The various hybrids would of course allow it, but that rather defeats the purpose of driving an EV since hybrid mileage figures aren't competitive enough with gas-only right now IMO.
Of course plug in hybrids do answer this. You do the daily commute mostly on battery, but have the gas available for those occasions when you have to drive long distance. Overall the fuel costs (and emissions) are far lower with the hybrid in that scenario.
Experience of the Prius is that the batteries are good for about 15 years. That's about the average lifespan of an ICEV. An EV might need it's battery reconditioning by then but the ICEV will probably need it's engine reconditioning.
Overall there's far less to go wrong on an EV, servicing costs are significantly lower.
As far as owners loving them. That is about the single most useless data point on the planet. This is a self selecting group of enthusiast.
Neither TFS nor TFA says "owners" love them. They say "drivers" love them. And go on to explain that they are not talking about people that own the cars, but get a non EV owning driving in an EV for a test drive and they love 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.
Despite the title of TFS, I see no evidence presented that they are "not selling". Tesla is making them as fast as it can, and there's a 3 months waiting list from ordering.
Every technology has an adoption curve, starting with innovators, then early adopters, through early majority, late majority and laggards. EVs are past their innovator stage, into the early adopter phase, and sales are rising year on year as one might expect in that phase.
On Slashdot we may be used to computer hardware and software adoption rates, which can measure in months. But it's unrealistic to expect a radical transportation technology to work that fast.
EVs becoming most of the automobile market is inevitable. It just won't happen tomorrow.
Well of course conventional doors need space to open too. Looking at the animation on the Tesla site, it doesn't look to me like the need any more space for the Model X doors. But that's an animation, we really need the specific measurements. And I guess there's going to have to be some more finalising of the design before we see those.
Of course what really matters is total cost of ownership. Fuel and servicing is significantly less for an EV. Depending on region, there may be tax and toll incentives for using EVs too.
Not saying that that will make the EV cheaper. But it will reduce the apparent disparity which you see by just looking at the sticker price.
Power failures in winter are quite common; power failures in summer, which are caused by overload, are also known to happen. You do not want to be stranded at your home, with a car that does not move, and with no power, and with a serious need to go somewhere *right now*.
For the sake of balance: I don't know what it's like in your country, but here every once in a while, there are strikes or bad weather or other problems that mean that the fuel stations don't have any fuel. And it can last for days. EV vehicles would be unaffected.
Journeys that I couldn't do (including the return trip) in an electric car every couple of weeks.
The idea is that you'd charge it, at least partially, at your destination. Thus your range is longer than it might first appear.
Of course it's early days, so right now there may not be means of charging at your destination. But the charging infrastructure is improving, as are EV ranges. So whilst an EV may not fit your usage pattern right now, it may do in a few years time. If it doesn't, then bad luck. By all reports EVs are far more fun to drive than ICE cars.
I would oppose them if I did it now. The fact is they don't any more. Would you suggest that we oppose the Germans now because of Naziism,
Germany and the US are counties, not a belief systems. I certainly do believe you should still condemn nazism and mccarthyism for what they did in the 30s, 40s and 50s.
Fundamentalist christianity mostly overcame it's murderous side, but retains it's wish to discriminate against freedom of speech, women, homosexuals and non-christians. It mostly overcame it's murderous side with prosperity.
Islam is merely at a different stage of it's development. It's not fundamentally different from christianity. It's just at a different stage in it's development, because most of it's adherents are still poor.
"So what you're saying is that I as a non-domain expert ought to be informed by the domain-experts you found?"
According to you, that's exactly who you ought to be informed by.
"It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts"
Thereby proving that you missed the phrase "the consensus". At no point did I say that non-domain experts should be swayed in any way by singular links that their opponent claims came up at the top of an unspecified web search.
If by Islamaphobia you mean resisting attempts to impose a system which has no freedom of speech, inequality of women, death for homosexuals, death for changing religion from Islam, inequality in law for non-Muslims, penalty taxes on non-muslims --- then I consider this to be generally good rather than "for once".
Do you also oppose Christianity, or are you a hypocrite? Christianity has done all of those in the past, and still has some elements of that.
If Western countries stopped pumping oil then prices would rise and Muslim countries would have more money to support terrorism. I don't like it, but its a fact.
No, it's your assumption that terrorist funding is proportional to the income of oil-producing muslim countries. You have no evidence.
For example the amount to which America interferes in muslim countries is a far more obvious factor.
So, because it's possible to pay for parking in a few places with conkers, you think conkers are a currency?
Sure. But you answered that, and it's your answer that made me wonder that the boundary is.
Or do you think a currency is something other than something with which you buy stuff?
I think a currency is something with which you can buy anything or pay your taxes, within it's country of issue. And which is listed on FOREX or at Bureaux de change so you can do the same in other countries.
Something which you can merely trade for an official currency, such as for example precious metals, is not a currency. It's a commodity. Bitcoin looks like a virtual commodity. One which is likely to become valueless when the newcomers stop coming, like any Ponzi scheme.
You'll find that the top peer-reviewed homeopathy journals show a clear consensus that homeopathy is efficacious.
As I said, no effect beyond placebo. Placebos can be efficacious depending on the ailment and severity. There is not and cannot be any effect beyond that, as a chemist or a physicist can easily tell you that most vials of the remedy don't even contain a single molecule of the original ingredient. That's how much they are diluted.
So when it comes to homeopathy, we should trust everyone except the domain experts? Is that what you're saying here?
No, I quote explicitly explained that you should trust the domain-experts. And pointed out that you are not very good at identifying who the domain-experts are.
If you are trying to tell me that the domain-experts are saying that homeopathy works beyond placebo, then that's just another thing you are wrong about.
Very good question but since you're the one making assertions about the existence of a boundary and what is one side of it then how about you define it.
Not so. You said: "You can buy a lot more than parking places with BitCoins." which has the implication that there are a certain number or perhaps certain specific things that you can buy with bitcoins that separates it from conkers. That makes it a currency when conkers are not. That's the boundary condition, and it was implicit in what you said, though not defined. So what is that boundary?
Slashdot Mirror
The various hybrids would of course allow it, but that rather defeats the purpose of driving an EV since hybrid mileage figures aren't competitive enough with gas-only right now IMO.
Of course plug in hybrids do answer this. You do the daily commute mostly on battery, but have the gas available for those occasions when you have to drive long distance. Overall the fuel costs (and emissions) are far lower with the hybrid in that scenario.
Experience of the Prius is that the batteries are good for about 15 years. That's about the average lifespan of an ICEV. An EV might need it's battery reconditioning by then but the ICEV will probably need it's engine reconditioning.
Overall there's far less to go wrong on an EV, servicing costs are significantly lower.
As far as owners loving them. That is about the single most useless data point on the planet. This is a self selecting group of enthusiast.
Neither TFS nor TFA says "owners" love them. They say "drivers" love them. And go on to explain that they are not talking about people that own the cars, but get a non EV owning driving in an EV for a test drive and they love them.
Recharging at home, at your destination, or during a meal break costs no time.
When there are EV only vehicle bays built on roads, in some cases it may be possible to park closer to your home with an EV than with an ICE.
Comparing new EVs with ancient used ICE cars. Not rational.
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.
Despite the title of TFS, I see no evidence presented that they are "not selling". Tesla is making them as fast as it can, and there's a 3 months waiting list from ordering.
Every technology has an adoption curve, starting with innovators, then early adopters, through early majority, late majority and laggards. EVs are past their innovator stage, into the early adopter phase, and sales are rising year on year as one might expect in that phase.
On Slashdot we may be used to computer hardware and software adoption rates, which can measure in months. But it's unrealistic to expect a radical transportation technology to work that fast.
EVs becoming most of the automobile market is inevitable. It just won't happen tomorrow.
Well of course conventional doors need space to open too. Looking at the animation on the Tesla site, it doesn't look to me like the need any more space for the Model X doors. But that's an animation, we really need the specific measurements. And I guess there's going to have to be some more finalising of the design before we see those.
The EV part just doesn't save enough gas to pay for the higher price point.
Depends how many miles you do. Don't underestimate the potential savings:
"Kevin Sharpe, 51, made the 894-mile trip from John Oâ(TM)Groats to Landâ(TM)s End in an electric car, stopping six times to charge up the American-made Tesla Roadster.
The 36-hour trip used £20 of electricity â" a family saloon would use £138 of fuel."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/motorist-drives-from-john-ogroats-to-lands-135383
Fuel at 1/7th the price is an interesting prospect.
Of course what really matters is total cost of ownership. Fuel and servicing is significantly less for an EV. Depending on region, there may be tax and toll incentives for using EVs too.
Not saying that that will make the EV cheaper. But it will reduce the apparent disparity which you see by just looking at the sticker price.
Power failures in winter are quite common; power failures in summer, which are caused by overload, are also known to happen. You do not want to be stranded at your home, with a car that does not move, and with no power, and with a serious need to go somewhere *right now*.
For the sake of balance:
I don't know what it's like in your country, but here every once in a while, there are strikes or bad weather or other problems that mean that the fuel stations don't have any fuel. And it can last for days. EV vehicles would be unaffected.
Journeys that I couldn't do (including the return trip) in an electric car every couple of weeks.
