Gas prices

Kevinj said:

As far as vehicles in general go, I wonder what percentage of the buying population are like me? I see them as a means to go from point A to point B.

Count me in. And the idea of pumping in fake noise to make it sound like a "real" car seems silly. To me that would be one of the attractions of an EV - no engine noise.

As it seems rather obvious that EV's are going to be extremely predominant in the near future, I am wondering if CP will make "Charging Stations" available somewhere on the peninsula. Perhaps some little used corner of the main lot, or prior to passing First Street, or somewhere on Cleveland Rd. on a property they own.

The closest one right now sits just outside the Thirsty Pony.

These are all of the places I've charged:

Yeah, you can gas up in five minutes after going 500 miles, but who actually does that? People gotta pee, want to eat, etc. That said, with some of these newer Superchargers, it's not unusual to get the notification on my phone that we're ready to go within 15 minutes. Charging an EV is not like putting gas in your car. You only need to charge it as far as you need to go for the next charging opportunity. So for example, on our recent trip to Sanibel from Orlando, we didn't actually have to stop at all, but since there was a charger at a Whole Foods, and their delicious hot bar, we stopped there anyway. Then the hotel had (free) chargers when we got there. The only time I felt like we were waiting in 7 years of road tripping was at the first-generation chargers that are/were just south of Daytona, because they were slow compared to the new ones.

So, as these vehicles are very much more common place than I am aware of, I need help wrapping my simple mind around some random thoughts I am having.

I believe that they are definitely going to be the vehicles of the future, and will explode in sales within the next few years. So, if Cedar Point parking lot holds 3000 (I have no idea) vehicles, are these EV's going to need charged while gusts are in the park? I am imagining a parking lot that looks similar to the Drive-In Movie lots that had the poles at every spot, but rather with charging option. I am likely way off base as based on what Jeff posted one can travel quite a distance. But, there are those that may not be "charged up" enough and I'd bet CP would gladly "up-charge" them for a fee.

Are there 3,000 gas pumps there currently?

Let me say it again... public charging is the edge case. Even with my old Model S that "only" had 240 miles of range, I routinely drove back and forth from Orlando to Tampa for work. EV's are like cell phones... you leave the house with them fully charged everyday.

Looking at my charging history, I've charged for distance in public six times on road trips in the last two years. I also charged one on a regular 120V outlet in front of a VRBO.

Thank you for helping my simple mind to grasp this. I can also use some help programming this VHS thing here.

jimmyburke said:

So, as these vehicles are very much more common place than I am aware of, I need help wrapping my simple mind around some random thoughts I am having.

I believe that they are definitely going to be the vehicles of the future, and will explode in sales within the next few years. So, if Cedar Point parking lot holds 3000 (I have no idea) vehicles, are these EV's going to need charged while gusts are in the park? I am imagining a parking lot that looks similar to the Drive-In Movie lots that had the poles at every spot, but rather with charging option. I am likely way off base as based on what Jeff posted one can travel quite a distance. But, there are those that may not be "charged up" enough and I'd bet CP would gladly "up-charge" them for a fee.

EV vehicles are OK, but arguably not any greener than ICE vehicles. Mining lithium is not green in any way, and is a huge waste of water. EV vehicle production and charging also contributes to CO2 levels, sometimes even more so than gas vehicles. All EV vehicles do is shift CO2 emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant. Lithium battery production also emits thousands of pounds of carbon emissions, so don't be tricked into thinking EV vehicles are any better for the environment, because currently, they are not.

Great arguments on the issue from many on here. As of this moment the only thing I am being tricked into is that there are going to be many, many more EV's produced and sold in the very near future. And many, many vehicle purchasers will be spending loads of money.

In 1976 the first car I bought was a junky 67 Chevelle for $100.00. Oops, now you know my security question answer.

SuperS0nicSam said:

...don't be tricked into thinking EV vehicles are any better for the environment, because currently, they are not.

There are multiple studies that have concluded the opposite.

From FoMoCo and U of M:

Researchers found that light-duty EVs have approximately 64% lower cradle-to-grave life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than ICE vehicles on average across the United States.

...

Researchers also found that EVs have larger greenhouse gas emissions than gas vehicles during manufacturing due to battery production, but that’s offset by savings in their operation.

So yes, there are issues with manufacturing, but EVs are so vastly superior in terms of energy efficiency that they more than make up for those issues.

Or you could read this piece from the WSJ, who enlisted the University of Toronto to study the issue, which concludes that yes, manufacturing EVs produces more greenhouse gas emissions, but again, because EVs are so much more efficient to operate, the ICE-powered vehicle takes the lead in emissions around the 21K mile mark.

And here's a helpful fact check of myths surrounding the EV vs ICE environmental friendliness debate.

Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating the electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon pollution. The amount varies widely based on how local power is generated, e.g., using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable resources like wind or solar, which do not. Even accounting for these electricity emissions, research shows that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car. To the extent that more renewable energy sources like wind and solar are used to generate electricity, the total GHGs associated with EVs could be even lower. (In 2020, renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source.)

This is information that you could have discovered yourself in about the time it took you to post something that was incorrect, if you were to employ critical thought instead of making a partisan argument.

Seriously - it's not hard. Anytime you have an urge to argue with someone, fact check your preconceived notions. Challenge yourself to be open to being wrong about things. Anytime you read Something on the Internet that agrees with your preconceived notions, question whether the source is credible. Think critically.

SuperS0nicSam said:
EV vehicles are OK, but arguably not any greener than ICE vehicles.

This is absolutely wrong and everything that you said is incorrect misinformation. Brandon gave you plenty of legitimate sources that, if you were willing to find the truth, you could have found. If you want hard math, consider this:

The EPA says the average carbon footprint of driving a combustion engine car one mile is 411g of CO2. Generating a single kWh of electricity from a coal plant generates about 900g of CO2. So if your car runs at 4 miles per kWh, the carbon cost is 225g per mile. Already, we're at a 45% reduction assuming it's 100% coal generated electricity (and no one has 100% coal-generated power). Natural gas generates on average 465g of CO2 per kWh, so now we're at 116g per mile, a reduction of 75%, compared to burning gasoline. That's a massive difference.

The initial carbon cost to make the car is a little higher, but it's not anywhere in the universe of 75% higher. And as utilities continue to shift to renewables, it tilts even further in favor of the EV. When I lived in Seattle, our power was 100% from renewables (hydro), and here in Orlando, at least 10%, if not more, since we're adjacent to Disney's plant (like all generation, it's collectively on the grid and not wholly consumed by Disney). And my actual consumption averages 65% solar, because that's what's on my roof. We produce over 13 MWh per year.

You say his information is absolutely wrong where does your information come from? do you by chance have links? Good information but is it correct is all?

I provided links, Jeff provided a source - the EPA.

SuperS0nicSam provided nothing beyond a FOX News chyron transcription.

Gotcha, my bad....

"Colorado Rider" has the same IP address as "Blue Gemini." What an odd coincidence.

Blue Gemini was right you’re not a man far from it. Running someone because they called you a man isn’t sexist. This forum is a joke. Screamscape is a better resource by far. What a joke.

Buh-bye.

Imagine being so deeply insecure, and so obviously projecting, that you'd think telling someone to "be a man" is a wicked burn.

RRR > Blue Gemini/Colorado Rider/Rusty110820

Oops, wrong Buzz.

Funny you don’t agree with someone here and you’re the problem. Look in the mirror. Again a joke of a web site anymore. USED to be good, you all are trolls look in the mirror.