Amusing electric car stats

formatting link

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen
Loading thread data ...

Have to submit an application with scans of the purchase agreement, registration, VIN and stuff like that here, it doesn't happen automatically:

Since you purchased a plug-in hybrid prior to the first of this year when they changed the qualifications to strictly-BEV or fuel cell you should still be eligible for a rebate on it

Reply to
bitrex

My first Chevy dealer didn't tell me anything about the program either, it's mad that salespeople _in Massachusetts_ weren't aware of this program applicability to plug-in hybrids to use as a selling point "Hey you know you can get a check that will probably cover your down payment and/or excise tax", solid sales-prevention tactics

Reply to
bitrex

At 1:31 it appears to have a tail-light out already, or perhaps it just came with a single tail-light stock and the other was optional equipment.

Reply to
bitrex

Grin. Fine, hand crafted, German engineering.

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

US and Asian compact car offerings in the 1980s were better but not by a whole lot.

I had a friend in college in the mid 1990s with a Pontiac/Daewoo LeMans, it only burned half a quart of oil every couple of weeks so it was a keeper.

Reply to
bitrex

ction

common

at

ue.

to

cle

y.

t's car horsepower.

p

The Trabant, as bad as it is, is luxury compared to some things that have s een varying levels of mass production. Take the aptly named the Willam Sulk y. I'd be sulky if I had to rely on one of those. Or many pre-1910 cars, so me of which are little more than a pallet, park bench & lawnmower engine. B riggs & Stratton Flyer for example - someone decided that by having 5 wheel s it didn't need a clutch.

It's a shame Doble went out of business.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

The Yugo gets a lot of stick, but it did the job and didn't pretend to be anything more than it was, a bottom end car. A mid range used car was a better buy.

Ladas also got a lot of stick but were better than many of the western equivalents.

1.1 in a little fiesta size box is more than enough. I had a 1.1 in a mid-sized estate once - sluggish but drivable. A 1.3 in a Fiesta was a bit wild.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

Come on Win. I thought you were an intellectual. The check, you're missing the check! :-)

Reply to
amdx

seen varying levels of mass production. Take the aptly named the Willam Su lky. I'd be sulky if I had to rely on one of those. Or many pre-1910 cars, some of which are little more than a pallet, park bench & lawnmower engine. Briggs & Stratton Flyer for example - someone decided that by having 5 whe els it didn't need a clutch.

The Trabi was a 1950s economy car for a poor communist country with an econ omy trashed by the war. It was a car people struggled to afford. With that in mind it was quite an appropriate design in its day. The west grew richer by the 90s, East Germany not so much. People still struggled to buy even T rabants. The Trabi shocked people by illuminating the economic differences between so-called communism & prosperous capitalism.

Given the economic circumstances in East Germany, a western style car would not have been appropriate in '90 or '91, it would be expensive for mass tr ansport. Perhaps a 3rd version of the Trabant may have made more sense: an economical engine, better brakes, a fuel gauge and getting rid of the plast ic-wasting fins.

The Trabi got the country motorised. Wherever you look at cars that did tha t, they weren't good, they were just corner cutting cheap. Ford T, Austin 7 , Polski Fiat 127p, Beetle etc.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

And then stripped by the Russians.

It was a car people struggled to afford. With that in mind it was quite an appropriate design in its day. The west grew richer by the 90s, East Germany not so much. People still struggled to buy even Trabants. The Trabi shocked people by illuminating the economic differences between so-called communism & prosperous capitalism.

By the end, the Trabant and Wartburg sold for less than the cost of materials. IOW there was no rate of pay or of interest where they'd be a paying proposition.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs 
Principal Consultant 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Phil Hobbs

ve seen varying levels of mass production. Take the aptly named the Willam Sulky. I'd be sulky if I had to rely on one of those. Or many pre-1910 cars , some of which are little more than a pallet, park bench & lawnmower engin e. Briggs & Stratton Flyer for example - someone decided that by having 5 w heels it didn't need a clutch.

onomy trashed by the war.

it was introduced September '57 so it was barely there for the 50's

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

There were IFA and Wartburg before the speed cardboard (Trabant), all from EMW (Eisenacher Motoren-Werke).

