When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Ah, I thought I heard him (Biden) go "4.3? 4.4? 4 flat?" Then the Ford rep said we aren't releasing. Was hard to tell. Will know tomorrow I guess, or I imagine they will say something like "4.5 seconds or better".
I don't care too much on that front either way. I don't 0-60 my trucks all over. I'll be happy if we can get 400+ miles on a charge. Still not quite the 700 I was seeing with my 2019, but for something I plug in at home every night will be plenty.
Yeah, right, and they are building all those wind turbines in the post above because wind turbines are "maintenance pigs".
Whether or not something requires extensive maintenance does not affect whether or not it gets built. What affects that is the $$ you can make off it.
Every McDonalds has one of the way overly complicated always breaking down ice cream machines that can only be serviced by the company that makes them. By far the most expensive way to provide soft-serve, and their franchise agreement gives them no choice. But they all have one, even if it's broken down 50% of the time, because they make a lot of money on them when they are running.
The Massachusetts off shore windfarm should serve as a gut punch to an objective outlook of windfarms and the future of EVs.
There isn’t a rational reason to develop offshore windfarms except in recognition that no one wants wind farms in their back yard. Off shore windfarms are each an act of desperation particularly in view of higher than expected development costs, high maintenance costs and shortened life spans as demonstrated in the British off shore ongoing marine wind development experiment.
The upside, if the windfarm is actually completed, is electric supply to serve an estimated 400,000 homes. That seems small considering there are 140 million households in the US. To serve the US we need 349 more equivalent windfarms to serve the country existing demand. Where are we going to put those?
Notice that the estimates project service to 400,000 homes. It doesn’t say 200,00 homes and 200,000 EVs or whatever ratio is valid. It says 400,000 homes. It means we need 349 equivalent windfarms to meet existing demands. We then need how many more wind farms to serve the demands of a growing fleet of EVs?
At any rate it will take generations to develop sufficient power supply from alternate energy sources before we can think of justifying EVs as a legitimate alternate to fossil fuels. If we mandate EVs prematurely we are simply scavenging better, higher efficiency applications of alternate power supply by diverting electrical supply to low efficiency EVs achieving a net loss in the rate of fossil fuel displacement. This is counterproductive!
Just thought I’d share this pic I found. Looks a little bland, but also very mainstream. If range and functionality are high, I bet this thing will be a hit. $60k starting is my guess.
Not well for California. The grid will not hold the load, plus many electrics that plug into their house will go without power because of grid shut downs due to fire hazard,, If you have solar oh well the grid goes down your down unless you have a stand alone system ..
On the other hand the grid might work if they can get another 30 plus million more to leave the state..seams like they are working hard towards that goal
05-18-2021, 05:03 PM
