1) EVs have around 20 moving parts vs about 2,000 parts in ICE. Service is not an issue, as throwing a few million (a portion of a week's profits) at it will easily get Tesla to where they need to be to service the Model 3.
Then why is Tesla having problems in that area? For example, Consumer Reports seems to have downgraded Tesla in terms of reliability and how they handle service as the numbers have grown. It isn't an issue that can't be addressed, but Tesla has work to do.
Yes, I agree the mechanical complexity of an EV goes down, but there are a ton of parts not related to the 'engine' that will still need service.
2) Yes, we can keep ICE going for a long time provided we're willing to continue heavily subsidizing ICE and Oil. Is that what you're advocating? You seemed to imply that you didn't like government getting involved. Maybe I misinterpreted.
Yeah, I keep hearing that, but I wonder about the numbers, or how current that argument is. Also, I wonder what is included in coming to those conclusions (i.e.: government support and money? politics and wars? etc.)
Here's what I found in a quick Google search...
One study... fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy
renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and bio-fuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies
or
Congressional Budget Office:
Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
But subsidies aside, from my understanding, we've discovered massive new sources. It's more a matter of politics about when/if they get tapped, and many aren't in the USA (so, it becomes a trade issue).
Again, I'm not stuck on fossil fuels, but where does the electricity come from? Until we solve that problem, most of it comes from the fossil fuels anyway.
3) What you're not getting here is that Tesla is the only option at this point because the others are making deliberately hobbled EVs to satisfy the minimum requirements in compliance states. The strategy is to make a terrible car and then claim that its low sales are proof that the demand isn't there. Why? Because it's easier to make money by selling a $20K ICE car that will cost $2K per year in maintenance (plus another $1K in fuel) than it is to sell a $30K EV and make basically nothing on maintenance. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's just the reality of an economic system where quarterly profits are all that matters.
That's an interesting theory. They must all be hating life, having to have improved their overall reliability so much in the last few decades, huh? They are literally putting themselves out of business then by making better products.
They probably don't have the drive (at least until recently) that Tesla did/does around EVs, but I doubt they are too deliberately hobbling their programs at this point.
4) Some people??? There are around 40,000 automobile related fatalities every year in the U.S. alone! The fact is that when Tesla first turned on Autopilot their accident rate dropped by 40%. That's huge, especially when you consider that autopilot is only level 1. There are 5 levels achievable, and each will reduce the accident rate from the one before it.
Well, yes... but there is a heck of a lot of driving being done, too... in all kinds of conditions and situations. Plus, people are allowed to drive with hardly any initial training and pretty much zero refresher training, little skill development, and super low bar toward keeping that privilege. That's not even counting the super-low penalties on things like DUI or other kinds of impaired driving (which cause most of the accidents).
If safety were really the concern, there is a ton we could do to cut those fatalities to a fraction... no AI necessary.
But even so, that's like 1 fatality in 100 million miles driven. AI cars haven't driven enough miles to have a clue at how they compare, and we're already up to a half-dozen AI-related fatalities or so.
What makes you think we'll get to level 5? Level 1 (isn't it 2?) isn't working that well. And, already, people are starting to actually trust it, which shows they aren't much more bright about this than they are about things like texting and DUI.
currently we have 300 / 220 miles on model 3. How often do you drive that one one charge without stopping?! Superchargers can refuel 60-70% within 30-40mins!
That's nice, except that is the low end of ICE and they can refuel in just a couple minutes. And, it really depends on where you live and how you drive. I used to drive almost daily in situations where that wouldn't have worked. And, I used to live in a place where you'd never reach the next charging station.
But, as mentioned above... what good is transitioning to electricity - in terms of saving the planet - if the electricity comes from fossil fuels? In other words, what is the urgency to get to EV? Is it just so people can put those 'zero emissions' bumper stickers on and feel wrongly better about themselves? Most people don't have a solar farm handy to charge their cars. And, how much resources and environmental damage does producing batteries and solar cells take/create? (Just asking... I've never seen a full analysis. Creating the glass, silicon, etc. of solar cells had to take a good amount of energy in the first place. Batteries take some nasty mining, etc. Is this really a net gain, or is it more like the VW clean diesel campaign?)
I'm interested in EVs for other reasons. I just think they will perform better and be more reliable. And, then maybe someday, we'll also produce the energy in more clean ways.
The fact is, while battery technology will continue to improve, it's already good enough to replace ICE. All that's needed is enough scale to reduce cost. It's unfortunate that Tesla is the only one doing the necessary work to achieve it.
Yes, maybe it is finally approaching that point. But, that has only been the case for the last decade or less.
