[PhantomPholly]

OMG, what trash.

There isn't a Tea Partier out there who doesn't clamor for electric cars.

They just don't want to destroy our economy getting them.

Funny thing is that if you make the economy healthy again by shutting off the ridiculous spending, electric cars will get here much faster.

 

[JRP3]

Please, I'd bet at least half of the tea partiers are anti EV because they don't understand them. After all their spokesperson is Sarah "drill baby drill" Palin. Republicans have never been known for backing alternative energy or transportation options. Like it or not today's push for EV's is a Democratically driven initiative.

 

[Jason Lattimer]

Please, I'd bet at least half of the tea partiers are anti EV because they don't understand them. After all their spokesperson is Sarah "drill baby drill" Palin. Republicans have never been known for backing alternative energy or transportation options. Like it or not today's push for EV's is a Democratically driven initiative.

Todays push for evs come from the fact that we now have technology that makes them better than and not equal to gasoline powered cars.
And if the Tea Party hates electric cars because they think it is a democrats pet project we have to show people that electrics are better. Not because we have to sacrifice something to save the planet. Ev people are seen by some as automatically being tree huggers.

 

[david85]

Think I'll be ignoring EV world articles for the next little while. The image at the top of the page was already a bit of a turn off, but the focus on politics is a bit disturbing too.

Between playing politics and using sex to sell their ideas, they are loosing my respect (survey pop up is annoying too).

I tend to fall right of center in many ways politically, but that doesn't mean I oppose electric cars and I don't know many like me that do. My town is filled with hippies and red necks that harbor far left and far right political views and I haven't found anyone so far that isn't genuinely interested in my car.

 

[JRP3]

Between playing politics and using sex to sell their ideas, they are loosing my respect (survey pop up is annoying too).

Typical uptight conservative I'll never object to a chick's ass, unless it's too big
It also wasn't an EVworld article to be fair, and Motavalli is a good EV advocate and raises some valid concerns. I can say with the hundreds of articles I've read the majority of negative comments were from those with an obvious conservative bent. Same with the people encountering my EV. The few less than enthusiastic responses, with comments such as "It's still running from coal" and "It only goes 50 miles?" were from the guy with a Carl Paladino sticker on his car.
Sure there are exceptions, and perceptions are changing, but let's not pretend where sentiments really lie.

 

[PhantomPholly]

Typical uptight conservative

Guilty of stereotyping?

It also wasn't an EVworld article to be fair, and Motavalli is a good EV advocate and raises some valid concerns.

No one can be a "good" advocate when they stray off the topic and into realms they have no understanding of. It simply brings their lack of credibility into the issue they are trying to promote.

I can say with the hundreds of articles I've read the majority of negative comments were from those with an obvious conservative bent.

Translation: Liberals lack the critical reasoning necessary to objectively evaluate such articles and the courage to raise obvious objections to poorly-written pieces based on obviously impractical assumptions.

Same with the people encountering my EV. The few less than enthusiastic responses, with comments such as "It's still running from coal" and "It only goes 50 miles?" were from the guy with a Carl Paladino sticker on his car.

A sample of one is not statistically significant. Drawing conclusions from such a sample indicates an unethical predilection towards valuing emotional arguments over facts.

Sure there are exceptions, and perceptions are changing, but let's not pretend where sentiments really lie.

Ok, then stop pretending. When Liberals claim Conservatives are "anti-EV," what they really mean is that Conservatives don't favor government pork projects wasting taxpayer dollars on things the government has no business being involved in - particularly when they can't balance the budget in the face of all the spending they've already committed. This position is called, "fiscal responsibility," and it is incomprehensible to the typical Liberal. Fiscal responsibility comes into play whether the argument revolves around direct research spending for EVs; invasive spending and regulations imposed by the EPA or Congress through fraudulent "Cap and Trade" policies; expensive emissions regulations based on fraudulent data (e.g. diesel emissions laws in California); or spending and regulations based on fraudulent climate research. Like small children, Liberals cannot comprehend why more responsible Conservatives won't happily open their wallets to buy every glittering trinket and fund every specious promise for them.

The bare naked truth is that virtually 100% of Conservatives favor clean energy and transportation, but resist supporting unsustainable spending (scams) and regulations (coercion) which are completely unwarranted simply to force us to adopt solutions in the next 15 minutes when it is obvious to the youngest child that such solutions will not only be available economically in the near future but will also be the preferred solution naturally without laws compelling us to adopt them. It also makes Liberals angry that Conservatives won't support their delusional philosophy that Government should be all-powerful; that we should be servants to government rather than the other way around; and that we should pursue impractical goals irrespective of the consequences.

No need to thank me; happy to help clarify these matters any time...

 

[david85]

Typical uptight conservative I'll never object to a chick's ass, unless it's too big

Guilty of stereotyping?

I think he was kidding.


But seriously, try to fight nicely ok guys? Seems there have been a some extra flames on here lately.

 

[JRP3]

Phantom and I rarely get along, I don't expect that to change since he's usually wrong about everything.

 

[Jason Lattimer]

Typical uptight conservative I'll never object to a chick's ass, unless it's too big
It also wasn't an EVworld article to be fair, and Motavalli is a good EV advocate and raises some valid concerns. I can say with the hundreds of articles I've read the majority of negative comments were from those with an obvious conservative bent. Same with the people encountering my EV. The few less than enthusiastic responses, with comments such as "It's still running from coal" and "It only goes 50 miles?" were from the guy with a Carl Paladino sticker on his car.
Sure there are exceptions, and perceptions are changing, but let's not pretend where sentiments really lie.

I have noticed that most of the people who are opposed to EV's are the people who are uneducated people who don't understand them.

 

[PhantomPholly]

I have noticed that most of the people who are opposed to EV's are the people who are uneducated people who don't understand them.

I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "against them." In my post above, which was admittedly a bit sardonic, I was pointing out what I honestly believe to be true because it is also true in politics - that those who have valid objections to a particular approach to the same goal are often falsely labeled as opposing the goal. A good example of this kind of labeling, on BOTH sides of a heated debate, is "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice." Both labels attempt to demonize their opposite side - but I seriously doubt that those who support a woman's right to choice are "pro death," nor are those who oppose abortion advocating for "women as slaves with no choices in life." Yet, this is often how humans disagree.

As much blame can be laid at the feet of those who begin discussions with "so-and-so group opposes" without providing factual context on what actions or words came from that group that leads them to that conclusion. If, for example, JRP3 had said that Conservatives oppose government regulations on emissions as a way to make ICE more expensive in an attempt to steer people towards another solution, that would have been absolutely true - and we could have a discussion about whether or not that is the best way to reach the goal. However, when people are passionate about a subject they are rarely completely honest with themselves, let alone with others.

Back to my original position - I believe it would be difficult to find anyone in the Western world actually opposed to clean, reliable transportation (there are always a few kooks). Therefore, the WHAT of our goal is not in question, merely the HOW. On that, history suggests that there will be endless bickering until someone comes up with an answer unexpected by any of the arguers.

And, a little chaos is good for us!

 

[JRP3]

I have noticed that most of the people who are opposed to EV's are the people who are uneducated people who don't understand them.

That was actually my point

 

[Jason Lattimer]

The only reason I say that is because my dad, who is now in his 70s and a huge fan of the 60s era musclecar years, is hugely opposed to electric cars.
He doesn't really know that much about them, and what he does know comes from garbage on tv. Unfortunately he is the type of person who will not let go of his belief that he is always right and the rest of us don't know what is going on. I have since given up trying to explain it to him. I figure I will just take him for a ride in my 86 Trans Am when I get it done. I am currently looking for a 12" forklift motor to use in a direct drive setup. That should make him a believer.

 

[jeremyjs]

I don't know. What I do know is that the number of people actively opposed to electric cars is small. The primary resistance is how much they cost compared to a gas car. The Cheaper batteries get, the fewer people who oppose the electrification of the automobile. Not only that, but people are starting to realize just how important it is. Forget about the emissions factor and look to gas prices. Both where they've been and where they're likely to go. Then add on top of that where the majority of the oil to make it comes from. It really starts becomes something that nearly everyone from the far left to the far right can, and eventually will, get behind.

 

[PhantomPholly]

Price - including cost to install a charging station in your home.
Range - including the ability to travel cross-country.
Time to recharge - both at home and on cross country.

It really all comes down to the batteries, which are improving steadily. It will happen. I'm still betting the price crossover comes within 10 years.

 

[JRP3]

As much blame can be laid at the feet of those who begin discussions with "so-and-so group opposes" without providing factual context on what actions or words came from that group that leads them to that conclusion.

The track record of conservative politicians speaks for itself on the matter, that's what Motavalli was commenting on. Their motivation is rather irrelevant when their actions have the same result. Government regulation pushed EV innovation and gave us the EV1, RAV4EV, RangerEV, S10EV, etc., removal of those regulations killed it, plain and simple. We need to push for efficiency faster than an unregulated market place will allow. The market often gets things wrong, because people often make stupid purchases. We are on the edge of a crisis and need to act quickly if there is any chance of avoiding it.

 

[JRP3]

Price - including cost to install a charging station in your home.
Range - including the ability to travel cross-country.
Time to recharge - both at home and on cross country.

It really all comes down to the batteries, which are improving steadily. It will happen. I'm still betting the price crossover comes within 10 years.

The charger should be built into the car, as most of us have done.
Range is dependent upon charge stations, just as ICE's depend upon gas stations. Truth is no one needs to travel across country and rarely do so, if ever. Rent an ICE, take a train, or fly, as most people do. Actually most people just stay home, which makes the most sense.
Price crossover depends on battery price and fuel price. I'll bet it happens in less than 5 years. 100,000 mile of driving at an average of 25mpg is 4000 gallons of gas. At $3 per gallon that's $12K you have to add on to the price of your ICE, plus oil changes. At $4 per gallon it's $16K. I'd say at $3+ a gallon a LEAF looks very attractive even without the rebate, with the rebate it's already a deal.

 

[Jason Lattimer]

No, what killed it was the fact that it was an endless pit. The technology wasn't ready for prime time yet. The few people who wanted those vehicles couldn't afford them. They were produced in too small a number, weren't sold outside of the few zones you were allowed to own one and were still using old battery technology that nobody wanted to buy.
Now we have lithium, its getting cheaper, and the vehicles are going to be sold everywhere. Not just in California and Arizona. I live in Ohio and I couldn't get one if I had the money anyways.

Besides there are no mandates currently pushing people to have to sell a product that doesn't work well, or at all. Yes there are incentives, but that alone won't push people into buying something that is not readily accepted by the mainstream yet.

Another problem I see with your stance is this:
Making current era gasoline cars and whatnot more efficient also translates into making them cost more and more money. It doesn't make electrics and more efficient cars cheaper, it makes currently affordable cars less affordable to lower income people. They will instead choose to buy and run cheaper older cars that dont run as well or efficient.

An example is myself, my wife and I wanted a new car. So we went out and bought the only new car we could afford, a Toyota Yaris. Almost everything else is close to or more than 20 thousand dollars. Waaaay out of our price range.

 

[PhantomPholly]

The track record of conservative politicians speaks for itself on the matter, that's what Motavalli was commenting on.p.

Yes, it does. As I pointed out in a post above, "voting no on a spending bill" does not mean that you are against EVs. Considering that a bill containing even a provision that I would not balk at concerning EVs (and I'm pretty much against any legislation targeting them in any way) is likely to contain hundreds of other spending provisions I probably oppose, voting "no" on such bills is common sense and in the best interests of America.

Their motivation is rather irrelevant when their actions have the same result.

And what result is that? Have Republicans suddenly outlawed EVs, or the invention of better batteries?

Once again, this is a case just as I described in my post above - that Liberals attack anyone not approaching an issue from the perspective that "more regulation and spending is better" are to be attacked and demonized as "against" whatever it is they happen to be promoting that day.

I would say that exactly the opposite is true - that those who try to involve government through regulation and spending in issues that are best handled by the market are the ones truly AGAINST EVs, because (as YOU say) "Their motivation is rather irrelevant when their actions have the same result." And, I can back that up with concrete examples from history, whereas you can find no such historical supporting evidence to show that overarching government control of the market accelerates advancements.

Government regulation pushed EV innovation and gave us the EV1, RAV4EV, RangerEV, S10EV, etc., ...

Funny, I thought it was GM; Toyoty; Ford; etc.

... removal of those regulations killed it, plain and simple.

Ah yes, the simplistic world of Progressives. Everything is the fault of those who oppose 100% taxation and believe that those evil rich people could possibly be good for society. But, in the spirit of providing a plain and simple explanation for why these things failed, let's remind everyone that prices for these EVs were too high to attract buyers, and utility (range, ability to take long distance trips) was too low on these vehicles for even the most avid EV supporter to stomach. Regulation cannot bring those prices down nor the utility up; only innovation can. Innovation won't work unless there is profit. Taxing non-EVs lowers profit for everyone, stifling innovation. Thus, government involvement is the cause of slowed research, not the solution.

We need to push for efficiency faster than an unregulated market place will allow. The market often gets things wrong, because people often make stupid purchases.

"We need more regulation and taxation because people are stupid and I know better than they do!" Yeah, right - see where that has gotten us so far. $13 trillion in debt and growing...

We are on the edge of a crisis and need to act quickly if there is any chance of avoiding it.

Yes here it is folks, as predictable as rain - the "Crisis" excuse. Ok I'll take this bait. Find me one whole single year - any year in recorded human history - when politicians were NOT saying we are on the edge of a crisis. Document it.

Do that, and I'll allow that Liberalism isn't ABSOLUTELY unworkable, just astronomically unlikely.

 

[JRP3]

The crisis is the continuing world population explosion coupled with an increasing percentage of that population that is going to driving cars. Add to that increasingly hard to get/expensive oil and what do you think might happen? When the rest of the world starts to consume at the rate the US does it's not going to be good for anyone. We don't have time to wait for the market to make a VHS or Beta choice. There is an opportunity for us as a nation to seize the day and make a concerted effort to live more efficiently and start building products once again instead of more unnecessary service industries that produce nothing but overpriced consumables. The oil industry has benefited from years of governmental support from the very beginning, time for the EV industry to get the same.