The IFA had a resemblance to pre-war BMW.

--

-TV
Reply to
Tauno Voipio

Lol! You can always count on John Larkin to provide an opinion on any topi c based on as little knowledge he has no matter what.

For sure the early adopters of electric cars are willing to accept various degrees of inconvenience in the early days of acceptance.

What John refuses to accept is that EVs have enormous advantages over ICE v ehicles and in some 10 to 20 years will come to dominate the market. This is not idle speculations, just ask the big iron auto makers. They all see the writing on the wall and are spinning the wheel to turn their ships. It will take some time and they understand that a large charging network will be needed. They also understand that the market is not centered in Detrio t, but rather Shenzhen. That's where Tesla's next factory will be built an d that is where GM will be selling their new EVs first.

While EVs have been bought to date mostly by "enthusiasts" it doesn't mean the cars are without value. I've had mine for over 6 months now and the ma in issue I have is that I am not a typical user in that nearly every mile I drive is part of a trip away from home. While most people will drive loca lly or take trips to places where they can charge overnight (it's not at al l hard to find hotels with level 2 charging) many of my trips are to places with only 120 volt charging.

By the time all the big iron manufacturers are selling EVs (in three or fou r years) here in the US, there will be sufficient charging facilities and d riving an EV will be a snap.

There is some real irony that John Larkin's biggest use case against drivin g an EV is his infrequent drive to Truckee where there are already two char ging stations and a third is being built. Further there are half a dozen p laces to charge on the way. He acts like it is an incredible imposition fo r him to stop along the way for 10 or 15 minutes which many people will wan t to do anyway on a long drive. I just drove a trip of the same length las t week in the cold and made it no problem. His trip would start in the muc h warmer SF climate and driving a model 3 he would make it to Truckee with

16% to spare.

Rather than learn something about driving an EV, John just wants to denigra te things he knows nothing about.

Rick C.

++ Get 6 months of free supercharging ++ Tesla referral code -
formatting link
Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

:

rote:

ctric car

ions are

uable as

es. The average car spends 95% of its time parked, and it makes sense to ch arge it where it's parked, rather than having to make trip to a charging st ation.

g" and can work all the time except when it doesn't. Your support of it is based on a single data point and as we've discussed before this is not eno ugh information to adequately characterize the situation.

oint.

the "single data point" that you are claiming that you have identified.

d argument.

single data point".

ch of your thinking regarding EVs. Unfortunately there is a *lot* of infor mation that single datum hides.

nt on to point out.

e, 16% of the time parked away from home.

ay, and I dug up a link that showed that proportion didn't drop much below

88% at any time - it may look as if every car in the area is on the road at peak commuting times, but the figures don't seem to support that point of view.

point in time. It is only useful when used to store energy to be released at another time. If the car is in transit at the time its energy is needed , it can't be used. Energy needs to be drawn at peak usage times. This i s exactly when the availability drops to the minimum for commuting cars.

, 50%?

What time?

Besides, the cars being available is a much deeper issue than just the cars not being driven which we have also discussed and you have no useful argum ent other than that people "will be compensated". You ignore the issue of people not wanting to degrade the most expensive and fragile part of an EV. There is no reason why it would be less costly for the power company to r ent auto batteries than to utilize dedicated batteries for grid use. The i dea of time sharing is invalid because they are a consumable rather than a capital item.

ime-in-the-US

k it says or at least not what you are claiming.

sharply peaked - there are no more than twice as many cars on the road at peak times as there are in the middle of the day.

We have discussed this and I believe your facts are not accurate. Wasn't t hat based on accident rate or something not necessarily a constant?

built a Supercharger network to support travel.

m to be unusual in this respect.

ueling along the way, even if only on the return trip. So they care about recharging on route.

ive investment in charging stations.

