The 'I don't like Tesla' Thread

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
There is a paywall but here is the link anyway https://www.theaustralian.com.au/in...s/news-story/4b11b81eb4ac66f0ea7dfec5a0e0cca1
the australian said:
If you listen to the media, a green automotive future has arrived and a tsunami of electric cars is outselling petrol and diesel around the world, transforming the planet and solving climate change.
We need a reality check. Battery-powered electric vehicles are fairly popular in urban China and California, as well as a few countries that heavily subsidise their drivers. But globally, fewer than 0.3 per cent of all cars are pure electric, and across Europe, BMW says, customers don’t want them.

Unsurprisingly given the price tag, electric cars are often playthings for rich people. One US study shows the richest quarter of people receive almost all the public money spent on electric car subsidies. Moreover, electric cars in the US are driven fewer kilometres on average each year than conventional vehicles: 11,200km compared with 16,400km for petrol and diesel-powered vehicles.

Combine this with the fact 90 per cent of households that buy an electric car also have a conventional car that is driven farther, and a clear picture emerges: most electric vehicles are a second car used for shorter trips such as shopping and small errands — and for virtue signalling.


But aren’t electric cars better for the environment? Barely. While no CO2emissions come directly from driving electric vehicles, they are powered by electricity produced largely from fossil fuels in many parts of the world. More energy is also used to manufacture electric vehicles — and, in particular, their batteries — and this energy is usually reliant on fossil fuel.

Indeed, a new study from the International Energy Agency shows that an electric car with a 400km range and charged with electricity produced at the global average will have to be driven 60,000km just to pay off its higher CO2 emissions in production. That means a new electric car driven the average 11,200km each year will have paid off its carbon debt only after five years. The IEA hopes the world can reach 130 million electric cars in 10 years — a breathtaking ask given we have spent decades reaching just over five million. Even if we could do that, emissions would be reduced by only 0.4 per cent of global emissions. In the words of IEA director Fatih Birol, “If you think you can save the climate with electric cars, you’re completely wrong.”

The IEA finds a hybrid such as the Toyota Prius is as good for the climate as an electric car when measured on lifetime greenhouse gas emissions. A petrol-powered vehicle emits only nine tonnes more across its lifetime. We could have reduced a similar amount through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade system in the northeast US, for only $US51 ($77.60).

Yet governments dole out lavish support for electric cars. The IEA estimates that each electric car on the road has cost $US24,000 in subsidies, R&D and extra infrastructure investment. We could have cut almost 500 times the CO2 if we’d spent the money cutting carbon through the RGGI cap-and-trade. Little wonder the Dutch Court of Auditors recently ruled The Netherlands was wasting taxpayer money on subsidies, calling them “an expensive joke”.

And surprisingly, more electric cars often mean more air pollution. In China, which is the world’s leading electric car market, a study reveals that because China’s coal power plants are so dirty, electric cars worsen local air: in Shanghai, pollution from an additional million electric-powered vehicles would kill nearly three times as many people annually as an additional million petrol-powered cars.

Nonetheless, governments increasingly are setting deadlines for when electric cars will take over the world. Norway ambitiously plans to prohibit petrol and diesel cars in 2025.

The Scandinavian nation has the world’s largest electric car market share, but this is propped up with enormous government support. Rules eliminating the costs of registration and sales tax can be worth up to $US70,000 for a single electric car.

Moreover, electric car owners save half, or about $US1000 a year, on congestion charges in Oslo. They also get to drive in bus lanes, which is great for them but leads to increased travel times for public transport users.

Additionally, the Norwegian state is investing heavily in charging infrastructure and grid upscaling, something Goldman Sachs puts at $US6 trillion for the world during the coming decades.

That is why in Norway a staggering 42 per cent of all cars sold last year were pure electric. But a new study for Norway shows how hard ending petrol cars will be and gives the lie to those who seek to transform the vehicle market. It finds that without Norway’s overgenerous subsidies, by 2030, only 9 per cent of all car sales will be purely electric. Even maintaining all the subsidies and dramatically increasing taxes on petrol cars while setting strict emission targets would be unlikely to allow Norway to reach its goals anytime before 2050.

The misconception that electric cars are close to taking over and will solve climate change is dangerous because it directs our attention away from the technological breakthroughs in green energy generation needed to reduce rising temperatures — and away from innovations needed to cut air pollution.

Electric cars are fun to drive and will likely be part of our future transportation solutions. But they will not be a major part of the solution to climate change or air pollution. Today, electric cars are simply expensive gadgets heavily subsidised for the wealthy to feel good while doing very little for the planet.

Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School.