The idea is that you'd charge it, at least partially, at your destination. Thus your range is longer than it might first appear.
Of course it's early days, so right now there may not be means of charging at your destination. But the charging infrastructure is improving, as are EV ranges. So whilst an EV may not fit your usage pattern right now, it may do in a few years time. If it doesn't, then bad luck. By all reports EVs are far more fun to drive than ICE cars.
Not really such a problem given that the RESET key was programmable by the currently running program.
I would oppose them if I did it now. The fact is they don't any more. Would you suggest that we oppose the Germans now because of Naziism,
Germany and the US are counties, not a belief systems. I certainly do believe you should still condemn nazism and mccarthyism for what they did in the 30s, 40s and 50s.
Fundamentalist christianity mostly overcame it's murderous side, but retains it's wish to discriminate against freedom of speech, women, homosexuals and non-christians. It mostly overcame it's murderous side with prosperity.
Islam is merely at a different stage of it's development. It's not fundamentally different from christianity. It's just at a different stage in it's development, because most of it's adherents are still poor.
"So what you're saying is that I as a non-domain expert ought to be informed by the domain-experts you found?"
According to you, that's exactly who you ought to be informed by.
"It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts"
Thereby proving that you missed the phrase "the consensus". At no point did I say that non-domain experts should be swayed in any way by singular links that their opponent claims came up at the top of an unspecified web search.
Checkmate.
If there is some Christian group doing it somewhere it is wrong.
Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You, sir, are a hypocrite.
If by Islamaphobia you mean resisting attempts to impose a system which has no freedom of speech, inequality of women, death for homosexuals, death for changing religion from Islam, inequality in law for non-Muslims, penalty taxes on non-muslims --- then I consider this to be generally good rather than "for once".
Do you also oppose Christianity, or are you a hypocrite? Christianity has done all of those in the past, and still has some elements of that.
If Western countries stopped pumping oil then prices would rise and Muslim countries would have more money to support terrorism. I don't like it, but its a fact.
No, it's your assumption that terrorist funding is proportional to the income of oil-producing muslim countries. You have no evidence.
For example the amount to which America interferes in muslim countries is a far more obvious factor.
indeed, but you said:
So, because it's possible to pay for parking in a few places with conkers, you think conkers are a currency?
Sure. But you answered that, and it's your answer that made me wonder that the boundary is.
Or do you think a currency is something other than something with which you buy stuff?
I think a currency is something with which you can buy anything or pay your taxes, within it's country of issue. And which is listed on FOREX or at Bureaux de change so you can do the same in other countries.
Something which you can merely trade for an official currency, such as for example precious metals, is not a currency. It's a commodity. Bitcoin looks like a virtual commodity. One which is likely to become valueless when the newcomers stop coming, like any Ponzi scheme.
Go take a look through those journals and see for yourself.
So what you're saying is that I as a non-domain expert ought to be informed by the domain-experts you found?
Gotcha.
I think they plant them. Money trees?
You'll find that the top peer-reviewed homeopathy journals show a clear consensus that homeopathy is efficacious.
As I said, no effect beyond placebo. Placebos can be efficacious depending on the ailment and severity. There is not and cannot be any effect beyond that, as a chemist or a physicist can easily tell you that most vials of the remedy don't even contain a single molecule of the original ingredient. That's how much they are diluted.
So when it comes to homeopathy, we should trust everyone except the domain experts? Is that what you're saying here?
No, I quote explicitly explained that you should trust the domain-experts. And pointed out that you are not very good at identifying who the domain-experts are.
If you are trying to tell me that the domain-experts are saying that homeopathy works beyond placebo, then that's just another thing you are wrong about.
Very good question but since you're the one making assertions about the existence of a boundary and what is one side of it then how about you define it.
Not so. You said: "You can buy a lot more than parking places with BitCoins." which has the implication that there are a certain number or perhaps certain specific things that you can buy with bitcoins that separates it from conkers. That makes it a currency when conkers are not. That's the boundary condition, and it was implicit in what you said, though not defined. So what is that boundary?
I'm English. I used to play conkers at school.
Good for you. But lots of people here aren't English and come from countries that don't have conkers, or at least don't call them that.
You can buy a lot more than parking places with BitCoins.
So what's the boundary? How many things do you have to be able to buy with conkers before they are currency?
As you are English, you may recall the problems of using leaves as currency as described in "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe".
It's still mostly nerds, libertarians, and criminals that like it.
I don't think most nerds like it either. I'd change those 3 categories to two.
1) Libertarian nerds.
2) Criminals.
For sure other nerds are interested in how it works. But that doesn't mean they have any interest in using them.