That is clearly an assumption on your part. If it weren't a massive invest ment why wouldn't the chargers be in place well above demand? Instead ther e are very few level 3 chargers in this country other than the Tesla networ k of Superchargers and there are spot congestion problems with that. No, t he investment required for a robust charging network remotely similar to th e network for ICE autos is not here because of the large investment require d.

ties and there is no money to add them. L2 chargers are all that is needed for long term parking (home and work are the most useful). But many home locations simply don't have facilities to support this and it can be very e xpensive to add them.

ower point.

olt outlet by her parking space in the garage of the apartment building in CA. CA has a law that says the apartment owners have to accommodate her ne eds, but at her expense. They seem to be cooperating with her, but the wor k involved is not like adding a 20 foot wire and outlet in your garage.

ays to charge more on top of this - mechanically robust protection for what otherwise would be an accessible power lead, and an insurance inspection t o prove that putting in the wiring is not going to set up any kid of potent ially hazardous situation. Lazy apartment owners know how to get out of in convenient requests.

llow the apartment owner to avoid doing the job - with enough margin built in to allow them to over-compensate themselves if the person had persisted.

You don't know what you are talking about. That was the quote from an inst aller to the consumer. The apartment owner had nothing to do with it. In fact, once they went through the process of learning the law which only say s they can't refuse the installation but puts all the expense on the renter , they realized their was little down side and a lot of upside for future r enters, so they were very much behind it.

concern me is vandalism. Because they are new I would expect some percent age of them to be damaged or the cables stolen for the copper inside. But then I'm not an apartment type of person.

are key-operated gates on every entry point. The cars stored there are a l ot more valuable than a length of copper cable.

much they can steal for money. I know of people stealing copper for the mo netary value and I know of chargers that have been vandalized.

Charger vandalism happens.

.

ividual who lives in the apartment. There are lots of those.

o have provide charging if they want to be able to rent their apartments to people who need to keep a car.

Yeah, so? Common place is a long way off. In the meantime it is an expens e borne by the renter. Even if the apartment owner installs the charging e quipment it is a significant expense which is what you were contradicting.

they don't have their own wells or grow their own food.

ost have power points adequate for regular power tools. Plugging a car char ger into such a power point isn't comparable with digging a well.

you.

Lol. You always fall back to non-arguments when you lose a point. So we c an just stop discussing this issue. Adding even L2 charging is a long way from "free". Sure it can be done. In a new installation it is likely much less money, but as a retro fit it is not inexpensive.

Lol. Ok, further confirmation.

for the electricity so they need to be connected to the appropriate meter and then run to an appropriate parking space.

d even parking meters can now recognise regular cash cards.

in Bethesda, MD (a restaurant Mecca). It would be nice to get something f or that money. But those meters don't have power.

In Canada a parking meter has a low-powered power socket for your car's ra diator warmer - and your parking charge pays for that current.

ers... after they've increased the power capability ten fold or more.

limitng

n active current limiter that turns off the voltage if the load gets too gr eedy.

Huh??? You mean just don't even try to charge cars? Yes, I suppose that m akes sense, but mitigates your point of charging cars from existing meters.

That's a *lot* of money to cough up even if it makes money in the end. It won't happen overnight and in the mean time there aren't good places to cha rge in general, other than at the fast chargers or at home if possible.

a mains electricity supply and the information link to report and verify c redit card transactions, and beefing that up to support domestic charging c urrents isn't going to make much difference to the price - which is mostly digging the holes and filling them in afterwards.

-Memo-PDF

an just having batteries.

You mean replace? The same person who removes the coins I expect.

here you walk to a kiosk to buy a parking permit. Then you would need an e xtension cord half a block long. They would be stolen.

ng garages have lights, and the copper leads to those lights don't get stol en - it's a known problem with a known solution which you seem to lack the wit to have noticed.

