2 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

Please, either take a basic high school chemistry class or do some research before you post.

 

Don't be condescending to other forumers. Consider this a warning to everyone on this topic.

2 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

Do I have to write out the formula for you? 

 

Combustion is a chemical reaction in which oxygen gas is a reactant. ... ⚛ Reaction products are CO2(g) and H2O(g). ⚛ alcohol + oxygen gas → carbon dioxide gas + water vapour. ⚛ Alcohol combusts (burns) with a clean flame.

 

Please, either take a basic high school chemistry class or do some research before you post.

 

 

 

You're thinking of the alcohol fuel (methanol) that powered Indy cars from the '60s to the early 2000s and is still popular in drag racing and go-karts. It is not the same as E85 (which is ethanol), is too expensive to power the road fleet and requires full draining of the fuel system after each use lest it attack the aluminum and rubber in the fuel system. It also absorbs water very quickly if not drained from the fuel system.

 

The reason you are flipping out about this is that you didn't know the difference between methanol and ethanol.

22 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

The problem with Tesla (inter alia) is that the whole thing is predicated on federal tax credits which can go away with one vote.

 

No, the whole thing is not predicated on that, though certainly both the EV and California emissions credits have been critical subsidies in Tesla's ramp-up to full Model 3 production.

 

But operating cash flow has been positive for the company since 3Q18.

 

https://ir.tesla.com/static-files/47313d21-3cac-4f69-9497-d161bce15da4, see page 20.

 

Net income continues to be negative, of course, but that's not because the cars are unprofitable without subsidies.  It's because investors have been continuously willing to fund expansion, allowing Tesla to spend significantly more money than it takes in from operations.

 

19 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

I would think the biggest immediate gains from switching to electric cars would be related to:

• having all emissions coming from a more efficient central power plant rather than millions of individual engines, which also has the side effect of reducing the amount of exhaust that gets pumped out into dense urban areas
• allowing cars to charge at off-peak times (e.g. overnight) allowing us to more efficiently use the power grid and not have to cycle plants on and off as much

Obviously the ongoing switch from fossil fuels to renewable resources will continue to make everything even more efficient.

 

 

Don't assume the future is static (no pun intended) with respect to those other technologies, either, though.  In 10-15 years, power generation might be significantly more distributed than it is today, so generation at a single source may not be as dominant as it is today (though centralized power plants are not about to vanish).

 

As for charging at off-peak times, just anecdotally, that is not what I and the other electric car owners I'm on a mailing list with (just others in the Akron area) or in my board game club (three of us own EVs or plug-in hybrids) have been doing.  All of us charge during the day, generally at work (since none of our employers currently charge us for charging our cars).  It's not a huge amount for me, since my work just lets me use a 3-prong outlet in the garage; even charging all day, I don't get that much, though it's enough to generally almost cover the charge needed for the roundtrip even in the cold and hot months, and more than enough in the mild months.  But for some of my friends and acquaintances who have "Level 2" (L2) charging at their offices, they can commute in from fairly decent distances and still go home with full batteries (and in fact they trade off for charging spots during the day, since there are more of them now that have EVs than their workplaces have L2 charging stations).

 

I have a NEMA 14-50 outlet installed in my garage.  I've had it for a year now, and I think I've used it maybe 6-8 times for overnight charging.  About 8000 miles on the car and I've paid for fuel for maybe 1500 of them combining paid Supercharging (1 round trip to Toronto and 3 to Columbus) and using my home outlet.

On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 9:30 PM, GCrites80s said:

If THE FUTURE was true, Mustangs would be front-wheel-drive and the Corvette would have gone mid-engine in 1983 rather than for 2020.

 

 

I visited a Chevrolet dealer this morning.  I asked the guy when the 2020's are coming in and he said February.  Meanwhile, the 2019's are piling up.  

 

That stale inventory of $50,000+ 2019's illustrates perfectly why they were so hesitant to switch to the mid-engine for so long - they're going to struggle to give away the 2019's.  

 

Also, no Bolts in sight.  The culture of a Chevrolet dealership - with all of those trucks and the Corvettes and the Camero's dominating the physical space make it impossible for a casual customer to even consider the all-electric Bolt.  

 

3 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

As for charging at off-peak times, just anecdotally, that is not what I and the other electric car owners I'm on a mailing list with (just others in the Akron area) or in my board game club (three of us own EVs or plug-in hybrids) have been doing.  All of us charge during the day, generally at work (since none of our employers currently charge us for charging our cars).

 

As electric vehicles become more common, I have a hard time believing that most employers are going to continue to allow employees to charge for free at work. I see it as a perk employers can offer today because electric cars are so rare and they can use it as evidence of how "green" they are. But if a large number of employees are driving electric cars, companies will have to spend a significant amount of money on infrastructure to even allow them all to charge at once in addition to the cost of the electricity. I think it's more likely employers will contract with a company like ChargePoint to install the charging infrastructure in their lots/garages, and then employees will have to pay for it.

 

Utilities can also incentivize off-peak charging by charging different rates for peak and off peak. I know this exists in some parts of the US, I'm not sure why it couldn't become more widespread. In Cincinnati, Duke deployed "smart" meters many years ago that are likely capable of supporting this, but so far they aren't charging different rates at different times.

7 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

I visited a Chevrolet dealer this morning.  I asked the guy when the 2020's are coming in and he said February.  Meanwhile, the 2019's are piling up.  

 

That stale inventory of $50,000+ 2019's illustrates perfectly why they were so hesitant to switch to the mid-engine for so long - they're going to struggle to give away the 2019's.  

 

Also, no Bolts in sight.  The culture of a Chevrolet dealership - with all of those trucks and the Corvettes and the Camero's dominating the physical space make it impossible for a casual customer to even consider the all-electric Bolt.  

 

 

It's sad how as soon as gas prices go down, people forget about efficiency and go back to buying huge trucks and SUVs. We're just binging on the cheap gas while it's here and not thinking about the long term at all.

I have a very easy time believing that employers will allow employees to charge for free at work, actually.  A charger is a low-maintenance item, and the equipment costs are surprisingly reasonable:

 

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/evse_cost_report_2015.pdf, see page 12. 

 

For commercial spaces that already have a lot of infrastructure already in place, and many do, adding EVSE (electric vehicle supply equipment) to an existing parking facility can be a very modest item in most corporate budgets.  Even when additional electrical service is necessary, unless you get to the point of requiring a whole new distribution line or transformer (unlikely), you're not adding that much to the costs if you just need a panel upgrade.

22 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

I visited a Chevrolet dealer this morning.  I asked the guy when the 2020's are coming in and he said February.  Meanwhile, the 2019's are piling up.  

 

That stale inventory of $50,000+ 2019's illustrates perfectly why they were so hesitant to switch to the mid-engine for so long - they're going to struggle to give away the 2019's.  

 

Also, no Bolts in sight.  The culture of a Chevrolet dealership - with all of those trucks and the Corvettes and the Camero's dominating the physical space make it impossible for a casual customer to even consider the all-electric Bolt.  

 

 

The 2019 Silverado has a controversial look and so does the 2019 Camaro. As noted, 2019 is the last year of the C7 Corvette and the excitement around the 2020 C8 is massive. Challenger and Charger are hurting Camaro and Mustang sales despite their old design. 2019 might not be that good of a year for Chevrolet.

Just now, Terdolph said:

The chemical reaction is the same, you get water vapor at the tail pipe.  Moreover, E85 cars do not have rubber in the fuel system, etc. That is what makes them E85 cars!  You do not have to "drain the fuel system" because e85 fuel has desiccants in it (remember Boron?). 

 

Please, as respectfully as I can say, do some reading on how Brazil fuels its entire auto fleet before you respond.

 

Correct, E85 cars (ethanol) cars do not need their fuel systems drained because they are running on ethanol, not methanol. Methanol cars need the draining. Methanol is the water vapor emitting fuel, not ethanol.

 

Look at it this way, if ethanol actually only produced water as emissions it would be much more popular worldwide. It would put gasoline out of business almost immediately. Methanol is too difficult and expensive to work with and that's why the fuel hasn't been adopted by the public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

It's sad how as soon as gas prices go down, people forget about efficiency and go back to buying huge trucks and SUVs. We're just binging on the cheap gas while it's here and not thinking about the long term at all.

