The Electric Vehicle Disruption - End Of Oil by 2030

[Draigflag]

Lifetime warranty means the products lifetime, not the human buying it. The average car is 7-11 years old isn't it? So the warranty probably isn't that much longer than your average one on the average car. My friend sells tyres with "lifetime" warranty, that doesn't mean he'll replace them when they wear out, but if a fault occurs during the life of the tyre.

[trollbait]

Why would you need to charge that fast at home? Do you have a gas pump installed there.

[SteveMak]

Originally Posted by R.I.D.E.

Outlandish warranty claims are just an insult to any semi intelligent car owner-driver. At least in the old Midas muffler commercials, the company was around to honor their "lifetime" warranty"...

WRT the infamous MIDAS lifetime muffler warranty: When I was a youngster, I did that. Here's what I learned:

• Lifetime warranty is void if you use non-Midas parts and/or work is performed by a non-Midas technician.
• If the pipe leading to the muffler needs replacing, that has to be done by MIDAS.
• In reality, you'll need to get exhaust system repairs done sooner than if you had OEM part because MIDAS used substandard materials. But if you get anything replaced with non-MIDAS parts or done by non-MIDAS people, it voids your muffler warranty.
• Only the muffler (part) is warranties. Labor and other parts, like clamps and fasteners, are not. You only discover that AFTER you've used your "free" warranty.
• When you need to get exhaust system work done again, and you will (more often than if you had used OEM parts), and you pay MIDAS to do the work, it'll cost you more in the long run.

In short, it was a scam.

[ChewChewTrain]

Originally Posted by R.I.D.E.

Both. (I needed 5 more characters for the post to be listed)

Nope. Can't have BOTH. Pick one and stick with it.

[SteveMak]

For the folks that cite short EV recharge times for "80% charge", I can't recall the last time I went to a dino-juice station and thought, "I'm in a hurry, so I'll only put in 80% of my tank's capacity." Virtually nobody does that with liquid fuel. They simply fill it up. And they make their range comparisons based on a full tank of fuel. Similarly, EV manufacturers quote (best-case EPA estimated) range based on fully charged batteries.

So this "quick recharge for 80%" talk is a red herring. It is introduced solely to get people to believe that "you can quickly recharge your EV today", while shifting the focus away from the fact that if you opt for a quick recharge to only 80%, you sacrifice an already relatively short rage in your haste.

Also note that plug-in hybrids and EVs quote recharge times based on how you recharge. In North America, where standard electrical outlets are 120 volts, recharge times are a LOT longer than if you opt for the home quick-charge station or if you go to one of Tesla's Super Charger (quick recharge) stations. A home fast-charge station has it's own costs for the device itself, and it requires a separate electrical line, assuming that your home's electrical service (AKA circuit-breaker box or "electrical panel") can readily supply the additional current to a 220 or 240 volt high-amperage quick-charge station in your garage. Factor in a few grand for the station, line, and electrician. More if you need to upgrade your home's electrical service to accommodate the mich higher current draw.

Also note that some manufacturers don't make it that simple for you. You want to do the quick recharge? Oh, you have to buy the next higher (and more expensive) trim level that supports quick recharging. In the case of the Audi e-Tron plug-in Hybrid, that trim level jump is several thousand dollars more for the ability to recharge quickly, assuming you have the facilities to do so.

Most liquid-fuel consumers who are enthusiastically eying a PHEV or EV don't know all these niggly little gotchas. When they learn about them, a great deal doesn't sound so good anymore.

[ChewChewTrain]

Yeah. But what about the children?!

[luv2spd]

This Tony Seba guy reminds me of the sc-fi books I read that were written 40 years ago trying to predict the future. The books said that by the year 2020 we will work 20 hour weeks so that we can spend a lot more time on things that our heart desires.

The reality for 2020 is that most people work more than 40 hours per week. And that's only if you are lucky to have a job to begin with. Most young people have a nice degree with a $60,000 loan with not many jobs out there.

[Draigflag]

The thing is guys, multi billion dollar car makers are investing tens of billions in electric vehicles, energy companies are too, as are governments. Do you honestly think if they had 1% of the scepticism you guys had, they would be doing this? Do you not think they had the huge conference meetings with well renowned respected experts in every field and investors to maybe give a clue where the market is heading? Do you not realise the years of compiled projected data from everything from lithium reserves, mining costs and emissions regulations they have to hand to make these huge decisions? Do you not think they might know a thing or two that the general public don't? Car manufacturing is one of the biggest most profitable businesses on the entries planet, and yet you think they would risk everything just like that?

C'mon people, this is happening now, electric cars work for millions of people already, and one day you'll consider one too.

[ChewChewTrain]

Originally Posted by luv2spd

This Tony Seba guy reminds me of the sc-fi books I read that were written 40 years ago trying to predict the future. The books said that by the year 2020 we will work 20 hour weeks so that we can spend a lot more time on things that our heart desires.

The reality for 2020 is that most people work more than 40 hours per week. And that's only if you are lucky to have a job to begin with. Most young people have a nice degree with a $60,000 loan with not many jobs out there.

Two things:

1. This is America. If it isn't true you can't say it. We have laws against fibbing.

2. He backs up his guess with a substantial amount of speculation, rumors, and hope. And, by CNN journalism standards, THAT is good enough for me and, hopefully, 2 or 3 law abiding American patriots.

[SteveMak]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

...multi billion dollar car makers are investing tens of billions in electric vehicles, energy companies are too, as are governments. Do you honestly think if they had 1% of the scepticism you guys had, they would be doing this?... C'mon people, this is happening now, electric cars work for millions of people already, and one day you'll consider one too.

My position on EVs is as follows:

• I don't believe that every automaker who invests in EVs believes EVs will soon displace ICE, so we better get on it or we'll be out of business. I don't believe this anymore than I believe that Toyota and GM are throwing big money at hydrogen fuel cells in a Beta vs VHS war for the next dominant propulsion system. Part of an automaker's "thing" is optics: the practice of appearing to be leading-edge (or at least relevant) to prospective consumers. It's one way they can present the face of being progressive and green, while less than 3% of what they make is EVs, and while they continue to sell pretty ordinary, gassy vehicles.
  .
• Less than 3% of vehicles on the road are EVs. But that share is climbing.
  .
• I believe EVs and battery technology are just beyond the "early adopter" stage, and nowhere close to being a no-brainer for replacing ICE for the masses. That's today.
  .
• I believe ICE will likely go away entirely, or almost entirely, like the steam engine did, not because we ran out of coal, but because ICE proved to be so much better than coal-fired steam engines. Switching became a no-brainer. I speculate this day will come within my lifetime. I'm 56. I'm skeptical about it arriving in just 3 or 4 years where the masses abandon ICE in favor of EVs.
  .
• People are terrible at predicting the future! Me included, BTW. Our history is littered with predictions that look silly in hindsight. In early 2016, a prominent tech publication said that SSDs (solid state drives) won't dominate because they're just too expensive and unreliable. About 3.5 years ago, I built a work-horse PC with a premium SSD boot drive (CAD$150 for 128GB). Massive use, great speed, flawless reliability. 3+ years ago, (premium) SSD reliability surpassed HDD! I knew that, but a tech expert doesn't. SSD cost has dropped sufficiently to use them at least as a boot drive, or as exclusive storage in smaller systems (<= ~256GB total storage). So much for expert predictions.

Just my two cents... and worth every penny!