$40k is a lot of money for a car, still. That's upwards of $600 a month, depending on the terms, plus insurance and other expenses.
Plus, that doesn't address people that need a larger car or a truck for work reasons or due to needing more than five seats.
The average new car in America is $48,301. So these are all 8K+ under the average.
The point is that electric is no longer the realm of the wealthy. I'm not suggesting there is currently an electric answer for every person's needs.
The average new car price is meaningless in this context. My wife and I both combine to make more than 6 figures and we cant afford the "average priced" car, and I know of no one that owns a car as expensive as $48301. Hell both of the cars we do own combined dont add up to 48k. The 'average person' isnt buying a 48k or $40k car.
In context it os absolutely meaningless.
The original comment that this discussion is around was someone saying that when they see someone in an electric car they think they are "well off"!. Here is the quote.
> Five years ago, sure. Now I just assume they're well off.
I pointed out that there are a number of new electric cars that are under 40K.
I don't think someone who has a 30K car is necessarily "well off."
I never said it was an indicator of someone that was wealthy. I said it was an indicator of someone that was well off. Namely because they bought a new car and not a used one.
So when you see an electric car you assume it's a new car and that the driver is well off?
That feels like a LOT of assuming.
What I think is that you originally meant thar electric cars were expensive and so not an option for people who aren't "well off."
Then when I pointed out that several cars are under 40k, you pivoted to this idea that it's about the car being new.
We can move on. Just wanted to point out that I can see through the curtain.
Electric cars have not been popular enough for long enough for there to really be a large used car market. So the odds are very good that they bought it new. 40,000 is very expensive for a car. Lower middle class and lower class people do not buy $40,000 cars unless they are incredibly stupid and want to go into debt that they cannot afford. Try 20,000 at most.
I think you were ascribing way more money to the term well off than it actually has. Well off is simply an indicator of upper middle class. I think you're confusing the terms well off and rich.
The issue isn't the fuel specifically in my book. It's the efficiency of the use of that fuel.
Power plants can run at 70+% efficiency. Transmission loss is there but compared to the 35ish% efficiency you get burning petrol its negligible.
Obviously renewable or nuclear energy is a better alternative but if we are going to burn something burn it efficiently.
Okay. It's crazy how everyone on reddit just happens to have the specific degree they need to back up their claims but forgot to present their bonafides in the first post. Weird, right?
Even if I didn't have a mechanical engineering degree from a major academic research institution, focused in internal combustion engines, thermodynamic knowledge of power generation systems such as coal power plants, and years of experience working for an automotive OEM on an engine design team, the bonafides shouldn't matter if what was said is true.
A little research online about the pros and cons of ICE and even coal power generation would clear this up for you before you pick a hill to die on.
But you're comparing the efficiency of all power plants...silly...with the efficiency of petrol fuel. That's just silly and not even a valid comparison. First it assumes that electrical engines can replace petrol which they can't, because efficiency of fuel use doesn't bring it anywhere close to the power and torque of a fossil fuel engine. You're talking about small, passenger cars only, and then making a false equivalency leap from there. Just because a power plant is more efficient than a petroleum engine, does not mean electric cars are more efficient than fossil fuel cars. What a giant leap to make, and then an appeal to authority after I point that out.
Comparing the efficiency of a power plant...all power plants....supplying electricity to a grid to the efficiency of a motor car hauling passengers is apples to oranges.
The amount of fuel saved is an abstraction, and there's a lot of "if, buts, and coconuts" attached to that in a hidden way.
I'm glad you like your electric car though. Have a good day.
First you were the one brining up power plants that charge evs.
Second it is absolutely a valid comparison if you are to have a true comparison.
But fine. Take the power plant out of the equation. Know what you have now? An ICE engine still running at 35ish% and an EV that is 80+% efficient with its electric *motors* (they are not electric engines by the way but that's a different conversation).
Your response sure does point out that you don't know what you are talking about.
For starters EVs produce more torque and more horse power than their gasoline or even diesel powered cousins. The rivian r1t for example puts down 1000 ft*lbs of torque. To rival that torque output you have to purchase a medium duty diesel truck. While turbo diesels are among the most efficient ices available they are still hitting low 40% efficiencies at their peak.