BJORN LOMBORG
COLUMNIST
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. He has been named one of TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world. His num... Read more
 

bone

"bangle for president"
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
16,696
Location
belgium!!
Car(s)
Volvo V40 & Yamaha Banshee
^TLDR?


over here it was announced today that the government is looking into taxing tires instead of petrol

double win for them! even electric cars need tires, and since those have instant torque + more weight, they will wear the tires faster as well!
i just hope this lowers the number of SUV's on the road...
 

93Flareside

Döner Kebab enthusiast
DONOR
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
17,744
Location
42 miles outside of Chicago
Car(s)
‘18 VW Golf GTI, '87 Mercury Colony Park
^TLDR?


over here it was announced today that the government is looking into taxing tires instead of petrol

double win for them! even electric cars need tires, and since those have instant torque + more weight, they will wear the tires faster as well!
i just hope this lowers the number of SUV's on the road...
This is assuming drivers know why tires wear more on heavier vehicles...
 

bone

"bangle for president"
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
16,696
Location
belgium!!
Car(s)
Volvo V40 & Yamaha Banshee
because i hate them

- nobody who bought one, needed a car with those dimensions, or they would've bought a truck
- they are too heavy, and someone in a hatchback always comes our worse in an accident
- they are impossible to look through when you are in a normal car, so you could as well be driving behind a lorry

i never ever give way to an SUV, for a normal car i might slow down and let them in front, if you're an asshat in a SUV, you can stay just where you are and merge in somewhere behind me
 
Last edited:

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
20,309
Location
Michigan USA
because i hate them

- nobody who bought one, needed a car with those dimensions, or they would've bought a truck
- they are too heavy, and someone in a hatchback always comes our worse in an accident
- they are impossible to look through when you are in a normal car, so you could as well be driving behind a lorry

i never ever give way to an SUV, for a normal car i might slow down and let them in front, if you're an asshat in a SUV, you can stay just where you are and merge in somewhere behind me

Do you feel the same way about mini vans?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
because i hate them

- nobody who bought one, needed a car with those dimensions, or they would've bought a truck
- they are too heavy, and someone in a hatchback always comes our worse in an accident
- they are impossible to look through when you are in a normal car, so you could as well be driving behind a lorry

i never ever give way to an SUV, for a normal car i might slow down and let them in front, if you're an asshat in a SUV, you can stay just where you are and merge in somewhere behind me
Most of those are your problems, not SUV problems. SUVs are smaller than trucks, btw, and are used differently - you won't put a dog into a truck bed, for example.
 

bone

"bangle for president"
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
16,696
Location
belgium!!
Car(s)
Volvo V40 & Yamaha Banshee
i also started my post with "i hate them", not "they suck" or sth
my emotions don't care bout your logic just like my logic doesn't care about your emotions ;)


but you wouldn't daily drive a defender either - why is it ok to do so with an X5? because it has better interior?

Do you feel the same way about mini vans?
i just feel pitty for those :D - no one wants to drive a multipla
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
EVs are more complicated to build and would need to drive for at least 60k (kms) to offset just that pollution alone. Basically when looking at totality of emissions (from creation to retirement) for ICE vs BEV it's not that all that far.

Additional point is that it is very expensive to roll out the infra, though IMO that part is irrelevant rolling out ICE infra, rail roads, etc...was also expensive but clearly beneficial.

i never ever give way to an SUV, for a normal car i might slow down and let them in front, if you're an asshat in a SUV, you can stay just where you are and merge in somewhere behind me
I feel that way about minivans actually, they are usually the most useless drivers.

I will say one thing for the utility of SUVs at least in NYC with the shittastic roads. Huge sidewall (though that's not really the case for most cross overs anymore) and off road suspension with a lot of travel really help to smooth out those craters in the roads.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
but you wouldn't daily drive a defender either - why is it ok to do so with an X5? because it has better interior?
A Defender is a terrible daily but the X5 is a nice one. In a world where I can't have a different car for every occasion, a comfortable SUV makes sense (which is also why I dislike Wranglers). An AWD wagon is good too but we don't really have those here for the most part
 

bone

"bangle for president"
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
16,696
Location
belgium!!
Car(s)
Volvo V40 & Yamaha Banshee
no BMW xDrive?
no MB 4Motion?
no alfa Q4?
no jaguar AWD?
even cadillac comes with 4WD over here!
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
No Jag or Alfa AWD wagons.

Cheapest Audi wagon, the A4, starts at $45k base, which is a bit more than the base price for a 1500.

I don't think BMW even offers wagons here anymore.

There's no C-Class wagon and the E-Class wagon starts at $66k.

So we basically just have VW, Subaru, and a hundred different SUVs to choose from.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
Both Subaru and VW are pretty terrible options, to be honest.
 
Top