Who's trying to kill the electric car now?

Seems like the automotive press has been really dissing EVs over the last several months. For example, checkout this video from Autoline Detroit as a recent example. The EV discussion begins at about 10:00. You could cut the FUD with a knife!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqAukFe9fls[/youtube]

ENIAC said:

Seems like the automotive press has been really dissing EVs over the last several months. For example, checkout this video from Autoline Detroit as a recent example. The EV discussion begins at about 10:00. You could cut the FUD with a knife!

Click to expand...

Peter de Lorenzo sounds like a Neanderthal (10:50).
What's with the paranoia, and why the need for such thick FUD?! :lol:

EV = EVolution

It would be fun to debate this idiots, and this is from a performance car enthusiast.

I always find it very interesting that there are those who really dislike the idea of an electric car. All I want is the option to choose what propels me along, I don't care what those idiots buy. Also I don't get why people don't understand that there very well is going to be a day where no matter how much money you won't be able to buy a drop of gas.

The rant from Peter DeLorenzo is actually his political beliefs. Both Peter DeLorenzo and the other host, John McElroy, lean far right on the political spectrum. Peter sees the EV as part of the Democrat agenda and so therefore he's against it. They both also rant against unions, any hybrid cars (except the Volt because Lutz, a fellow right wing nut, was involved with it), fuel economy, alternate fuels, etc, etc.

Wow, what a bunch of self proclaimed whack jobs with intense political leanings. I mean, from Listening to de Lorenzo, you'd think all EV enthusiasts are Pinko Commies! He shamelessly insinuates that EV's can only go a few miles and will only be good for the co-op shopper: “if you have a huggable day in Santa Rosa and you can drive 2.3 miles to your collective to do whatever you are going to do that day, and drive 3.3 or maybe 2.8 miles back because you have to drive back to the collective Farm to get your groceries, fine drive an EV, that’s your choice…
The auto extremist, Peter de Lerenzo”

I get the feeling that such politically laden extremism is the very kind of thing that has driven many manufacturers to keep real choice out of the hands of consumers. Glad that day is ending!!!!!!

Peter de Lorenzo, may you rust in peace!

g

The whole problem is that oil is priced too low. Tom Friedman from the NY Times has been saying that for years. And the reason oil is priced so low is that the country lacks the political to price oil appropriately.

Technically their arguments fail on many fronts but their basic claim that CARB mandates are terribly wrong-headed is right on. The mandates are also unnecessary at this point in time. That train has left the station. There are going to be lots of EVs on the road in the coming years, mandates or no mandates.

Glad he does not live in CA but feels the need to speak for those of us that do.

I learned that nuclear waste emits emissions - I guess they are more confused than I thought.

EVDRIVER said:

Glad he does not live in CA but feels the need to speak for those of us that do.

Click to expand...

On top of that he's from Detroit. Someone from Detroit dissing the CA economy? Detroit has been in a depression this entire century.

When they compare the cost of driving an EV, the anti-EV people will bring the cost of electricity generation and how dirty that is and how it degrades the efficiency. However, no one talks about the cost of exploration of oil, the extraction, the transportation of crude, the energy to process the crude and finally transportation and pumping of gasoline. Also, electric power is about 7 to 8 times more efficient in terms of energy usage when converting to mechanical motion compared to gasoline (for the mileage obtained by a compact ICE engine).

Typical California conservative mumbo jumbo. If they don't like that the majority of Californians want cleaner air to breath they can leave and go pollute some other state, like Arizona. I'm sure they will be welcomed with open arms there.

wishboneash said:

When they compare the cost of driving an EV, the anti-EV people will bring the cost of electricity generation and how dirty that is and how it degrades the efficiency. However, no one talks about the cost of exploration of oil, the extraction, the transportation of crude, the energy to process the crude and finally transportation and pumping of gasoline. Also, electric power is about 7 to 8 times more efficient in terms of energy usage when converting to mechanical motion compared to gasoline (for the mileage obtained by a compact ICE engine).