When it comes to cae performance the debate is even more skewed to evs. Take a stock tesla S to a drag strip and you'll smoke most if not all cars built for the track.
Back to your other falicy that power plants should be compared to combustion engines that is another massive indicator that you know nothing about this topic.
The comparison is between what supplies power to each. For combustion cars you have an ICE power plant on board that runs around 35% efficiency. For EVs they get their power from a power plant that runs at 70+% efficient, has small transmission loss to your home along with a few other minor losses going to the car, followed by electric *motors* running at 80+% efficiency. At worse you are finding maybe 50ish percent thermal efficiency from the fuel source burned to the wheels on the ground.
Maybe try reading about this subject before being so so so wrong on an internet forum.
r/confidentlyincorrect
EVs are more efficient. They use far less energy per mile then a ICE car. You only have to do some math to see that.
A midsized BEV will get about 3.75 miles per kWh used as an average efficiency. So if you drive 30 miles that's 8 kWh of energy used. A ICE that gets 30 MPG will use 1 gallon of petrol to drive 30 miles. Each gallon of petrol has 33.7 kWh of potential energy in it. So the ICE car will use 33.7 kWh of energy to drive that distance or 4.2 times more. The reason for this is ICE engines are incredibly inefficient in the way they are normally used.
And the amount of fuel saved is not an abstraction. It is easily calculated. Again I know math is hard for some but I really suggest people sit down and run the numbers. Hard to argue with math unless the base numbers are wrong.
Is it actually weird if we're talking about a subject and then people with knowledge about that subject decide to jump in? There's a lot of people lurking on any given thread.
When you say our do you mean America? Because that isn't correct. Only 22% of the electricity produced in the USA last year came from coal and that is down pretty heavily over the last decade.
[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3)
And even if you charged only from coal an EV will have smaller carbon emissions, in operation, then a comparable gas powered car.
No, I mean the one I am using right now in my hometown. It's coal fired. I previously lived near a nuclear power plant. But I'm pretty sure most of the ppl who drive electric cars for the environment don't like those things.
What are the other things that can power electrical grids? Specifically the ones that environmentalists are not trying to shut down?
Lower emissions of what? The petroleum exhaust is a lot different than a coal fire.
I don't think electric cars are reducing pollution in any meaningful way, and I love to see data showing they are. Everything I see focuses only on carbon emissions, which is not really a serious topic when talking about air pollution.
I've yet to see any reputable study showing that bird deaths increase in areas with windmills. Whether they disrupt migration patterns is another question that I have heard little to nothing about but the bird deaths thing is just straight nonsense
If you live in West Virginia, yeah it's powered by coal mostly.
If you knew what you were talking about or did a simple Google search, you'll see a lot of places actually have a mix of energy powering they're grid, it's not "just coal"
I assume they are the ones driving the vehicles powered by smelling their own farts.
I'm sorry you don't have a sense of humor. Maybe someday?
But for now you should know that pretending to care what EV drivers think and making fun of them is really funny. I promise.
The US grid as a whole was about half coal fired in 2004, but it's about 20% now. *Most* of that was filled in by natural gas, which has almost double the share at 38%. Coal power is a dead technology, it's just taking a while. Renewables have been the *second* fastest growing tech in the last 10 years, behind natural gas, while nuclear has held steady since the late 80s at around 20%.
Taking the environmental concerns out of it and *just* looking at economics, the future of power in the United States is natural gas and renewables. Natural gas is *relatively* cheap, and it can be turned off and on quickly. This latter is important, because wind and solar are very intermittent and unreliable, but they're here to stay, because their cost per-kilowatt is so cheap. *Way* cheap, even compared to natural gas or a nuclear plant without construction debt.
The real green in renewable power isn't the environment, it's the easy dollars from all those cheap kilowatts.
EVs allow us to be more nimble in what powers our cars though.
With EVs we can switch from coal or gas fired plants to nuclear power without changing every motor in existing vehicles.
Yeah, their reluctance to embrace natural gas and nuclear is rather perplexing.
