EV poll

Are electric cars doomed to fail in the future without the govt propping them up with millions if not billions of tax payer dollars every year? 

Gov't? No, I believe private corporations will give it a run for their money.

Which is more sustainable without government intervention, the oil and gas industry, or the renewable energy industry? I’d have to go with the later. 

it's not a fad, that much I'm sure of. It's in line with the AI-controlled matrix coming.

The electric car is a solution to a problem other than the misconceived problem of personal transport.

And yes  of course, it's popularity will all depend upon the cost to the average Joe.

It's a phase that will last for a while. Just as the internal combustion engine has lasted for a hundred and twenty years or so.

I would prefer if people used electric bikes, with cars only being used when really necessary.

"Electric bike is better than electric car" is a true statement, due to cost being much lower in electric bikes than in electric cars.

Electric bike is a mode of transport that can be used by kids and adults.

It is also a safer mode of transport.

"Everyone using electric bikes" is much safer than "Everyone using electric cars".

The renewable energy industry has never "not been" subsidized by the govt. It would have disappeared long ago. There is no indication that it could stand on its own now or in the future.

 This 2020 Consumer Reports study compared nine of the most popular EVs on the market with three comparable gas-powered vehicles, including the best-selling, top-rated, and most-efficient in their class. The results were clear: The lifetime ownership costs for all nine of the electric cars were “many thousands of dollars lower than all comparable ICE [internal-combustion engine] vehicles’ costs, with most EVs offering savings of between $6,000 and $10,000.” And a more recent analysis found it’s already less expensive to own an electric vehicle (EV) than a similar gasoline model.

The study isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The  Electricity costs to charge an EV are absurdly low now but will skyrocket in the future. You don't for one second think the govt is just going to give up its taxes on gas do you?  Tax's will be levied on charging stations and home charging stations . Then add the exponential demand on electricity when everyone is forced by the gun barrel of govt to drive an EV.  The writing on the wall says EV's will cost more to operate or be a total wash and the driving experience erased. The cars of the future will be boring as fuck, no style no character, just fan motors on wheels. Yawn. The vast majority of consumers don't want EV's the GOVT does. What the consumer  wants no longer matters to  the auto industry. They will build what the govt tells them to build and if you don't like it, tough shit. Not a very good long term  business model if you ask me.

Sadolite be honest, it’s just because you think they can’t go vroom vroom.

What is your "Honest" opinion about the future of EV's without govt subsidies. 

I don’t know. There will probably be less down sides and there will be more innovation for transportation. I think it will pay for itself in the long term. 

Why doesn't it pay for itself now?

Because some people think they can’t go vroom vroom. 

Government subsidies is just you paying up front for replacement energy technology, which has been deemed to be an urgent requirement in relation to apparent environmental concerns.

Whether or not one agrees with the scientific basis of such environmental concerns, largely boils down to selfishness or less selfishness relative to cost to the individual.

From my point of view EV's are are still too costly and unpredictable.

Though the EV era is still in it's infancy.

I expect that people said the same about the swap from horses to cars 120 or so years ago.

The swap from horses to cars was not subsidized by govt. 

10,000 years from now, what percent of vehicles will be electric?

We still don't have the infrastructure to handle gas vehicles adequately despite having 100 years to do it. 

Electric grids today are struggling with barely 5% of the cars being EV.

Well, that wasn't quite my point.

But true nonetheless.

I'm guessing around 30%. EV's are viable where they are viable and no where else. The same is true for wind and solar. None of them are a one size fits all replacement.  The stupidity of creating a single point of failure for all transportation energy is the act of a complete and utter myopic short sighted moron. The goal of forcing everyone to drive an EV isn't to save the planet, but restrict your movement on the planet. My opinion of course.

I would suggest that a lot of movement is probably unnecessary.

Extensive movements are a luxury that we have come to regard as necessary.

And we have also become slightly lazy as a consequence.

Why walk when you don't have to.

My opinion of course.

So, because you think that the whole world has to bow to your narrative? Kind of proves what I said earlier. The goal of EV's are to restrict movement. I wonder why they don't use that as a selling point for EV's.

sadolite, what's your wife's politics? Just curious. 

 "what's your wife's politics?"  Wokedy woke leftist liberal. Govt is the solution to everything. Accept every stupid narrative in the name of whatever the wokedy woke puts forward. Fiscally conservative with her own money but not yours or mine. We never discuss politics, there is no need. What ever I think, she thinks the opposite. Even if we agree on something. I am still wrong about why we agree.

Hey.

You're free to move any where you want to.

Don't let my narrative stop you.

Hop on a plane and come to Wales for a beer and a chat.

Of course, the reality is that it all boils down to affordability.

Have a nice day.

I think that electric motors are simple and cost effective.  They can be scaled as small as necessary for an RC car and as large as necessary for a locomotive.  They also produce a fair amount of torque for their size, and because torque is consistent from a low RPM they may not require gear shifts from a transmission.  The design principles are well suited to the demands of the automobile industry.  

That doesn't really answer the question of whether or not EV's can exist without being subsidized by govt. Internal combustion engines can be scaled to any size also.

Do you ever consider the future, in respect of those who will exist in the future.

Material evolution is an ongoing principle and therefore we are always transitioning from one idea to another.

Older brains like yours and mine try to keep apace with new stuff, but we were  weighed down by our formative expectations decades ago.

Governments do what governments need to do in response to what needs to be done relative to now and the future.

And stuff costs stuff, it's the nature of the system.

We've been subsidising infrastructure and social expectation for as long as infrastructure and social expectations have been deemed to be social necessities.

So what good are any vehicles without roads to drive them on.

Happy Chocolate Egg Weekend Sadolite.

"Do you ever consider the future, in respect of those who will exist in the future."

Ya, sure I do. But I also consider the practicality and plausibility of changes that are going to be shoved down peoples throats that will have no say in the matter.

Do you have a smartphone.

Did anyone ask you if it would be a good idea to develop them, and to install all the infrastructure it takes to make them work.

Did you complain.

What about spending on high tech defence equipment.

Anyone consult you?

Did you complain.

Stuff happens, we move on, the future of personal transport in the short term will be a transition from the internal combustion engine to electric.

Though:

More and more humans demanding more and more electricity.

The next problem is already here really, before we even get there.

So, the most cost effective way of keeping the lights on Mr S?

Nuclear......Huge public investment .

Will you complain?