 

Lightweight compacts and subcompacts get 35-40mpg on the highway.  The Spark only has a 9 gallon fish tank.  

 

The guy I talked to today told me about when gas prices went to $4/gallon - he said people were trading in SUV's left and right and the dealer was giving them pennies for the things.  

Then why are the emissions of U.S. corn-based E85 vehicles as measured by studies and practical tailpipe tests so similar to E0-E10?

49 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

The 2019 Silverado has a controversial look 

 

GM's cars all have a controversial look, in my opinion, which is that they look dull.  The whole product line is dull, up to and including the sports cars, except I'll reserve judgement of the new Corvette until I see it.  

 

The Mustang is a "GM" looking car in my opinion, and Hyundai is the most "GM"-looking foreign builder.  

 

The Bolt stands no chance because of how it looks - it's a GM car.  They launched Geo and Saturn to differentiate types of buyers and they're going to have to do that with future GM electrics.  Chevrolets just plain don't look good.  

 

 

59 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

If the federal and state tax credits go away Tesla sales drop to zero. 

 

There is a place for EVs in the national fleet.  For short haul operators, bus fleets, etc. they make a lot of sense.  EVs for consumers also make sense if they have short commutes (less than 40 miles round trip) AND the EV is built to have an $8k price point without subsidies. That is a real market but the government subsidies have distorted the product that is being produced, e.g. the Tesla, which the market would never produce and which is not sustainable from an ecomomic point of view.

 

I have two neighbors with the low cost Tesla. Both say they would have never bought it without the subsidies and they are high income earners.  

 

Only the government keeps it alive and that can go away in the blink of an eye.

 

BOLD - personal anecdotes do not equal data.  The federal tax credit for Tesla purchases this quarter is $1,875, 1/4 of the original $7,500 (unless Congress revises it retroactively).  They're still selling the cars.  I don't know what to tell you.  Sales aren't even on a linear glidepath to zero as you suggest.

 

Italicized - wtf?  $8k price point?  You are aware of new car prices for hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and ICE vehicles correct?  There are no new cars, of any variety, on the market for $8k.

Edited December 17, 20195 yr by DarkandStormy

2 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

You can't get E85 in the US. 

 

 

 

 

Columbus, OH E85 Gas Station Locations

GetGo, 2845 N. High St., Columbus, OH 43202

Kroger, 3637 S. High St., Columbus, OH 43207

Kroger, 1585 Georgesville Square Dr., Columbus, OH 43228

Kroger, 7000 E. Broad St., Columbus, OH 43213

Kroger, 1177 Polaris Pkwy., Columbus, OH 43240

Meijer, 5030 N. Hamilton Rd., Columbus, OH 43230

 

http://www.e85locator.net/State Pages/OhioE85stationlocations.html#Columbus

 

E85 test results in FFVs:

 

NMHCs will be reduced by 10% (FFV) to 27%
(non-FFV).
• CO will be reduced by approximately 20%.
• NO
x will be reduced by 18% (FFV) to more than
50% (non-FFV).
• Formaldehyde emissions will increase by approximately 50%.
• Acetaldehyde emissions will increase by a multiple of more than 20.
• Benzene and 1,3-butadiene emissions will decrease, perhaps in proportion to the amount of
gasoline in the mixture; however, this observation is based on results for a small number of
vehicles.
• Methane emissions will approximately double.
• Fuel economy will be adversely affected by approximately 25%.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=2ahUKEwjgmsyy3L3mAhXRaM0KH

aeKBaAQFjAKegQIBBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afdc.energy.gov%2Fpdfs%2Ftechnical_paper_feb09.pdf&usg=AOv

 

 

 

Vaw2Ff_n0YV4xRnniZp1fJOE1

1 hour ago, Terdolph said:

Actually there are such vehicles:

https://gem.polaris.com/en-us/vehicles/#passenger-hero

The GEM cost about $10k and is street legal.  The federal $7,500.00 tax credit is still in place, and places like California still give you about $1.5k credit in state taxes.  The GEM is fine for short trips.