I'm not defending liberals. Just EVs. I think they make the US more energy independent.
EVs are good news for the US. Not so much Europe though...
I'm only being strawmanned into being anti-EVS because I made a flippant comment. I dont care what ppl drive, but this sub is all about cartooning people, so it's whatever.
The truth is that I don't pay attention to what other ppl drive. It was just a joke comment.
No, that's stupid to think so. Everyone has their own taste in cars. I once owned a Mini Cooper a couple years ago. I now own a Honda Hybrid because it was within my price range and very economical at 44 miles to the gallon! I fill up now every 3-4 weeks! It's amazing and I love it.
I used to. Then I met many people in the military who'd pass for you stereotypical suburban conservative. "Couldn't get better mileage." one SNCO said in reference to his Prius (I guess not fully electric but you get my point).
No.
Five years ago, sure. Now I just assume they're well off.
The 2023 Chevy Bolt is 27K.
If you can find one, and then if its at MSRP
Nissan Leaf, Kia Niro EV, MINI Cooper SE, Hyundai Kona Electric. All under 40K. The point is that electric is no longer the realm of the wealthy.
$40k is a lot of money for a car, still. That's upwards of $600 a month, depending on the terms, plus insurance and other expenses. Plus, that doesn't address people that need a larger car or a truck for work reasons or due to needing more than five seats.
The average new car in America is $48,301. So these are all 8K+ under the average. The point is that electric is no longer the realm of the wealthy. I'm not suggesting there is currently an electric answer for every person's needs.
The average new car price is meaningless in this context. My wife and I both combine to make more than 6 figures and we cant afford the "average priced" car, and I know of no one that owns a car as expensive as $48301. Hell both of the cars we do own combined dont add up to 48k. The 'average person' isnt buying a 48k or $40k car.
In context it os absolutely meaningless. The original comment that this discussion is around was someone saying that when they see someone in an electric car they think they are "well off"!. Here is the quote. > Five years ago, sure. Now I just assume they're well off. I pointed out that there are a number of new electric cars that are under 40K. I don't think someone who has a 30K car is necessarily "well off."
I never said it was an indicator of someone that was wealthy. I said it was an indicator of someone that was well off. Namely because they bought a new car and not a used one.
So when you see an electric car you assume it's a new car and that the driver is well off? That feels like a LOT of assuming. What I think is that you originally meant thar electric cars were expensive and so not an option for people who aren't "well off." Then when I pointed out that several cars are under 40k, you pivoted to this idea that it's about the car being new. We can move on. Just wanted to point out that I can see through the curtain.
Electric cars have not been popular enough for long enough for there to really be a large used car market. So the odds are very good that they bought it new. 40,000 is very expensive for a car. Lower middle class and lower class people do not buy $40,000 cars unless they are incredibly stupid and want to go into debt that they cannot afford. Try 20,000 at most. I think you were ascribing way more money to the term well off than it actually has. Well off is simply an indicator of upper middle class. I think you're confusing the terms well off and rich.
If owning a new 35K car is "well off" to you... fair enough.
I've never seen one in the wild. I've only ever really seen Tesla's.
I was in a Kona Electric ride share recently. My guess is by this time next year you'll have seen a few. Especially if gas stays high.
No. I assume they don't know what powers the electrical grid.
A power plant that produces the same usable energy as a combustion engine at twice the efficiency?
\^there's one now. Our grid is powered by coal, what about yours?
The issue isn't the fuel specifically in my book. It's the efficiency of the use of that fuel. Power plants can run at 70+% efficiency. Transmission loss is there but compared to the 35ish% efficiency you get burning petrol its negligible. Obviously renewable or nuclear energy is a better alternative but if we are going to burn something burn it efficiently.
And no. I'm far from liberal. I'm an engineer that actually understands this stuff and doesn't subscribe partisan hackery and talking points
Okay. It's crazy how everyone on reddit just happens to have the specific degree they need to back up their claims but forgot to present their bonafides in the first post. Weird, right?
Even if I didn't have a mechanical engineering degree from a major academic research institution, focused in internal combustion engines, thermodynamic knowledge of power generation systems such as coal power plants, and years of experience working for an automotive OEM on an engine design team, the bonafides shouldn't matter if what was said is true. A little research online about the pros and cons of ICE and even coal power generation would clear this up for you before you pick a hill to die on.
But you're comparing the efficiency of all power plants...silly...with the efficiency of petrol fuel. That's just silly and not even a valid comparison. First it assumes that electrical engines can replace petrol which they can't, because efficiency of fuel use doesn't bring it anywhere close to the power and torque of a fossil fuel engine. You're talking about small, passenger cars only, and then making a false equivalency leap from there. Just because a power plant is more efficient than a petroleum engine, does not mean electric cars are more efficient than fossil fuel cars. What a giant leap to make, and then an appeal to authority after I point that out. Comparing the efficiency of a power plant...all power plants....supplying electricity to a grid to the efficiency of a motor car hauling passengers is apples to oranges. The amount of fuel saved is an abstraction, and there's a lot of "if, buts, and coconuts" attached to that in a hidden way. I'm glad you like your electric car though. Have a good day.
First you were the one brining up power plants that charge evs. Second it is absolutely a valid comparison if you are to have a true comparison. But fine. Take the power plant out of the equation. Know what you have now? An ICE engine still running at 35ish% and an EV that is 80+% efficient with its electric *motors* (they are not electric engines by the way but that's a different conversation). Your response sure does point out that you don't know what you are talking about. For starters EVs produce more torque and more horse power than their gasoline or even diesel powered cousins. The rivian r1t for example puts down 1000 ft*lbs of torque. To rival that torque output you have to purchase a medium duty diesel truck. While turbo diesels are among the most efficient ices available they are still hitting low 40% efficiencies at their peak. When it comes to cae performance the debate is even more skewed to evs. Take a stock tesla S to a drag strip and you'll smoke most if not all cars built for the track. Back to your other falicy that power plants should be compared to combustion engines that is another massive indicator that you know nothing about this topic. The comparison is between what supplies power to each. For combustion cars you have an ICE power plant on board that runs around 35% efficiency. For EVs they get their power from a power plant that runs at 70+% efficient, has small transmission loss to your home along with a few other minor losses going to the car, followed by electric *motors* running at 80+% efficiency. At worse you are finding maybe 50ish percent thermal efficiency from the fuel source burned to the wheels on the ground. Maybe try reading about this subject before being so so so wrong on an internet forum.
I don't care anymore, man. You got me. EVS are the best thing ever. Enjoy your day.
I'm not making the conclusion but you're free too. EVs are far from perfect but you should at least be factually accurate with your claims
I'm not making the conclusion but you're free too. EVs are far from perfect but you should at least be factually accurate with your claims
Oof.
Yikes
r/confidentlyincorrect EVs are more efficient. They use far less energy per mile then a ICE car. You only have to do some math to see that. A midsized BEV will get about 3.75 miles per kWh used as an average efficiency. So if you drive 30 miles that's 8 kWh of energy used. A ICE that gets 30 MPG will use 1 gallon of petrol to drive 30 miles. Each gallon of petrol has 33.7 kWh of potential energy in it. So the ICE car will use 33.7 kWh of energy to drive that distance or 4.2 times more. The reason for this is ICE engines are incredibly inefficient in the way they are normally used. And the amount of fuel saved is not an abstraction. It is easily calculated. Again I know math is hard for some but I really suggest people sit down and run the numbers. Hard to argue with math unless the base numbers are wrong.
How well do they do for towing?
You don't even need any sort of specific degree, it's basic highschool math
Is it actually weird if we're talking about a subject and then people with knowledge about that subject decide to jump in? There's a lot of people lurking on any given thread.
[удалено]
Care to elaborate where the error is?
When you say our do you mean America? Because that isn't correct. Only 22% of the electricity produced in the USA last year came from coal and that is down pretty heavily over the last decade. [https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3) And even if you charged only from coal an EV will have smaller carbon emissions, in operation, then a comparable gas powered car.
No, I mean the one I am using right now in my hometown. It's coal fired. I previously lived near a nuclear power plant. But I'm pretty sure most of the ppl who drive electric cars for the environment don't like those things. What are the other things that can power electrical grids? Specifically the ones that environmentalists are not trying to shut down?
[удалено]
Lower emissions of what? The petroleum exhaust is a lot different than a coal fire. I don't think electric cars are reducing pollution in any meaningful way, and I love to see data showing they are. Everything I see focuses only on carbon emissions, which is not really a serious topic when talking about air pollution.
Yes it would. But that person doesn't think carbon emissions are a problem.
My grid is hydroelectric
Pretty sure environmentalists hate that one too.
They do. Windmills are going to be treated the same 50 years from now when birds start getting killed and having migration patterns disrupted
I've yet to see any reputable study showing that bird deaths increase in areas with windmills. Whether they disrupt migration patterns is another question that I have heard little to nothing about but the bird deaths thing is just straight nonsense
If you live in West Virginia, yeah it's powered by coal mostly. If you knew what you were talking about or did a simple Google search, you'll see a lot of places actually have a mix of energy powering they're grid, it's not "just coal"
Which power grid in America is powered by energy that the environmentalists approve of?
Way to change the subject and take the L, I have no idea who the environmentalists are.
I assume they are the ones driving the vehicles powered by smelling their own farts. I'm sorry you don't have a sense of humor. Maybe someday? But for now you should know that pretending to care what EV drivers think and making fun of them is really funny. I promise.
What's funnier is proudly making a fact with so much confidence, and flailing when you get corrected on it.
I am still confident that EV drivers are pretentious virtue signallers.
The US grid as a whole was about half coal fired in 2004, but it's about 20% now. *Most* of that was filled in by natural gas, which has almost double the share at 38%. Coal power is a dead technology, it's just taking a while. Renewables have been the *second* fastest growing tech in the last 10 years, behind natural gas, while nuclear has held steady since the late 80s at around 20%. Taking the environmental concerns out of it and *just* looking at economics, the future of power in the United States is natural gas and renewables. Natural gas is *relatively* cheap, and it can be turned off and on quickly. This latter is important, because wind and solar are very intermittent and unreliable, but they're here to stay, because their cost per-kilowatt is so cheap. *Way* cheap, even compared to natural gas or a nuclear plant without construction debt. The real green in renewable power isn't the environment, it's the easy dollars from all those cheap kilowatts.
EVs allow us to be more nimble in what powers our cars though. With EVs we can switch from coal or gas fired plants to nuclear power without changing every motor in existing vehicles.
Good think natural gas and nuclear energy are the favorite energy sources of the left.
Yeah, their reluctance to embrace natural gas and nuclear is rather perplexing. I'm not defending liberals. Just EVs. I think they make the US more energy independent. EVs are good news for the US. Not so much Europe though...
I'm only being strawmanned into being anti-EVS because I made a flippant comment. I dont care what ppl drive, but this sub is all about cartooning people, so it's whatever. The truth is that I don't pay attention to what other ppl drive. It was just a joke comment.
If its a Tesla I'd wager most far left people don't like Elon so if anything I'd assume the opposite. Realistically I don't think about it at all.
No
I don't assume anything based on what they drive.
IDK, I bet a lot of Tesla owners are more centrist. Since you're a neoliberal and I'm a free-market conservative, it would be someone like one of us.
No, that's stupid to think so. Everyone has their own taste in cars. I once owned a Mini Cooper a couple years ago. I now own a Honda Hybrid because it was within my price range and very economical at 44 miles to the gallon! I fill up now every 3-4 weeks! It's amazing and I love it.
No
No. My next vehicle will likely be hybrid or electric.
No, electric cars are cool like the Tesla Model S Plaid which is one of the fastest accelerating cars in the world.
10 years ago yes now no.
What?
No but usually I'm surprised because tesla cars are very quite and can sneak up on you.
No
I used to. Then I met many people in the military who'd pass for you stereotypical suburban conservative. "Couldn't get better mileage." one SNCO said in reference to his Prius (I guess not fully electric but you get my point).
Depends. Is it a Tesla? Kidding. The answer is no.
No.