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I'm thinking. The anti EV people always bring up that we need to calculate the pollution of producing electricity and compare that to the ICE vehicles exhaust. If that is the case then the pollution of creating the gas for the ICE vehicle and the pollution it makes when burning the gas should be added to the total pollution the ICE vehicle creates. I would guarantee that that the EV would win every time by a very wide margin. There is very ignorant people in this world.

These guys are total idiots!

marccbr said:

Typical California conservative mumbo jumbo. If they don't like that the majority of Californians want cleaner air to breath they can leave and go pollute some other state, like Arizona. I'm sure they will be welcomed with open arms there.

Click to expand...

Californians are not the only people that want to breath clean air!

marccbr said:

wishboneash said:

When they compare the cost of driving an EV, the anti-EV people will bring the cost of electricity generation and how dirty that is and how it degrades the efficiency. However, no one talks about the cost of exploration of oil, the extraction, the transportation of crude, the energy to process the crude and finally transportation and pumping of gasoline. Also, electric power is about 7 to 8 times more efficient in terms of energy usage when converting to mechanical motion compared to gasoline (for the mileage obtained by a compact ICE engine).

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I'm thinking. The anti EV people always bring up that we need to calculate the pollution of producing electricity and compare that to the ICE vehicles exhaust. If that is the case then the pollution of creating the gas for the ICE vehicle and the pollution it makes when burning the gas should be added to the total pollution the ICE vehicle creates. I would guarantee that that the EV would win every time by a very wide margin. There is very ignorant people in this world.

Click to expand...

come on, we all know that crude oil grows on trees and gasoline is produced when the fruit ferments on the ground. You just pick it up and put it in your tank.
The fantasy about the pollution-free production and shipping of crude and ditto for the refining and delivery of gasoline is a piece with the fact-free argument that employers will flee group health car in 2014 when the health care act clicks in with penalties for employers who don't provide it.
Conservadumbs argue that employers will choose to pay the penalty because it costs less than paying for group health care.
Well, health care costs more than the penalty, now; because there is no penalty.

I can't figure out how a 5% EV mandate could in anyway be considered a threat to an auto enthusiast. If these two thought about it for a moment they would realize that for EV not buying gasoline means potentially gasoline more for them. If they thought about it further they would also realize that auto enthusiast doesn't necessarily mean ICE enthusiast. I suspect every Tesla Roadster owner is very much an auto enthusiast.

thankyouOB said:

...Conservadumbs argue that employers will choose to pay the penalty because it costs less than paying for group health care...

Click to expand...

You don't need to use derogatory labels. I am right-leaning, yet like many other Californians with my beliefs, I also tend to favor "green" policies. We can respectfully disagree on certain other issues. With the right attitude, friendships can exist across the political spectrum.

Also, I agree with those who have suggested that ZEV mandates are mostly a waste of time. Better would be to focus on deploying more public charging infrastructure.

abasile said:

thankyouOB said:

...Conservadumbs argue that employers will choose to pay the penalty because it costs less than paying for group health care...

Click to expand...

You don't need to use derogatory labels. I am right-leaning, yet like many other Californians with my beliefs, I also tend to favor "green" policies. We can respectfully disagree on certain other issues. With the right attitude, friendships can exist across the political spectrum.

Also, I agree with those who have suggested that ZEV mandates are mostly a waste of time. Better would be to focus on deploying more public charging infrastructure.

Click to expand...

I quite agree on the labels. I'm very left-leaning, but there's no place for that kind of name calling here. As far as the mandates...they don't mean much, except that they were the impetus that got the incentives to buyers and for infrastructure done. Yes, I'm saying that politicians passing mandates are mainly useful to get themselves to move on legislation...but if it works, why argue?

I can never remember which way a conservative is supposed to lean.... :?

I favor anything that gets us to use less foreign oil. I wrote to my congress people asking that they vote to repeal the tax subsidies given to oil companies. I also wrote to them asking that they refrain from partisan politics and think of what is best for their constituents instead of the party line. Not sure if it did any good.

I also found myself agreeing with President Obama on several things recently. :shock: