[Weather Man]

Tesla announces major Supercharger changes to slash prices for all electric car owners across the UK. Cash flow push at Tesla.

[murderspice]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

What's the "science" of the study? It just sounds like a mathematics exercise based on supposition. The article provides no scientific data to review.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...24001445#s0015

Please point to the supposition.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Happy Earth Day everyone.

All that means to me is that I have to turf the weeds out

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Weather Man

Tesla announces major Supercharger changes to slash prices for all electric car owners across the UK. Cash flow push at Tesla.

Last gasp effort by them to stem the plunge in sales but too late with more ppl reading the bigger picture into the road to nowhere with EV's.

[Weather Man]

Damn, $250 an hour is already here with barely any market penetration.

"Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer and host of the podcast "The Wright Report," told Fox News Digital that American society has shifted to EVs largely because some people are "just so hellbent on making sure that this transition happens, even if that means wrecking the economy, in terms of electricity, its reliability, the grid, getting brownouts or blackouts or economic wreckage by people who otherwise can't afford these new vehicles."

"That cost is being shouldered by buyers and car companies by raising the price of gas-powered vehicles, [which] is basically just a direct wealth transfer, just paying for EV subsidies and that will grow over time, if we continue to keep this regime in place," Brent Bennett, a policy director for Life:Powered, an initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told Fox News Digital.

California, Wright said, is likely a "really sad test case" for what the rest of the country could face, where he said it currently costs about $250 an hour to service an EV. The state has made a strong push for EVs under Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Californians will by 2035 not be allowed to buy new gas-powered cars and light trucks."

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by murderspice

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...24001445#s0015

Please point to the supposition.

"Nonetheless, for routes shorter than 300 miles, electric trucking can be attractive if the lower operating cost associated with electric trucks is large enough to offset the upfront cost, which some believe will be persistently higher than the cost of diesel trucks (Miller, 2022). Sripad and Viswanathan (2019) describe the circumstances under which this might happen: reducing the drag coefficient, an initial price difference not exceeding $150 k (possible with a battery pack cost of <$150 per kWh), electricity prices of <$0.20 per kWh, and a battery replacement fraction of < 50 % of the fleet. Other analysts (e.g., (Phadke et al., 2021)) believe that long-haul trucking is already ripe for electrification. In addition to the economic case for electric trucking, there is a strong policy push to decarbonize trucking: e.g., California will require all trucks on its roads to be zero-emissions by 2045, where feasible (California Air Resources Board, 2023)"

"Overall, they conclude that with a much cleaner electricity grid (80 % renewables), BETs would result in an 80 % reduction of climate (CO2) and health (local air pollution) damages compared to future diesel trucks."

"For long haul routes below 300 miles, electrification reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas damages by 13% " - how is this calculated. How are greenhouse damages calculated? The paper does not provide such data.

Also how are health impacts determined and calculated? The paper does not provide the data. It talks about "the environmental justice implications of freight pollution by analyzing the disparity in health impacts across racial groups". How are the health impacts of freight pollution segregated from the health impacts of smoking, vaping, drinking alcohol, drug use, and poor eating habits (which everyone does regardless of socio-economic situation)?

[Weather Man]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

"Nonetheless, for routes shorter than 300 miles, electric trucking can be attractive if the lower operating cost associated with electric trucks is large enough to offset the upfront cost, which some believe will be persistently higher than the cost of diesel trucks (Miller, 2022). Sripad and Viswanathan (2019) describe the circumstances under which this might happen: reducing the drag coefficient, an initial price difference not exceeding $150 k (possible with a battery pack cost of <$150 per kWh), electricity prices of <$0.20 per kWh, and a battery replacement fraction of < 50 % of the fleet. Other analysts (e.g., (Phadke et al., 2021)) believe that long-haul trucking is already ripe for electrification. In addition to the economic case for electric trucking, there is a strong policy push to decarbonize trucking: e.g., California will require all trucks on its roads to be zero-emissions by 2045, where feasible (California Air Resources Board, 2023)"

"Overall, they conclude that with a much cleaner electricity grid (80 % renewables), BETs would result in an 80 % reduction of climate (CO2) and health (local air pollution) damages compared to future diesel trucks."

"For long haul routes below 300 miles, electrification reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas damages by 13% " - how is this calculated. How are greenhouse damages calculated? The paper does not provide such data.

Also how are health impacts determined and calculated? The paper does not provide the data. It talks about "the environmental justice implications of freight pollution by analyzing the disparity in health impacts across racial groups". How are the health impacts of freight pollution segregated from the health impacts of smoking, vaping, drinking alcohol, drug use, and poor eating habits (which everyone does regardless of socio-economic situation)?

They make the numbers the same way they run the climate models, out of their ass.

[Ugly Kar]

Don't buy one new.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...c31275e5&ei=16

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Weather Man

They make the numbers the same way they run the climate models, out of their ass.

And that's the point. While I'm sure if people of low economic status didn't work or live in or near industrial environments some component of their health would be better, I think it's is very hard to quantify into percentages of improvement and tie a dollar figure to it. Does using battery electric trucks make sense for dock level movement of cargo, sure if it is feasible. Will it improve dock worker health? Maybe, but the human animal has a wide range of tolerance level for environmental stress.

In.my case I sat in an automobile 20 hours a week commuting in traffic. Near 85 minutes daily of it in heavy stop and go traffic. Studies say that is not good for humans either. I'm well above low socio-economic status.

We all have life burdens.