I have no idea what your point is. You just seem to be grasping at anythin g you can contradict rather than trying to discuss the issue. The problem is installing charging where street parking is in use is expensive. Typica l low current L2 charging is 30 amps at 240 volts. That will require a sep arate wire for each outlet unless a single high current wire is run to mult iple outlets such as 3 gauge. The wire has to be run in a conduit and in t he case of curb side parking that conduit would be underground requiring di gging up the sidewalk or road. The quote for one of these installations wa s $8,000 and in the discussion thread on the Tesla site no one said this qu ote was grossly over priced. So figure the average price for similar outle ts to be installed is this number and about 10 cars per block, that's $160,

000 per block on each street. That is millions just in a smaller city like Frederick, MD of which there are many in the US... so yes, installing conv eniently located level 2 charging universally is an enormous expense.

Rick C.

--- Get 6 months of free supercharging --- Tesla referral code -

formatting link

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

te:

0%, 50%?

Beat me.

rs not being driven which we have also discussed and you have no useful arg ument other than that people "will be compensated".

That sounds like a pretty useful argument to me.

and fragile part of an EV.

The bodywork of the car is more expensive and much more fragile.

nt auto batteries than to utilize dedicated batteries for grid use.

There are going to be more car batteries around (when electric vehicle pene tration gets over about 30%) than the utility companies would ever need.

Why should the power company tie up capital in their own battery storage wh en they can rent car batteries in parked vehicles?

than a capital item.

People drive cars despite the fact that the cars break when they hit someth ing or get hit. The batteries are consumable only if the car doesn't get co nsumed in a traffic accident before the batteries wear out.

-time-in-the-US

ink it says or at least not what you are claiming.

't sharply peaked - there are no more than twice as many cars on the road a t peak times as there are in the middle of the day.

So find your own. If you can't find other evidence to contradict mine, your beliefs are mere expressions of irrational prejudice, and posting them is a waste of bandwidth.

t?

Check out the link. It's based on the incidence of fatal accidents - if you don't like it, find something better.

a built a Supercharger network to support travel.

eem to be unusual in this respect.

efueling along the way, even if only on the return trip. So they care abou t recharging on route.

ssive investment in charging stations.

stment why wouldn't the chargers be in place well above demand?

Who invests in providing services that won't be used or paid for?

e Tesla network of Superchargers and there are spot congestion problems wit h that. No, the investment required for a robust charging network remotely similar to the network for ICE autos is not here because of the large inve stment required.

Of course it's not here yet. Electric vehicle penetration is at about 1% in the US, if rising rapidly, and people have to find the money to invest to exploit the new and expanding market.

lities and there is no money to add them. L2 chargers are all that is need ed for long term parking (home and work are the most useful). But many hom e locations simply don't have facilities to support this and it can be very expensive to add them.

power point.

volt outlet by her parking space in the garage of the apartment building i n CA. CA has a law that says the apartment owners have to accommodate her needs, but at her expense. They seem to be cooperating with her, but the w ork involved is not like adding a 20 foot wire and outlet in your garage.

ways to charge more on top of this - mechanically robust protection for wh at otherwise would be an accessible power lead, and an insurance inspection to prove that putting in the wiring is not going to set up any kid of pote ntially hazardous situation. Lazy apartment owners know how to get out of inconvenient requests.

allow the apartment owner to avoid doing the job - with enough margin buil t in to allow them to over-compensate themselves if the person had persiste d.

staller to the consumer. The apartment owner had nothing to do with it. I n fact, once they went through the process of learning the law which only s ays they can't refuse the installation but puts all the expense on the rent er, they realized their was little down side and a lot of upside for future renters, so they were very much behind it.

The installer realised that they could rip off the tenant big-time, and the apartment owners realised that they could get a bigger kick-back from the installer on future jobs. It's not difficult to make a job look expensive, and if the renter couldn't get alternative quotations they'd be hard presse d to prove that they were being ripped off.

ld concern me is vandalism. Because they are new I would expect some perce ntage of them to be damaged or the cables stolen for the copper inside. Bu t then I'm not an apartment type of person.

re are key-operated gates on every entry point. The cars stored there are a lot more valuable than a length of copper cable.

t much they can steal for money. I know of people stealing copper for the monetary value and I know of chargers that have been vandalized.

So does every other kind of petty crime. It's not something that can't be c oped with.

ay.

ndividual who lives in the apartment. There are lots of those.

to have provide charging if they want to be able to rent their apartments to people who need to keep a car.

nse borne by the renter. Even if the apartment owner installs the charging equipment it is a significant expense which is what you were contradicting .

Implausible anecdotal evidence of what sound like a rip-off is exactly pers uasive.

e they don't have their own wells or grow their own food.

Most have power points adequate for regular power tools. Plugging a car ch arger into such a power point isn't comparable with digging a well.

o you.

.

You think that restating your irrational prejudice is "proving a point".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

:

rote:

80%, 50%?

Exactly...

cars not being driven which we have also discussed and you have no useful a rgument other than that people "will be compensated".

And there is the crux of the issue. You believe stuff that you can't suppo rt in any meaningful way. There are no small number of plans that sound go od on the surface, but fail because the public isn't sure they want to part icipate. This is one that people will clearly be very cautious about and p rovides no economic benefit to the power utilities. For the same net costs they can utilize dedicated batteries and be certain they will be available when needed. Or they can base the stability of the grid on an easily spoo ked populace.

ve and fragile part of an EV.

Perhaps the Tesla model S or the overly complex model X, but not the high v olume produced model 3 and the following autos a system like this will be b ased on. Heck, the Nissan Leaf barely has enough battery to make the trips it needs to make with little to spare to the utility company.

rent auto batteries than to utilize dedicated batteries for grid use.

netration gets over about 30%) than the utility companies would ever need.

when they can rent car batteries in parked vehicles?

They are a capital intensive company. Their compensation is regulated and based on their capital investment. That sounds like a reason why they woul d hate your plan. Also, they can use other people's capital if they want. The power company can contract with investors to use batteries they build, just like power generation. It's all profit to the utilities who don't co mpete, they just have to get the regulators to approve.

er than a capital item.

thing or get hit. The batteries are consumable only if the car doesn't get consumed in a traffic accident before the batteries wear out.

Yeah, I suppose some portion of cars are destroyed before the battery would be worn out. Who banks on that??? You keep raising all the same stupid a rguments that make no sense what so ever.

en-time-in-the-US

think it says or at least not what you are claiming.

sn't sharply peaked - there are no more than twice as many cars on the road at peak times as there are in the middle of the day.

ur beliefs are mere expressions of irrational prejudice, and posting them i s a waste of bandwidth.

So because your data is not very accurate, we should accept it until we can come up with better numbers???

Your evidence is invalid based on a prima-facie analysis. Clearly there ar e a lot fewer cars on the road at 1 AM than at 5 PM. Your data says otherw ise. Which should I believe, your data or my first hand experience? Is yo u experience different? Do you see only half as many cars on the roads at

1 AM as at 5 PM?

In fact, the table lists Sunday, midnight to 2:59 AM as the most accident p rone time of the week. I suppose that is also the time of heaviest traffic ???

Clearly you are pretty poor at interpreting data.

ant?

ou don't like it, find something better.

Better than that? My personal experience which I'm sure closely matches yo urs says your data is total crap!

sla built a Supercharger network to support travel.

seem to be unusual in this respect.

refueling along the way, even if only on the return trip. So they care ab out recharging on route.

massive investment in charging stations.

vestment why wouldn't the chargers be in place well above demand?

Uh, anyone who sees the service is enabling for the product they are sellin g... like Tesla... and VW (entirely separate from Electrify America which i s in response to their Dieselgate fraud penalty).

formatting link

-energy-storage-group

the Tesla network of Superchargers and there are spot congestion problems w ith that. No, the investment required for a robust charging network remote ly similar to the network for ICE autos is not here because of the large in vestment required.

in the US, if rising rapidly, and people have to find the money to invest t o exploit the new and expanding market.

