Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:You, sir, do NOT need a vehicle. This whole BEV vs ICE vs FCEV argument is pointless in your position. The lowest emission solution for your situation is to continue biking/walking/mass-transit to all your destinations and then keeping your existing vehicle for all your long range needs (or RENTING one if it's infrequent enough - maybe Zipcar?).
Congratulations! You are the very first person I've had this argument with here to recognize that. I reached that conclusion years ago without ever owning a BEV, as WetEV, you and many others have insisted I must, despite my laying out the reasons why that conclusion is false for me.
Now, assuming my ICE doesn't blow up in the next five years or so, I intend to keep it until such time as a ZEV can meet my road trip needs. However, the ideal solution from my point of view is that I would by then be able to rent a ZEV for such trips, eliminating any need for car ownership on my part at all. I do have a rental place that will pick up and drop off, but as I've already got a car sitting in my driveway that meets my needs as closely as it was possible to find when I bought it, and costs me less every additional year I own it (I have pay-per mile insurance which also incentives me not to drive it when I don't need to), it's currently cheaper to keep it.
Re Zipcar, I've considered it, but as of yet there aren't any locations convenient (walking distance) to me - the nearest ones are 2 miles and several hundred feet higher than me. Now maybe you can understand why I view wirelessly-charged AV BEVs as one of the keys to mass-scale urban adoption of BEVs.
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Your situation is unique in that it needs to weigh far more than the emissions and fueling convenience of the technologies in question and factor in the production costs and maintenance interval of the vehicles as well before determining what is "best".
Hardly unique, since U.S. Millenials are adopting the same lifestyle in large numbers.
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Funny enough, in your situation, where your fueling intervals are months apart, an FCEV is actually NOT a viable solution, since much of your "fuel" would have leaked before you make much use of it. A CNG (Honda Civic CNG) would be your lowest emission solution, since it's the lowest emission combustion-based vehicle with a somewhat decent fueling infrastructure. A state-less BEV like a Bolt could also work, since it won't vampire drain like a Tesla would, and so you can keep it parked at 70% most of the time.
I've looked at FCEV leakage rates, and they are minimal enough (and my H2 station is close enough) that it wouldn't be a significant factor. I see the occasional CNG Civic around here (there's a fueling station at a PG&E office), but that infrastructure, while currently greater in urban areas is just as lacking in the rural places I take road trips to as the still nascent H2 one, and not ZEV in any case: http://www.cnglocator.net/CNGLocationsb ... tions.html
When I switch, I want it to be all the way to ZEV with no half measures. Of course, if my car were to blow up in the interim and I decided I needed a car (I'd experiment for a couple of months with going car-less first to see if that was acceptable), then the only rational AFV choice for me would be a PHEV with a small enough battery pack (25-35 miles AER) that I could charge it off-peak overnight on L1, relying on the gas ICE during the heating months witht he occasional opportunity charge, so I'm not wasting heat out a window while charging the car by extension cord. That would at least allow me to be ZEV in populated areas.
Re vampire-free BEVs, yes, that has been a consideration for me, and given my long parking intervals might even make a BEV covered with a useful amount of solar panels valuable eventually. But car ownership is so old school, and I'n hoping I can avoid any future rounds of that entirely. Of course, if my situation were to change significantly then owning instead of renting when I need it may make sense, but my goal is to do everything in my personal power to reduce the total number of motor vehicles (and reduce their size), not just transition to a different energy source.
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Although an ICE won't need to be fueled often, it still needs maintenance, and the fuel has to be stirred to keep from going stale. Really your use case is NOT anywhere near normal for the rest of the nation (don't try to be cute and consider the "worldwide" population as that's just BS).
I've repeatedly disclaimed that my use case is typical, including several times recently in this thread. As one example, I pointed out that as a bike commuter I was part of some fraction of 1% of U.S. commuters, vs. the 76% who commute solo by car. But other countries with higher density , more walkable/bikable cities and better public transit options also drive a lot less than overweight/obese Americans do.
Re maintenance, I keep full maintenance records for my car, and because I drive it so little (65k in 15 years) and do all the required maintenance, its costs are modest. Oil changes every year or two, tune ups every 5 or 6, and I've never needed to replace brakes, clutch, transmission or any other major component on any car I've owned, and I've typically owned them for 15 years or more. Buying a reliable car and then maintaining it per the specified intervals has been very successful for me, even when I drove a lot more miles a year than I do now.
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Having written all that, I now see that you're trolling. Your transportation arrangement puts you in no position to argue with people who live in a way that reflects the habits of MOST of the nation. I now understand why your arguments seemed specious, because they were all baseless and without any grounding reality. It's the reason why "the other side" lacks comprehension, because there's nothing to comprehend other than your desire to stir the pot.
Nonsense. As noted above, at no time have I ever claimed that my usage is typical. I've also stated on numerous occasions that a BEV with convenient, guaranteed, inexpensive charging is a major plus for those in a situation to take advantage of it. I have also quoted percentages of population in various regions who are able to take advantage of that, and pointed out that the U.S. has the highest % (56% per Plug-In America survey) of households who can charge at home (at least L1), but that the rest of the world, including those countries which will be seeing the majority of car sales going forward have much lower rates of such access owing to different housing types predominating, and that what may be a societal shift (we still don't know whether it will be long-term) in attitudes to car ownership is occurring among millenials. How is any of this trolling or without any grounding in reality?
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:At this point, I anticipate that you'll retort with how you don't need direct experience to understand logical concepts. I will put you on my ignore list if that's what you truly believe.
Are you a bot?
Oh, come now. Do you really think any bot could write my replies? I've got direct experience of lots of things, including living in a car-dependent community and driving everywhere in a car like most Americans do. I chose to stop doing that, because it was bad for me and bad for the environment. Do you consider that an illogical concept or conclusion?