Finally, I can buy a FIAT 500 for about $12.5k and it gets more than 40mpg on the highway.  

 

GEM doesn't qualify for the subsidies but the Tesla, Leaf, etc. do.

 

Without the government, TESLA, Leaf, etc. make no sense.

 

So nothing about 1) how Tesla has been selling vehicles despite their credit shrinking (the $7.5k credit is decidedly not in place for them or GM, not sure what fake news your peddling) or 2) any vehicles on the market for the $8k price you stated?

6 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

 

 

I gave you the link for GEM.  If it was mass produced it would easily cost $8k rather than $10k.  Did you even go to the link? How is that fake news?  GEM has been around for a long time.

 

Well $10k is more than $8k - a magical figure you have yet to explain why should be the threshold for all vehicle purchases.

15 hours ago, Terdolph said:

A fair question.  For the typical household, a non-govenment subsidised EV is only useful as a second car for short commutes.  The Tesla, Leaf, etc. are way overkill for that purpose.  Something like a GEM is much more affordable (about 1/3 the cost) and still gets the job done for short trips.   There just isn't much of a market for an EV that actually costs the consumer $30k-$40k. 

 

There isn't really much of an environmental case for the EV when E85 cars (not trucks w/o converters) are very clean, and where the EV is running on nuke, coal or natural gas electric power (most of the case in the East and Mid-West).

 

They work fine as primary cars with 225+ miles of range. No secondary car necessary. As evidenced, they're doing fine with a declining federal tax credit as well.

 

The talking point that EVs aren't that environmentally friendly because of their power sources has been debunked in this thread. Last week, even, I think.

 

EDIT - it seems you are basing the price of what consumers "should" pay, not what they're willing to pay.  It kind of makes your whole argument irrelevant.

Edited December 18, 20195 yr by DarkandStormy

I believe the absolute cheapest car on the market is a Nissan Versa, at around $11,500.  Last week I test drove a mint condition stick shift 2019 Ford Fiesta with 6,000 miles on it priced at $13,500, about $3,000 less than a new one (although they just stopped making them).  

 

Obviously, stick versus auto isn't an issue for electric cars.  But if you really want a cheap car you need to learn how to drive a stick.  

57 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

Thanks for the link.  I am a bit puzzled as to why there are so many e85 stations in Columbus but none in places like Cleveland or Cincy.  I can oly guess that these are fleet filling station for state owned vehicles?

 

From the link,

 

Cincinnati, OH E85 Gas Station Locations

Kroger, 8421 Winton Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45231

Kroger, 3760 Paxton Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45209

Kroger, 5830 Harrison Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45248

Marathon, 7436 Wooster Pike, Cincinnati, OH 45227

 

Cleveland, OH E85 Gas Station Locations

GetGo, 3038 W. 117th St., Cleveland, OH 44111

 

 

I don't know why Cleveland has only one... well, Parma has one. It probably has something to do with proximity to where the E85 is produced since Columbus suburbs also have quite a few stations. NW Ohio has a lot of stations while Appalachian Ohio has zero.

2 hours ago, Terdolph said:

Just reading the abstract (which has an error in the first sentence, E85 vehicles can run on regular gasoline) it appears that the report is directed to tier 1 and 2 full frame vehicles (large pick up like trucks, delivery vans, etc.) I believe that these vehicles do not have catalytic converters so are not comparable to regular e85 cars (which all cars sold in the USA today are essentially).  Thus you see the hydrocarbon emissions and NOX emmisions from the 15% gasoline component.  There is nothing here that disputes my contention that the primary exhaust gas of e85 is water.

 

 

The primary exhaust gas of all internal combustion engines is water! You previously said that ethanol exhaust is 100% water. Which is not true and the 15% gasoline in E85 is not enough to change its emissions characteristics to be so similar to E0-E10, catalytic converter or no catalytic converter. If ethanol exhaust was truly all water, going straight to E100 would be a no-brainier and we'd let the cows eat grass since it would be incredibly important to eliminate vehicle emissions by doing something that easy.