Not even 1%. But like color shows and TVs there won't be much EV sales if there aren't good ways to charge them. It's still early days and many char gers will be built over the next few years, but they are an essential enabl ing component to selling EVs. Tesla and VW get that. GM didn't, so the Bo lt has barely sold.

cilities and there is no money to add them. L2 chargers are all that is ne eded for long term parking (home and work are the most useful). But many h ome locations simply don't have facilities to support this and it can be ve ry expensive to add them.

er power point.

40 volt outlet by her parking space in the garage of the apartment building in CA. CA has a law that says the apartment owners have to accommodate he r needs, but at her expense. They seem to be cooperating with her, but the work involved is not like adding a 20 foot wire and outlet in your garage.

nd ways to charge more on top of this - mechanically robust protection for what otherwise would be an accessible power lead, and an insurance inspecti on to prove that putting in the wiring is not going to set up any kid of po tentially hazardous situation. Lazy apartment owners know how to get out o f inconvenient requests.

to allow the apartment owner to avoid doing the job - with enough margin bu ilt in to allow them to over-compensate themselves if the person had persis ted.

installer to the consumer. The apartment owner had nothing to do with it. In fact, once they went through the process of learning the law which only says they can't refuse the installation but puts all the expense on the re nter, they realized their was little down side and a lot of upside for futu re renters, so they were very much behind it.

he apartment owners realised that they could get a bigger kick-back from th e installer on future jobs. It's not difficult to make a job look expensive , and if the renter couldn't get alternative quotations they'd be hard pres sed to prove that they were being ripped off.

Again, the actual facts don't agree with your narrative, so you make up you r own facts. lol Are you working for Trump?

ould concern me is vandalism. Because they are new I would expect some per centage of them to be damaged or the cables stolen for the copper inside. But then I'm not an apartment type of person.

here are key-operated gates on every entry point. The cars stored there are a lot more valuable than a length of copper cable.

not much they can steal for money. I know of people stealing copper for th e monetary value and I know of chargers that have been vandalized.

coped with.

e.

pay.

individual who lives in the apartment. There are lots of those.

ng to have provide charging if they want to be able to rent their apartment s to people who need to keep a car.

pense borne by the renter. Even if the apartment owner installs the chargi ng equipment it is a significant expense which is what you were contradicti ng.

rsuasive.

So you don't like my evidence? Come up with your own! lol

ike they don't have their own wells or grow their own food.

t. Most have power points adequate for regular power tools. Plugging a car charger into such a power point isn't comparable with digging a well.

to you.

ce.

I just know when you are flailing around looking for support. You can be s uch a trip! Not really much different from JL, except he posts stupid stuf f we all can see is wrong, but he doesn't realize it. You post stupid stuf f we all can see is wrong and you actually know it is wrong, but don't like losing an argument, so you won't acknowledge it.

Rick C.

--+ Get 6 months of free supercharging --+ Tesla referral code -

formatting link

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

e:

te:

%? 80%, 50%?

e cars not being driven which we have also discussed and you have no useful argument other than that people "will be compensated".

port in any meaningful way.

I can support it, but you don't like the evidence, even if you can't find c ounter-evidence.

ail because the public isn't sure they want to participate. This is one th at people will clearly

In your opinion.

ities.

The capital investment they could avoid by renting access to existing batte ries would look like an economic benefit to anybody who knew anything about economics.

n they will be available when needed. Or they can base the stability of th e grid on an easily spooked populace.

You'd have to spook a lot of them, all at once, to make a perceptible diffe rence. This is improbable.

sive and fragile part of an EV.

volume produced model 3 and the following autos a system like this will be based on. Heck, the Nissan Leaf barely has enough battery to make the tri ps it needs to make with little to spare to the utility company.

