Why off road? Because I enjoy it, because it is a stress reliever, because it is actually useful sometimes when n the countryside, I've been in mud before on purpose, and not on purpose, a minivan would be hopelessly stuck in mud that my truck can drive out of.
Tesla is selling because it is a low volume show off car for rich people who don't care, the volume EVs are not selling cause they have to sell to people who can't waste money.
Yes, I agree that EV cars are the future, but the future is indeed not coming as fast as most would like to see.
You probably won't own that car for 150k miles. You might, but most people don't.
Gas isn't $4/gal, around here it is $2.79/gal.
Time value of money, the gas has to be paid over time, the car has to be bought up front. If I drive less, I buy less gas.
If I buy an EV, I probably plan to drive less, it has limited range, so the fuel I would use in any given year is limited. 10,000 miles driven a year, that 150,000 miles would last 15 years. That is longer than the battery lasts, add in the cost of a new battery.
Electricity isn't free, you have to add the cost of recharging. Yes, it is lower than gas, for now. If 25% of gas cars are replaced with EV cars, gas may well get cheaper, electricity may well get more expensive.
The big issue with solar/wind not being a base load supply is that, when deployed on a large scale, are incompatible with base load supplies optimized for moderately constant use.
The beauty of solar is that it provides most of its output on nice sunny days. You know, when everyone is running their AC.:) AC is a huge load problem for utilities because it runs all at the same time, but only for a few hours here and a few hours there.
Solar would help to take the spikes off that load.
Wind is simply cheaper than solar, and provides some extra power. I frankly don't think it is a very good use of land, I think it is a problem at large scale for birds, but those are separate issues. There is a lot of real estate on roofs that solar PV can be installed on without using a single foot of extra land and without really bothering anyone.
I wish to draw your attention to this image. For the power of a single nuclear reactor, you can use 430 acres of land for the nuclear reactor or 130,000 acres for solar PV panels.
Now imagine you need to install 1,000 nuclear reactors to replace coal power plants. Do you want to use 430,000 acres of land, or 130 million acres of land?
Now fast forward 50 years, there are now 14 billion people in the world, standards of living are rising and we need to produce triple the amount of power due to the increased number of people, plus their higher standard of living. Now you can either use 1.3 million acres of land for nuclear or 390 million acres for solar. But of course for 14 billion people we also need to grow twice as much food, and they all need somewhere to live.
At some point, we should consider the increasing demands of humanity in the future for more energy and the limited useful space on Earth to live and grow food, not all of the planet can be covered by stuff humans do, not even a small percentage of it, or we risk upsetting the nature balance with simply too much man made stuff.
Perhaps fusion will come online at some point and replace all this nonsense. Of course, much the same was said about nuclear 50 years ago, so who the heck knows.:)
The goal is to end all burning of fossil fuels, at some point in the future. We can debate when that might be, 30 years, 50 years, 100 years... but it clearly will either happen on our schedule, or when reasonably extractable reserves are depleted. When THAT might be is also open for debate, it might be 50 years, or 250 years... but it clearly will be *some time* in the reasonably near future.
As we build more nuclear plants, we'll get better at it and having over capacity won't really matter, we'll find something to do with that extra power besides burning it in resisters. Perhaps we'll make hydrogen by cracking water. It is expensive today, but with plenty of extra power, it can be done at low demand times.
Interesting link to the hydro pumping. I think doing that at the multi terawatt scale is going to be a problem, currently the worldwide capacity is listed at 127 gigawatts, which sounds like a lot, but it really isn't.
But as you say, it can be one among many components of a large scale energy storage grid. I just don't think it will be large enough scale and that it will ultimately be cheaper to build extra nuclear reactors and find something to do with them during low demand power time rather than try to store the energy.
The Luxury version of the XTS is $48K, the Platinum top-of-the-line version is $58K. Both are a whole lot less expensive than a Model S and are very nice performance cars.
With the V-Sport engine, the XTS will do 0-60 in 5.2 seconds and the quarter mile 13.6 seconds at 105 mph.
The Model S is slightly faster on 0-60 time at 4.6 seconds, about the same on the quarter mile at 13.3 seconds at 104 mph.
As for luxury, again very similar, a Platinum XTS is every bit as nice inside as the Model S, for a whole pile less money.
Not saying the Model S is bad, just saying that it is expensive for what it is, and it doesn't carry with it the ownership experience of a luxury brand, which if you haven't experienced it, does add something to the table.
What has changed? The price of solar panels. It will have come down even further.
Perhaps, or perhaps they will go up as well.
To get oil to $500 a barrel, you need massive inflation. Oil is priced in dollars, it won't go anywhere near that high, short of a major war, major shortage, or major inflation. All of those are likely to affect the price of everything.
Anyone doing the math on EV vs ECI should consider:
- more than the purchase price
- when doing the math, don't base the calculation on the current fuel/electricity cost, but the average cost over the next few years. (I drive ICE, here the price has gone up in about 8 years with over 30%, and there have been periods when it was 40% higher).
Where is "here"? In the US, gas prices are actually lower than they were 8 years ago. They go up and down, but overall, gas is unlikely to have huge spikes in the near future, not the timeframe of owning a car in any case.
As for "more than the purchase price", if you're referring to helping the environment, I'm not sure that is much of a valid reason. Replacing gas with coal doesn't strike me as a huge improvement. Yes, in theory coal fired power plants can be "clean", but most aren't, and I don't think many in Texas are very clean.
Frankly, if my goal is to help the environment, paying the premium to install solar PV on my roof would do more than buying an EV would.
GM has done a lot of stupid things over the years, that is one of them. They could have run with it and kept working on it, but they were so fat and happy off SUV profits that they were blind to the future and gave Toyota a huge head start.
At least GM is trying today with Volt, it isn't there yet either, but if they keep up with it, well, it is a start.
We have been camping, but that isn't really the reason for the truck. 2 adults and 3 kids on a 5 hour car ride in a Model S is just not the same experience as the same trip in a large SUV. The kids can move around in the back, we have captains chairs in the middle, so they can all sit in the third row, move to the middle row, etc. There is room for games, snacks, etc. There are two DVD screens, one in the second row and one in the third row, that is nice as well.
The front seats are comfortable and tall, it is rather like sitting up, rather than being in bucket seats, very comfortable for long drives. Gets 12 mpg in the city but closer to 20 mpg on the highway. Not bad for nearly 3 tons going 70 mph.:)
Then there is price... The Model S is $20K MORE than this truck, for half the vehicle. I don't mind spending a bit more for some things, but that is just nuts. Call me when the Model S is $40K, it will become interesting at that point. The Chevy Volt is also nice technology, but for $40K, GM is out of their minds.
I disagree; you're not their target 'yet'.
Fair enough, perhaps not... I did mean more in the "ability to pay" category, but you could well be right. My primary issue is that it also needs to make economic sense. I'm not going to spend $100K just to say I have an EV when the gas version costs half the price If the Model S is $80K, I shudder to think what a EV version of my truck would cost.:(
Price is my primary concern, with range being the second concern, but I think range can be solved with Volt technology. Supercharging doesn't really compete with filling up with gas, because if 1 hour of charging gets me 200 miles and I'm trying to drive 2,000 miles in 3 days, well, there is a math problem there.:) We need a range extender option for such trips, otherwise we'll have to keep one dead dino burning truck for those trips. I actually believe the future is in EV, not burning gas. I'd love to see a goal, within 50 years, of no longer burning fossil fuels in the US. It can be done, if we're serious about it.
Well, as a pilot you should realize that if you charter a plane you don't have to deal with all the airline terminal stuff.
Yes, that is true, but the price is also a lot higher. The cost to charter a plane is about equal to the cost of two weeks at Disney World. I'd rather take a second two week vacation than to pay for a fancy plane flight.
Sadly we have almost no train system in the US, and we'd do well with it if it wasn't for the airlines and their lobbies.
Any trip about 500 miles or less is generally better via high speed train than via airplane. The train doesn't have the weather issues of airplanes, nor security problems (it has some, but not as many, you can't really fly a train into a building).
The other benefit? The train can be electric, it is rather hard to make an electric 737.
We also have the wide open spaces need to put straight track for high speed trains.
But no, we can't have those, the airlines would lose too much business. Grr..:(
I went on an overnight train trip as a child and have fond memories of it. I've also been on British Rail, nice experience. I love trains.:)
As for EV in the US market, one of our problems is that our gas is cheap, we don't tax it like Europe does (and probably like we should). So it makes it hard for EVs to make any sense because of cheap gas.
The range issue is only a real problem for single car households, for anyone who owns 2 cars, one of them could be an EV without range being a serious issue, most of the time. Cost then becomes the primary problem.
As for other places, I firmly believe that just because something does or does not work for me or people near me, doesn't mean it can't work for someone else. If EV works for you today, great, more power to you. Not for me to judge or to take away.
I have nothing against minivans, I used to own a Honda Odyssey, very nice vehicle.
They are now behind the times when it comes to technology. Seriously, no touch screen display in the Odyssey, what are they thinking?
Power sliding doors? Very nice. Third row seat, comfortable for adults, better than the third row in the Yukon.
Storage behind the third row? Worse than in the Yukon, which is one of the biggest problems.
Towing ability? Terrible... the Yukon can be fully loaded with people and stuff, plus a trailer can be put on the back and it doesn't care, it will pull it all. The Odyssey? Not so much.
Off road? The Yukon has good ground clearance and good 4wd performance. The Odyssey? None at all. Yes, I've had my truck off road. Nothing serious, but more than you'd take an Odyssey to, and that includes mud.
Yes, many people who own Yukon/Suburbans would be better served with a minivan. Or for that matter, the Traverse/Acadia which are great vehicles for families, better than the short version of the Yukon/Tahoe for most people.
I fall into the "actually need it" category. Many people don't, but in my case, it works for me.
This is true, so perhaps not much would change. Maybe the system would become more efficient and easier to use, perhaps crime would go down and the savings from our absurd prison system would help pay for it.
Another question... at what point do machines and robots make enough "stuff" that most of us no longer need to go to a "job" anymore?
As it stands, our farm industry continues to employ fewer and fewer people. Already large tractors can drive around the fields without anyone in the cabs, machines can make machines, when do we no longer need an economy based on "manual labor" from most people?
Serious question, because I see the time coming when there is nothing left for most people to "do". McDonalds is looking into automatic hamburger machines, what happens when even fast food jobs are endangered?
My math is more like, buying a 3-4 year old car at half price and keeping it until it's 10+ years old
That indeed would be 50% (or more) less expensive than swapping out cars every 3 years (new or used).
We each put our money into whatever is important to us. My son's best friend's dad is seriously into bicycles. He has a garage full of them, over $10K worth. I think that's insane, but it is his hobby and makes him happy, so who am I to judge? He can afford it, he loves it, more power to him.:)
Thanks for the heads up. Just took a look at the pictures. Nice looking SUV, looks like a Lexus RX 350 size SUV. My Mother would love one (that is what she drives now).
Doesn't help me much, I need more space than that, I haul kids and stuff at the same time.
Any idea on price? If they could build and sell that for under $50K, I'd be interested in one as a second SUV.
For the base load issue, the problem changes from "continuous base load production" (which nuclear might provide) to "storage capacity to fill in short-term peaks" (which nuclear sucks at).
Actually, nuclear is good at that, they can burn the extra power in resistors when it isn't needed on the grid. You wouldn't do this with a coal or gas power plant since the fuel is expensive, but with nuclear, the fuel is dirt cheap, so resist away as needed and run at 100% all the time.
pumping water uphill
Do you really think we can provide major power storage this way? In the realm of terawatts of power? If so, please share the math (or links), but my understanding is that these work at smaller scale, but you'd need massive stores of power to make solar and wind the primary power sources.
These reactors are much more modern in design than what failed in Japan and is installed around most of the world.
Build a few thousand of these and you can replace a lot of coal power plants.
The primary problem with solar and wind, regardless of cost, is that they are not base load power supplies, they vary and thus are unreliable to provide constant steady power.
Some mix of them, along with nuclear, is clearly the future, if our goal is to stop burning dead dinos.
Maybe the split is 50/50, maybe it is 70/30, that can be figured out as we go.
I totally get the logic behind buying used vs. new.
Used is cheaper, no doubt about it...
That being said, over the long term, it isn't 50% cheaper.
I've done the math on buying 3 year old cars and keeping them until 6 years old, vs. buying brand new cars and selling them at 3 years old.
More less, for any given vehicle, it is about 20% more expensive to do the latter than the former.
So it costs me about $200 more a month to drive a brand new truck every 3 years rather than a 3 year old truck every 3 years. It is always in warranty, it always has the latest features, it has never been smoked in, never been abused, and I can enjoy it as my own.
For less expensive cars/trucks, the difference per month is even less. For a $24K new car, that is $400 a month to buy it at 0%, to buy the same car used would save about $80 a month over the long term.
Is that $80 a month worth it? That is a personal decision, to many people that is a lot of money and I respect that. To me? I'd rather have new, and frankly, someone has to buy new, or you'd have nothing to buy used!:)
I'm curious, if you don't mind sharing... What is the monthly cost of your Leaf and how much (if anything) did you have to put down when you bought it?
Just trying to compare a real-world example to the current leases on gas cars. I personally like the idea of EV, it just isn't there for me yet.
How sad it must be for you to view the world in terms of dick sizes.
Not really my point, I only provide the example to point out that I'm the perfect customer for EVs in general, for Tesla's very nice EVs even, I can afford them.
I'm just pointing out why I'm not a customer, and if I am not a customer, that should provide the answer for why they aren't selling.
None of the EVs are actually price-competitive at purchase time without a big rebate.
This is indeed the primary problem. I can afford an EV, I can afford to spend $20K more on an EV if I wanted to. But I didn't get to where I am by making emotional decisions with money. When it makes economic sense, I'll be first in line to buy an EV, I do believe they are the future. Burning dead dinos in our cars and trucks really has no long term future in it.
On the other hand, the Denali's name is a barely-transposed acronym. Get a smaller car.
Actually, I use every bit of it... I have 3 kids, and we're often driving around their friends as well, plus hauling stuff. I also use it for work, picking up and dropping off computer equipment.
I know that some people buy a truck like that and drive it around empty, but in my case, I really do need the space, both for kids and for cargo.
Slashdot Mirror
Why off road? Because I enjoy it, because it is a stress reliever, because it is actually useful sometimes when n the countryside, I've been in mud before on purpose, and not on purpose, a minivan would be hopelessly stuck in mud that my truck can drive out of.
He also had to stop and recharge which took far longer than filling up with gas.
Yes, I agree that EV cars are the future, but the future is indeed not coming as fast as most would like to see.
You probably won't own that car for 150k miles. You might, but most people don't.
Gas isn't $4/gal, around here it is $2.79/gal.
Time value of money, the gas has to be paid over time, the car has to be bought up front. If I drive less, I buy less gas.
If I buy an EV, I probably plan to drive less, it has limited range, so the fuel I would use in any given year is limited. 10,000 miles driven a year, that 150,000 miles would last 15 years. That is longer than the battery lasts, add in the cost of a new battery.
Electricity isn't free, you have to add the cost of recharging. Yes, it is lower than gas, for now. If 25% of gas cars are replaced with EV cars, gas may well get cheaper, electricity may well get more expensive.
The base model is close to $40K, buy them at invoice, you're about there. Close enough anyway. :)
The big issue with solar/wind not being a base load supply is that, when deployed on a large scale, are incompatible with base load supplies optimized for moderately constant use.
The beauty of solar is that it provides most of its output on nice sunny days. You know, when everyone is running their AC. :) AC is a huge load problem for utilities because it runs all at the same time, but only for a few hours here and a few hours there.
Solar would help to take the spikes off that load.
Wind is simply cheaper than solar, and provides some extra power. I frankly don't think it is a very good use of land, I think it is a problem at large scale for birds, but those are separate issues. There is a lot of real estate on roofs that solar PV can be installed on without using a single foot of extra land and without really bothering anyone.
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Infographic-nuclear-solar-wind-footprints-628x353.jpg
I wish to draw your attention to this image. For the power of a single nuclear reactor, you can use 430 acres of land for the nuclear reactor or 130,000 acres for solar PV panels.
Now imagine you need to install 1,000 nuclear reactors to replace coal power plants. Do you want to use 430,000 acres of land, or 130 million acres of land?
Now fast forward 50 years, there are now 14 billion people in the world, standards of living are rising and we need to produce triple the amount of power due to the increased number of people, plus their higher standard of living. Now you can either use 1.3 million acres of land for nuclear or 390 million acres for solar. But of course for 14 billion people we also need to grow twice as much food, and they all need somewhere to live.
At some point, we should consider the increasing demands of humanity in the future for more energy and the limited useful space on Earth to live and grow food, not all of the planet can be covered by stuff humans do, not even a small percentage of it, or we risk upsetting the nature balance with simply too much man made stuff.
Perhaps fusion will come online at some point and replace all this nonsense. Of course, much the same was said about nuclear 50 years ago, so who the heck knows. :)
As we build more nuclear plants, we'll get better at it and having over capacity won't really matter, we'll find something to do with that extra power besides burning it in resisters. Perhaps we'll make hydrogen by cracking water. It is expensive today, but with plenty of extra power, it can be done at low demand times.
Interesting link to the hydro pumping. I think doing that at the multi terawatt scale is going to be a problem, currently the worldwide capacity is listed at 127 gigawatts, which sounds like a lot, but it really isn't.
But as you say, it can be one among many components of a large scale energy storage grid. I just don't think it will be large enough scale and that it will ultimately be cheaper to build extra nuclear reactors and find something to do with them during low demand power time rather than try to store the energy.
With the V-Sport engine, the XTS will do 0-60 in 5.2 seconds and the quarter mile 13.6 seconds at 105 mph.
The Model S is slightly faster on 0-60 time at 4.6 seconds, about the same on the quarter mile at 13.3 seconds at 104 mph.
As for luxury, again very similar, a Platinum XTS is every bit as nice inside as the Model S, for a whole pile less money.
Not saying the Model S is bad, just saying that it is expensive for what it is, and it doesn't carry with it the ownership experience of a luxury brand, which if you haven't experienced it, does add something to the table.
What has changed? The price of solar panels. It will have come down even further.
Perhaps, or perhaps they will go up as well.
To get oil to $500 a barrel, you need massive inflation. Oil is priced in dollars, it won't go anywhere near that high, short of a major war, major shortage, or major inflation. All of those are likely to affect the price of everything.
Anyone doing the math on EV vs ECI should consider:
- more than the purchase price
- when doing the math, don't base the calculation on the current fuel/electricity cost, but the average cost over the next few years. (I drive ICE, here the price has gone up in about 8 years with over 30%, and there have been periods when it was 40% higher).
Where is "here"? In the US, gas prices are actually lower than they were 8 years ago. They go up and down, but overall, gas is unlikely to have huge spikes in the near future, not the timeframe of owning a car in any case.
As for "more than the purchase price", if you're referring to helping the environment, I'm not sure that is much of a valid reason. Replacing gas with coal doesn't strike me as a huge improvement. Yes, in theory coal fired power plants can be "clean", but most aren't, and I don't think many in Texas are very clean.
Frankly, if my goal is to help the environment, paying the premium to install solar PV on my roof would do more than buying an EV would.
At least GM is trying today with Volt, it isn't there yet either, but if they keep up with it, well, it is a start.
Model S range is 300, or are you going camping?
We have been camping, but that isn't really the reason for the truck. 2 adults and 3 kids on a 5 hour car ride in a Model S is just not the same experience as the same trip in a large SUV. The kids can move around in the back, we have captains chairs in the middle, so they can all sit in the third row, move to the middle row, etc. There is room for games, snacks, etc. There are two DVD screens, one in the second row and one in the third row, that is nice as well.
The front seats are comfortable and tall, it is rather like sitting up, rather than being in bucket seats, very comfortable for long drives. Gets 12 mpg in the city but closer to 20 mpg on the highway. Not bad for nearly 3 tons going 70 mph. :)
Then there is price... The Model S is $20K MORE than this truck, for half the vehicle. I don't mind spending a bit more for some things, but that is just nuts. Call me when the Model S is $40K, it will become interesting at that point. The Chevy Volt is also nice technology, but for $40K, GM is out of their minds.
I disagree; you're not their target 'yet'.
Fair enough, perhaps not... I did mean more in the "ability to pay" category, but you could well be right. My primary issue is that it also needs to make economic sense. I'm not going to spend $100K just to say I have an EV when the gas version costs half the price If the Model S is $80K, I shudder to think what a EV version of my truck would cost. :(
Price is my primary concern, with range being the second concern, but I think range can be solved with Volt technology. Supercharging doesn't really compete with filling up with gas, because if 1 hour of charging gets me 200 miles and I'm trying to drive 2,000 miles in 3 days, well, there is a math problem there. :) We need a range extender option for such trips, otherwise we'll have to keep one dead dino burning truck for those trips. I actually believe the future is in EV, not burning gas. I'd love to see a goal, within 50 years, of no longer burning fossil fuels in the US. It can be done, if we're serious about it.
Well, as a pilot you should realize that if you charter a plane you don't have to deal with all the airline terminal stuff.
Yes, that is true, but the price is also a lot higher. The cost to charter a plane is about equal to the cost of two weeks at Disney World. I'd rather take a second two week vacation than to pay for a fancy plane flight.
Any trip about 500 miles or less is generally better via high speed train than via airplane. The train doesn't have the weather issues of airplanes, nor security problems (it has some, but not as many, you can't really fly a train into a building).
The other benefit? The train can be electric, it is rather hard to make an electric 737.
We also have the wide open spaces need to put straight track for high speed trains.
But no, we can't have those, the airlines would lose too much business. Grr.. :(
I went on an overnight train trip as a child and have fond memories of it. I've also been on British Rail, nice experience. I love trains. :)
As for EV in the US market, one of our problems is that our gas is cheap, we don't tax it like Europe does (and probably like we should). So it makes it hard for EVs to make any sense because of cheap gas.
The range issue is only a real problem for single car households, for anyone who owns 2 cars, one of them could be an EV without range being a serious issue, most of the time. Cost then becomes the primary problem.
As for other places, I firmly believe that just because something does or does not work for me or people near me, doesn't mean it can't work for someone else. If EV works for you today, great, more power to you. Not for me to judge or to take away.
They are now behind the times when it comes to technology. Seriously, no touch screen display in the Odyssey, what are they thinking?
Power sliding doors? Very nice. Third row seat, comfortable for adults, better than the third row in the Yukon.
Storage behind the third row? Worse than in the Yukon, which is one of the biggest problems.
Towing ability? Terrible... the Yukon can be fully loaded with people and stuff, plus a trailer can be put on the back and it doesn't care, it will pull it all. The Odyssey? Not so much.
Off road? The Yukon has good ground clearance and good 4wd performance. The Odyssey? None at all. Yes, I've had my truck off road. Nothing serious, but more than you'd take an Odyssey to, and that includes mud.
Yes, many people who own Yukon/Suburbans would be better served with a minivan. Or for that matter, the Traverse/Acadia which are great vehicles for families, better than the short version of the Yukon/Tahoe for most people.
I fall into the "actually need it" category. Many people don't, but in my case, it works for me.
Another question... at what point do machines and robots make enough "stuff" that most of us no longer need to go to a "job" anymore?
As it stands, our farm industry continues to employ fewer and fewer people. Already large tractors can drive around the fields without anyone in the cabs, machines can make machines, when do we no longer need an economy based on "manual labor" from most people?
Serious question, because I see the time coming when there is nothing left for most people to "do". McDonalds is looking into automatic hamburger machines, what happens when even fast food jobs are endangered?
My math is more like, buying a 3-4 year old car at half price and keeping it until it's 10+ years old
That indeed would be 50% (or more) less expensive than swapping out cars every 3 years (new or used).
We each put our money into whatever is important to us. My son's best friend's dad is seriously into bicycles. He has a garage full of them, over $10K worth. I think that's insane, but it is his hobby and makes him happy, so who am I to judge? He can afford it, he loves it, more power to him. :)
Any idea on what the Model X is going to cost? I just found pictures of it and it looks very nice.
Doesn't help me much, I need more space than that, I haul kids and stuff at the same time.
Any idea on price? If they could build and sell that for under $50K, I'd be interested in one as a second SUV.
For the base load issue, the problem changes from "continuous base load production" (which nuclear might provide) to "storage capacity to fill in short-term peaks" (which nuclear sucks at).
Actually, nuclear is good at that, they can burn the extra power in resistors when it isn't needed on the grid. You wouldn't do this with a coal or gas power plant since the fuel is expensive, but with nuclear, the fuel is dirt cheap, so resist away as needed and run at 100% all the time.
pumping water uphill
Do you really think we can provide major power storage this way? In the realm of terawatts of power? If so, please share the math (or links), but my understanding is that these work at smaller scale, but you'd need massive stores of power to make solar and wind the primary power sources.
No, the "next-generation" new nuclear plants are not ready "now."
Actually, Generation 3 plants are already being built, right as we type this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
These reactors are much more modern in design than what failed in Japan and is installed around most of the world.
Build a few thousand of these and you can replace a lot of coal power plants.
The primary problem with solar and wind, regardless of cost, is that they are not base load power supplies, they vary and thus are unreliable to provide constant steady power.
Some mix of them, along with nuclear, is clearly the future, if our goal is to stop burning dead dinos.
Maybe the split is 50/50, maybe it is 70/30, that can be figured out as we go.
For the 80K price, I could buy a pair of Cadillac XTS's!
Small cars these days get 30+ MPG, some get 40+ MPG on the highway.
The EV part just doesn't save enough gas to pay for the higher price point.
My truck gets 12 mpg, it wouldn't be hard to improve on that. :)
Used is cheaper, no doubt about it...
That being said, over the long term, it isn't 50% cheaper.
I've done the math on buying 3 year old cars and keeping them until 6 years old, vs. buying brand new cars and selling them at 3 years old.
More less, for any given vehicle, it is about 20% more expensive to do the latter than the former.
So it costs me about $200 more a month to drive a brand new truck every 3 years rather than a 3 year old truck every 3 years. It is always in warranty, it always has the latest features, it has never been smoked in, never been abused, and I can enjoy it as my own.
For less expensive cars/trucks, the difference per month is even less. For a $24K new car, that is $400 a month to buy it at 0%, to buy the same car used would save about $80 a month over the long term.
Is that $80 a month worth it? That is a personal decision, to many people that is a lot of money and I respect that. To me? I'd rather have new, and frankly, someone has to buy new, or you'd have nothing to buy used! :)
Just trying to compare a real-world example to the current leases on gas cars. I personally like the idea of EV, it just isn't there for me yet.
How sad it must be for you to view the world in terms of dick sizes.
Not really my point, I only provide the example to point out that I'm the perfect customer for EVs in general, for Tesla's very nice EVs even, I can afford them.
I'm just pointing out why I'm not a customer, and if I am not a customer, that should provide the answer for why they aren't selling.
None of the EVs are actually price-competitive at purchase time without a big rebate.
This is indeed the primary problem. I can afford an EV, I can afford to spend $20K more on an EV if I wanted to. But I didn't get to where I am by making emotional decisions with money. When it makes economic sense, I'll be first in line to buy an EV, I do believe they are the future. Burning dead dinos in our cars and trucks really has no long term future in it.
On the other hand, the Denali's name is a barely-transposed acronym. Get a smaller car.
Actually, I use every bit of it... I have 3 kids, and we're often driving around their friends as well, plus hauling stuff. I also use it for work, picking up and dropping off computer equipment.
I know that some people buy a truck like that and drive it around empty, but in my case, I really do need the space, both for kids and for cargo.