On 12/13/2019 at 7:38 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

  On 12/13/2019 at 12:05 PM, Terdolph said:

 Now, your E85 internal combustion engine currently is fueled with 10% alcohol (ethanol), and has the ability to run on 85% ethanol, of which the only exhaust product is water.  

 

 

The notion that Tesla, a $68 billion company, would drop to zero based on the loss of at most $4.5B over a period of multiple years (600,000 x $7500, assuming perfect inelasticity that is already conclusively proven to be unnecessary, since people have continued to buy without the full subsidy and it's also ridiculous to assume that 100% of the per-vehicle subsidy is internalized to Tesla's balance sheet) is mathematically and economically risible.

 

As for E85: Brazil is deforesting the gorram Amazon rainforest for agriculture, presumably including ethanol production crops or food crops displaced by ethanol crops elsewhere.  Yes, their deployment of ethanol infrastructure has apparently been impressive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil), but as also noted in that article, there are serious concerns about the sustainability of using massive amounts of arable land as basically the energy production raw material of the country.  It might be better than fossil fuels, but for all the Brazilian pride in their "flex-fuel" vehicles, electricity remains the ultimate flex fuel, considering the number of ways it can be produced.

15 hours ago, Terdolph said:

There just isn't much of a market for an EV that actually costs the consumer $30k-$40k. 

 

The entire auto market is made up of 2-3% of these very vehicles - some even at higher price points.  And this is with only a few years of mass produced EVs.  Pretty hard to say definitely "there isn't much of a market" when we we're only a few years in.

Btw, Congress did *not* include a renewal/update to the EV federal tax credit.  Guess that means Tesla is doomed next quarter!  Look for absolutely no sales.

The average selling price for a new car in the U.S. in 2018 was $35,250. I'm not sure where this idea that Tesla will fail unless they produce a $7,500 EV came from but it's clearly not true.

5 minutes ago, taestell said:

The average selling price for a new car in the U.S. in 2018 was $35,250. I'm not sure where this idea that Tesla will fail unless they produce a $7,500 EV came from but it's clearly not true.

 

A Tesla car is a virtue-signaling status symbol that cheap debt allows many people to buy under current lending conditions.  Once a tightening in lending appears, sales will plummet for it and other irrational vehicle purchases like full-sized trucks and SUV's, independent of gas prices.  

https://www.statista.com/statistics/274927/new-vehicle-average-selling-price-in-the-united-states/

 

In the United States, the average selling price for a new light vehicle came to just under 35,250 U.S. dollars in 2018. New light vehicles were about 2.7 percent more expensive in 2018 than they were in 2017. The price increase was mainly driven by a shift away from small and medium-sized cars and towards bigger alternatives such as pickups and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), although the introduction and widespread demand of Tesla’s Model 3 may have been a contributing factor as well.

 

============================

 

The average sales price for all new cars in the US in 2018 was above $35k.  The base Model 3 can be had for around $40k, even without counting any tax or other incentives.  Obviously, you can load up the Model 3 with expensive options (including upgrading to the Performance version, a higher-range battery, and a dual motor configuration), but the base version is still an outstanding car, and it's well within the middle of the bell curve in terms of cost for all new light vehicles.

 

If your car budget is $8k in the US, you're not in the market for a glorified barely-street-legal short-range modified golf cart like that Polaris GEM.  (You're also not in the market for any E85 vehicle regardless of whether we've invested billions in building out the infrastructure for it.)  You're in the market for a used car.

 

===========================

 

ETA: taestell types faster; I type more.

35 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

A Tesla car is a virtue-signaling status symbol that cheap debt allows many people to buy under current lending conditions.  Once a tightening in lending appears, sales will plummet for it and other irrational vehicle purchases like full-sized trucks and SUV's, independent of gas prices.  

 

I actually feel Tesla has done a very bad job of selling the cars to the average environmentalist/liberal/hippie due to the Shamwow sales techniques. The Left does not like being talked to like that. Instead they've done a very good job of selling it to early adopter tech worshipers whose past is full of iPhone 1s, Panasonic 3DO consoles, MiniDisc players, liquid-cooled graphics cards,  and HD tube TVs.

 

24 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

A Tesla car is a virtue-signaling status symbol that cheap debt allows many people to buy under current lending conditions.  Once a tightening in lending appears, sales will plummet for it and other irrational vehicle purchases like full-sized trucks and SUV's, independent of gas prices.  

 

I'm certainly not regretting buying the car at 1.99% interest.  But I do not think that (a) a tightening in lending is particularly imminent (at least not more than 1-2 percentage points), or (b) that even a significantly tighter lending environment would dramatically impact Tesla's sales, considering the vastly lower operating costs and the general affluence of their target market.

 

I don't know enough about E85 vehicles to comment on how their operating costs compare, but the EV bar is going to be a very, very low one to limbo under.

Making a separate post in this board for this PSA:

 

THIS POST IS INTENDED FOR ANY OHIO EV OWNERS LURKING HERE.

 

Remember that (a) you can renew your registration for up to 5 years now, and (b) starting January 1, 2020, Ohio will begin charging a $200-per-year registration fee for EVs.

 

In other words, if you are able to renew your registration prior to December 31, 2019, do it, and do it for 5 years.  I just paid $300 for 5 years on www.oplates.com (which I think redirects to https://services.dps.ohio.gov/BMVOnlineServices/VR/Oplates) ... it would have cost me $1300 if I'd waited until January.

 

I don't know the rules for re-registering early; I got somewhat lucky in the sense that my birthday is this month and I only had a 1-year registration (i.e., mine was about to expire), so I was going to be renewing my registration anyway.

9 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

 

I don't know enough about E85 vehicles to comment on how their operating costs compare, but the EV bar is going to be a very, very low one to limbo under.

 

 

There is pretty much no difference in the functionality of the E85 vehicle. Operating costs are determined by the corn and fuel markets. Vehicles use 25-30% more E85 than gasoline so that must be factored in when comparing on a gallon-by-gallon basis. Today in at the Speedway station in Galloway E85 is $1.79 a gallon while regular 87-octane E10 (gasoline) is $2.39 -- a difference of 25% -- so moot when you are using 25% more of it. There is no difference in the maintenance schedule or pretty much anything else. It is easier on the catalytic converters, but today's cats aren't 1986 Mustang cats that only go 40K before plugging up.

 

https://e85prices.com/ohio/columbus.html

14 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

I actually feel Tesla has done a very bad job of selling the cars to the average environmentalist/liberal/hippie due to the Shamwow sales techniques. The Left does not like being talked to like that. Instead they've done a very good job of selling it to early adopter tech worshipers whose past is full of iPhone 1s, Panasonic 3DO consoles, MiniDisc players, liquid-cooled graphics cards,  and HD tube TVs.

 

It's pretty interesting that Ford's first EV will be a Mustang crossover and that they're going to brand the whole thing as Mustang, not as a Ford.  It's somewhat similar to how RAM became a spinoff, and it gets back to the point I made about the hapless Chevy Bolt, a victim of Chevy branding.  

 

The electric Mustang branding is all about getting ordinary Americans - who are all familiar with the Mustang brand - to consider an all-electric crossover as a vehicle that ordinary people own and drive.  It's about buying a nice car - not announcing to all and sundry how early adopter you are.  

 

One of my brothers is one of those guys who has to be first on a cultural trend (EDM! Craft Beer!), and then another is one who has to be first on a tech trend.  I'm like the only person in their lives who calls them out on it.  Most of the people out there like that don't have somebody heckling them.  

 

 

6 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Most of the people out there like that don't have somebody heckling them.  

 

My condolences to your brother, and tell him that at least one guy out there on the Internet is rooting for him to convert Scrooge this Christmas. ? 

16 hours ago, Terdolph said:

A fair question.  For the typical household, a non-govenment subsidised EV is only useful as a second car for short commutes.  The Tesla, Leaf, etc. are way overkill for that purpose. 

 

Most people would be financially better off with a Honda Civic than a big SUV or pickup -- and yet SUVs and pickups are huge sellers.  Car purchases have ceased to be rational decisions -- the only question for most people seems to be "what's the most expensive car I can afford?"

 

E85 might be a smart transition from current fuel, but that doesn't mean it's got a future in the US.  Rational decision-making in this country is rare. Is it profitable might be more important -- can Exxon make more money on E85?  Can GM? 

1 minute ago, Foraker said:

 

Most people would be financially better off with a Honda Civic than a big SUV or pickup -- and yet SUVs and pickups are huge sellers.  Car purchases have ceased to be rational decisions -- the only question for most people seems to be "what's the most expensive car I can afford?"

 

Yeah, go into a car dealership and try to buy an economy car.  The salesmen get pissed because they aren't going to earn much of a commission.  They don't hound you in person or keep calling you.  

3 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Most people would be financially better off with a Honda Civic than a big SUV or pickup -- and yet SUVs and pickups are huge sellers.  Car purchases have ceased to be rational decisions -- the only question for most people seems to be "what's the most expensive car I can afford?"

 

E85 might be a smart transition from current fuel, but that doesn't mean it's got a future in the US.  Rational decision-making in this country is rare. Is it profitable might be more important -- can Exxon make more money on E85?  Can GM? 

 

It is in my own personal interest to hype up ethanol since we are in corn farming. We made a lot of money when corn prices were through the roof during the 2007-2012 ethanol hype period. Yet those limitations (and subsequent overproduction due to the high prices and hype) are specifically why corn crashed after the 2014 season and has barely recovered.

Edited December 18, 20195 yr by GCrites80s

2 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Yeah, go into a car dealership and try to buy an economy car.  The salesmen get pissed because they aren't going to earn much of a commission.  They don't hound you in person or keep calling you.  

 

Japanese dealers don't do that because the company knows how to make money on every car. They are slicker in the F&I office though.

49 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

My condolences to your brother, and tell him that at least one guy out there on the Internet is rooting for him to convert Scrooge this Christmas. ? 

 

Brothers.  There are three of them, and two of them are so much younger and grew up in a different city so they weren't influenced in the least by The Uncles.  I had 7 uncles who kept me on the straight and narrow, but it's just me trying to show those two The Way.  It is a heavy burden.  

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

 

One of my brothers is one of those guys who has to be first on a cultural trend (EDM! Craft Beer!),

 

 

 

Show him the footage that was filmed in 1983 of Dio's craft beer bar in his basement.

It was too bold of an assertion not to attract attention.

18 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

I think you are correct.  Because of the huge meat consumption in the US, corn (the feed stock for Ethanol) is more valuable as fodder for steers than as a fuel.  It could be done by using a non-food source (cat tails have been proposed) as the basis for ethanol distillation.   If corn wasn't so valuable, e85 would be a viable alternative fuel.

 

In your Brazil example, sugar is the dominant feedstock.  So it's a food crop, but one we could perhaps do with a little bit less of in our food.  Nevertheless, it does demand significant agricultural resources to produce.  If it really was urgent, then you could make the case for essentially a 21st century version of the plantation economy across the entire Caribbean and much of the wetter parts of the American South and South America to produce this feedstock (and, of course, those areas are already significant sugar producers), but the environmental and social consequences of that should not be underestimated.

 

By contrast, the total footprint required of most forms of electric power generation is comparatively small.  In addition, the form that is the most land-intensive (commercial-scale solar farms) can be placed away from critical arable land, and in fact is often best suited for dry, desert environments. Micro-grids, if the next generation (no pun intended) proves to have promise, may further reduce the practical footprint necessary (overall footprint might increase but it doesn't matter if it overlaps with an already-built environment).

17 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Show him the footage that was filmed in 1983 of Dio's craft beer bar in his basement.

 

Young people don't get that people were doing all sorts of stuff before there was social media.  Doing it for its own sake - not to take a digital victory lap.  

 

 

5 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

The people who are buying $35k luxury pick up trucks (most of those $35k vehicles) are not going to buy a Tesla!

 

You mean they're not going to buy a Tesla Model 3.

 

Correct.

 

Which is why Tesla is expanding its model lineup, with the Model Y slated to enter production next year.  That is a crossover SUV, which also accounts for a significant amount of ICE cars sold at the $35k+ level.

 

The pickup will be even later than that, and I would not be surprised if the final version looks quite different than the Cybertruck.

 

But the notion that there is no market for unsubsidized EVs is belied by the fact that Tesla's subsidies have basically phased out at this point (the 25% credit will expire at year-end) and they continue to post impressive unit volumes.  Yes, Musk over-promised; in that quarterly statement I posted earlier, Tesla disclosed production capacity of 350,000 Model 3 cars annually plus 90,000 S/X models.  Musk had promised production capacity of 500,000 by the end of 2017.  Obviously wildly optimistic, but his hyperbolic optimism doesn't justify your apparently absolute swing to the other side, as if there's some scale there you need to balance.  Tesla's inventory is tiny, meaning that they sell basically every car they can produce, despite only 25% of the original tax credit available, and that only for another 2 weeks.  The market is telling you that you are wrong and you're so dead set against EVs, good ones in particular, that you're just refusing to acknowledge it, and for the life of me I cannot understand why, unless you have a serious financial stake in an E85 company.

2 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

 

 

 Today in at the Speedway station in Galloway E85 is $1.79 a gallon while regular 87-octane E10 (gasoline) is $2.39 -- a difference of 25% -- so moot when you are using 25% more of it.

 

https://e85prices.com/ohio/columbus.html

 

16 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

e85is expensive, at least in this country.

 

So more expensive than the average EV charge but at price parity with 87 octane.

Tesla is one of the most scrutinized companies in the country (probably the planet) and massive amounts of cars are not easy to hide.  There would be pictures of these cars sitting in the middle of a desert.  There would also be irregularities--significant ones, given how much revenue each unit represents--on the income and cash flow statements that would have prompted a lot more than an SEC investigation.  They would have prompted private financial investigation as well.  I think you want to believe these unsubstantiated rumors because they are consistent with the absurd narrative you have gotten into your head that no one could possibly be buying these vehicles now that the federal subsidies are almost entirely phased out.

 

You'll have to link me to some credible stories about massive inventory accumulation, because I just spent 5-10 minutes Googling it just to see if I could find anything that looked remotely on point from a credible source and I came up empty.

 

I just went on Tesla's Web site and searched for inventory in Ohio.  I got three hits.  In the state.  Two in Cleveland and one in Cincinnati.  Are you going so deep into conspiracy territory to suggest that Tesla is deliberately not listing unsold inventory in order to achieve the perception of scarcity?  And that those hidden cars are the ones out there in the desert somewhere?

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

Making a separate post in this board for this PSA:

 

THIS POST IS INTENDED FOR ANY OHIO EV OWNERS LURKING HERE.

 

Remember that (a) you can renew your registration for up to 5 years now, and (b) starting January 1, 2020, Ohio will begin charging a $200-per-year registration fee for EVs.

 

In other words, if you are able to renew your registration prior to December 31, 2019, do it, and do it for 5 years.  I just paid $300 for 5 years on www.oplates.com (which I think redirects to https://services.dps.ohio.gov/BMVOnlineServices/VR/Oplates) ... it would have cost me $1300 if I'd waited until January.

 

I don't know the rules for re-registering early; I got somewhat lucky in the sense that my birthday is this month and I only had a 1-year registration (i.e., mine was about to expire), so I was going to be renewing my registration anyway.

 

I'm a bit peeved at this.  I drive a hybrid, so the per-year fee for me is "only" an extra $100.  But I'm outside the "renewal window" - in that sweet spot in March where I had to renew before the bill passed.

 

I mean, I get *why* they're doing it but it doesn't make me any less frustrated lol.

Edited December 18, 20195 yr by DarkandStormy

26 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

 

So why did the SEC fine Musk?

 

These...are two grainy pictures that show us nothing.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/29/sec-settles-charges-with-teslas-elon-musk-will-remain-as-ceo.html

 

Quote

The Securities and Exchange Commission settled charges with Tesla CEO Elon Musk over his aborted bid to take the company private, with the billionaire remaining as the helm of the company but relinquishing his chairman title and getting slapped with a hefty fine.

 

Nothing I can find about "hiding" cars anywhere.  Still going to need a source.

I feel like Jalopnik would be all over this considering how much they love running any Tesla story.

Yes, a car factory has cars parked outside the factory.  This proves ... what?