Your crystal ball is telling all kinds of things that you like to hear.

o rent auto batteries than to utilize dedicated batteries for grid use.

Capital investment is a cost. You could get interest on the money you would invest in buying batteries.

penetration gets over about 30%) than the utility companies would ever need .

e when they can rent car batteries in parked vehicles?

d based on their capital investment. That sounds like a reason why they wo uld hate your plan. Also, they can use other people's capital if they want . The power company can contract with investors to use batteries they buil d, just like power generation. It's all profit to the utilities who don't compete, they just have to get the regulators to approve.

The regulator won't look kindly on capital investment in batteries that uti lity companies could hire. It's call gold-plating the grid, and doesn't go down well.

ther than a capital item.

mething or get hit. The batteries are consumable only if the car doesn't ge t consumed in a traffic accident before the batteries wear out.

ld be worn out. Who banks on that??? You keep raising all the same stupid arguments that make no sense what so ever.

Make no sense to you. The stupidity here is yours.

iven-time-in-the-US

u think it says or at least not what you are claiming.

isn't sharply peaked - there are no more than twice as many cars on the ro ad at peak times as there are in the middle of the day.

your beliefs are mere expressions of irrational prejudice, and posting them is a waste of bandwidth.

an come up with better numbers???

That's the real world situation. No data is perfectly accurate, and you nee d to appreciate how what you can know might differ from what's actually hap pening right now.

are a lot fewer cars on the road at 1 AM than at 5 PM.

What's your evidence for this claim?

formatting link

-the-US

You don't like the evidence but can't find anything more convincing than yo ur own irrational prejudice to set against it.

xperience different? Do you see only half as many cars on the roads at 1 A M as at 5 PM?

prone time of the week. I suppose that is also the time of heaviest traff ic???

While you seem to specialise in inventing it - which makes your "data" a lo t easier to interpret, if totally unreliable.

stant?

you don't like it, find something better.

yours says your data is total crap!

You don't like it, but you can't find anything better, and feel free to ima gine that my experience matches yours. I live close to the centre of Sydney , and there is always traffic on the roads around our appartment.

Tesla built a Supercharger network to support travel.

ou seem to be unusual in this respect.

re refueling along the way, even if only on the return trip. So they care about recharging on route.

d massive investment in charging stations.

investment why wouldn't the chargers be in place well above demand?

ing... like Tesla... and VW (entirely separate from Electrify America which is in response to their Dieselgate fraud penalty).

nd-energy-storage-group

n the Tesla network of Superchargers and there are spot congestion problems with that. No, the investment required for a robust charging network remo tely similar to the network for ICE autos is not here because of the large investment required.

% in the US, if rising rapidly, and people have to find the money to invest to exploit the new and expanding market.

f there aren't good ways to charge them. It's still early days and many ch argers will be built over the next few years, but they are an essential ena bling component to selling EVs. Tesla and VW get that. GM didn't, so the Bolt has barely sold.

The fact that you can usually recharge an electric when it is parked at hom e seems to have escaped you. At present this isn't always easy, but as elec tric vehicle penetration rises above 1% it is going to get a lot easier.

the apartment owners realised that they could get a bigger kick-back from the installer on future jobs. It's not difficult to make a job look expensi ve, and if the renter couldn't get alternative quotations they'd be hard pr essed to prove that they were being ripped off.

our own facts. lol Are you working for Trump?

Your anecdote has become a "fact"?

persuasive.

$8000 dollars to install a power point? I don't have to bother.

like they don't have their own wells or grow their own food.

uit. Most have power points adequate for regular power tools. Plugging a ca r charger into such a power point isn't comparable with digging a well.

it to you.

dice.

Strange that you should mention this.

.

such a trip! Not really much different from JL, except he posts stupid st uff we all can see is wrong, but he doesn't realize it. You post stupid st uff we all can see is wrong and you actually know it is wrong, but don't li ke losing an argument, so you won't acknowledge it.

Dream on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.