign that the R2 could top the Model Y as the best selling EV overall. They aren't wasting time on sports cars, sedans and things that don't sell.

Originally Posted by BenjaminKohl

I really really hope Rivian succeeds and hopefully Amazin possibly buying it will help but at the moment Rivian is precariousy close to bankrupcy. A family member who is close with Rivian says their products are great but the company is run in a really poor way and has plenty of malpractices. Super unfortunate.

Originally Posted by streborx

I have nothing against EVs, but the technology and supporting infrastructure are still a ways away from primetime. A complete transportation makeover by 2030 is unlikely. The politics annoy me, however. Why do EV buyers need a tax incentive? Why do a dozen makers of luxury brands believe churning out a few thousand vehicles, costing well into six figures and affordable by only the upper 2% of wealth holders, will make a measurable impact on the climate? Why can climate objectives be met only with EVs produced domestically, so imports are hit with punitive taxes? Why do buyers need to experience absurd and mostly unusable 0 - 60 mph acceleration times to be happy with their purchase? The objectives and the solutions being offered seem to be mismatched right now, so I plan to hang on to my sluggish ICE for a few more years.

Originally Posted by MB37

Politicians push agendas from lobbyists. Follow the money, and it should answer most if not all of our questions why the government is pushing EV and why it is popular and for the moment and getting some backlash. In the grand scheme, a combination of tech purest bought into the tech from Tesla, and a few bought EV because they thought it was better for the climate. Then the politicians jumped in and sold it to everyone who would believe them. A lot of noise come and go.

I bought (not lease) an EV because I believe in the technology as it exist today and not because I think the infrastructure is going to get better, not because it will remain cheaper per mile driven (energy wise). The inherent technology of electric motor vs. ICE as a land propulsion is more efficient. I look at my childhood RC hobbies. If consumers actually evaluate their transportation needs, they will know if an EV is in the cards for them.

Pushing the climate issue, the infrastructure issue, and the range issue with EV is getting old. If you have those issues, don't get an EV. You're not ready for it, or to put it nicely, an EV may not meet your transportation needs.

Originally Posted by MB37

A few persuasive tree huggers thought that because the EV doesn't produce carbon while you are driving, but the reality is that the carbon was produced in creating the electricity that enables your EV to move. Essentially, you are simply displacing your carbon foot print or handing it off to the electric company to decide how to produce the electricity (coal, wind, solar, NG, etc.) you use. Hence, buying an EV is like the "not in my backyard" argument. I, personally, would not make an argument that my EV keeps our planet cleaner than you driving a 1.6L ICE or a hybrid. However, as a neighbor, I can say that I'm not producing carbons or noise pollution in our neighborhood.

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

That perspective is not correct because it ignores two things:
1) An ICE wastes a lot of energy. Only about 20% of the energy produced by an ICE engine is used. The rest is waste - over production for instance when idling, braking, etc. you are burning energy which an EV doesn't use. In fact during braking an EV recovers energy.
2) The thermal efficiency of a power plant is vastly superior to an internal combustion engine because the scale of it enables better heat to energy conversion with less thermal energy loss.

So the EV is getting more efficiently produced energy, and it is also using that energy more efficiently than an ICE vehicle. Efficiency means less fuel used, aka less CO2.

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

That perspective is not correct because it ignores two things:
1) An ICE wastes a lot of energy. Only about 20% of the energy produced by an ICE engine is used. The rest is waste - over production for instance when idling, braking, etc. you are burning energy which an EV doesn't use. In fact during braking an EV recovers energy.
2) The thermal efficiency of a power plant is vastly superior to an internal combustion engine because the scale of it enables better heat to energy conversion with less thermal energy loss.

So the EV is getting more efficiently produced energy, and it is also using that energy more efficiently than an ICE vehicle. Efficiency means less fuel used, aka less CO2.

Originally Posted by finlayson

Plus, a lot of electricity generation doesn't emit carbon at all. This varies a lot, depending on your location. But even within the US, there's a lot of variation. For example, on the West Coast a lot of electricity is generated by hydro. Whereas in the Midwest, you'll probably see more coal-based power stations.

Originally Posted by finlayson

Plus, a lot of electricity generation doesn't emit carbon at all. This varies a lot, depending on your location. But even within the US, there's a lot of variation. For example, on the West Coast a lot of electricity is generated by hydro. Whereas in the Midwest, you'll probably see more coal-based power stations.

Originally Posted by Fly by night

Tesla is still miles ahead of the competition.
They dominate the segment now and the distance will only continue to widen
🏆🏆🏆

Originally Posted by AppleFan1

First of all, giving you a like for a few minutes was an accident since I disagree with your statement. I very much doubt that Tesla will continue to distance the competition. The stock price has absolutely plummeted the past 6 months. Btw, I can’t stand their owner. I also think that a Tesla sucks compared to the EQS.