It’s ok Gene. At least you admit you cannot have a reasonable discussion.

I accept your apology.

Gene, is that gall I smell?

I have, as this tread will bear out, simply tried to dispel common myths about EVs.

Yes, I will trade barbs and pokes with the rude and uninformed who what to make this discussion a fight. But it’s not a fight. It’s about evolution. And people gotta get the news sooner or later. Or like you, they can just squat and watch.

Your condescending attitude and name calling only serves to underscore your failure to debate the facts.

I blame Musk

I meant for the cbid fighting...HA!

(as predicted, frankj1 replied)...

everyone I like hates each other.


MCFA!

And now…back to “The Future of EV’s”


Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. (CATL) announced that their new battery technology is ready to be “monetized” (read go into production for profit).

CATL is one of the largest makers of EV batteries - both NCA and LFP.

“Called M3P, the new batteries are said to be up to 15% more energy dense than LFP batteries, which would allow cars like the Tesla Model 3 to have a range in excess of 400 miles. Reuters reported last week that CATL is now ready to begin mass production of its M3P batteries. They will have greater energy density and perform better than lithium-iron phosphate (LFP) batteries and be less expensive than nickel- and cobalt-based batteries, Zeng Yuqun told an online investor briefing on Friday.”

The upshot here is cheaper, better batteries are entering production that weigh less and go farther.

Ford is working with CATL to build a $3.5b plant in the US, which was to be for LFP batteries.
But now this may be for the new M3P - which could be a major advantage for Ford.

This of course is the fact that ford is investing heavily in EV’s and won’t see a return on their investment for a few years - Framed as dramatically as possible.

In fact, no car company shows a “profit” on the first few vehicles that roll off the line.

BrewHa and Le HockeyDad have always not cared about child labor mining cobalt for our batteries. If we don’t abort them then children gotta work too. Not everyone in the world is privileged enough to have drag queen story time hour and become a social media influencer. I assume you are with us on this.

The red herring this to say that those children are being used because of batteries - if there were no batteries, they would have them slaving at something.

Exactly. Would you people rather those kids be mining cobalt or fishing for herring? I bet you that cobalt pays better. Maybe not better than blood diamonds but still better than picking soybeans. Now if they had herring and fished for salmon…that would be awesome.




The point is….this Democratic administration is creating jobs.

You need to get a side gig working for Babylon Bee.

Why, you looking to set her up with your new lawn boy?

Flat as her back

Just sayin...

no idea, as usual, quite what you think I am saying...but here's a clue:

child slaves are not why anyone is against EVs.

It is why I will not support Nike and most of Walmart stuff (sorry Bucky), but it's a lot of self serving sheeet to use it as an argument to thwart efforts to halt dependence on fossil fuels.

Frankie tripod
(owner of a 2008 Honda CRV)

Wait….

You won’t buy Nike because of child labor.
You won’t buy Walmart because of child labor.
You WILL buy an EV regardless of child labor in battery production to halt dependence on fossil fuels. This is why I got into green energy.

That seems like selective outrage. I like it. I suggest heading down to Walmart and picking up a nice pair of Nikes! Cross over to the dark side. Just imagine driving your EV down to Walmart to buy those Nikes. Children need work too! If you buy the right EV it can even make fart sounds. The kids doing the child labor can’t hear the fart sounds because they are in Africa and Asia but it’s the thought that counts.

(Owner of a 2020 BMW X5)

Well, send Britney then...

https://youtu.be/3YaRvbQSjrk

Yeah, they've said that all along. Try to keep up...the stories on this thread (with the inconvenient to your beliefs on EV's) CLEARLY point out what you think is some new revelation. It's not.

Hey, there is some new news on the Tesla front though....




Those price cuts Tesla has recently put in play to help spur business may wind up not being the "perfect plan" after all.

That's because a report from FT this morning says that Tesla vehicles wind up losing their value faster than rival vehicles after price cuts. In fact the "value of second-hand Tesla cars has collapsed since the electric-vehicle maker embarked on a series of price cuts," the report notes.

A new Model 3 with a long-range battery, bought in January this year in the UK for £57,435 ($70,745.80 converted with today's rate because Math is hard for some people) is estimated to fall 46% in value to £31,300 ($38,553.90)by January 2024, the report says, citing figures from industry pricing agency CAP HPI.

It seems clear the depreciation is a result of the price cuts. Over 12 months, the same model only fell 4% in price after September 2021. It was £48,435 ($59,660.10) new and was worth £46,300 ($57,030.30) a year later, FT wrote.

Alarmingly for potential Tesla owners, competitors don't seem to be experiencing a comparable loss of value. A £50,395 ($62,074.30) electric Polestar 2 purchased in January would be worth about £33,000 ($40,647.9) at the start of 2024, FT wrote. This is a 35% drop, compared to the 46% plunge for Tesla.

The report notes that the steeper depreciation could results in Teslas being more expensive via financing deals.

In the beginning of March, we noted that Tesla also cut prices on its Model S and Model X vehicles. This decision follows the investor day event held at the end of February, wherein Elon Musk stated that price cuts had sparked demand for more affordable models.

Musk claimed that the demand for Teslas was nearly unlimited and would increase significantly as the company made its vehicles more affordable. The recent price reductions for the S and X models imply that these vehicles may not have experienced the same boost in demand as the rest of the lineup when the company reduced prices earlier this year.

In January, Tesla slashed the prices of its more affordable vehicles by as much as 20%, which enabled buyers to qualify for the tax incentive by putting the vehicles under a $55,000 cap.

Musk directly addressed the price cuts during the investor day: "We found that even small changes in the price have a big effect on demand, very big."

And, apparently, an effect on residual value...

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/after-price-cuts-teslas-now-lose-their-value-faster-rivals

Remember when "gearheads" would ramble on about resale value? Not so with a software purchase. If Cuba when faced with an embargo can keep 1950's autos on the road that tells me that the American 2nd market is going to ramp up.

You should be wearing those Skechers slip-ons at your age.

From Forbes:

EVs That Can Save The Most In Ownership Costs Vs. Their ICE Counterparts

1. Porsche Taycan vs. Porsche Panamera
Taycan purchase price: $88,150; five-year ownership costs: $91,597. Panamera price: $93,850; ownership costs: $125,075. Net EV savings: $33,478.

2. Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus vs. BMW 330i
Model 3 purchase price: $46,190; five-year ownership costs: $48,720. 330i price: $42,445; ownership costs: $69,590. Net EV savings: $20,870.

3. Chevrolet Bolt 1LT vs. Chevrolet Malibu 1LT
Bolt EV purchase price: $26,595; five-year ownership costs: $36,020. Malibu price: $28,398; ownership costs: $55,778. Net EV savings: $19,758.

3. Tesla Model S Base vs. BMW 740i xDrive
Model S purchase price: $96,190; five-year ownership costs: $115,430. 740i price: $90,795; ownership costs: $131,663. Net EV savings: $16,223.

5. Ford F-150 Lightning Pro Supercrew 4WD vs. Ford F-150 XL 2.7L Ecoboost Supercrew 4WD
F-150 Lightning purchase price: $41,769; five-year ownership costs: $49,114. F-150 XL price: $43,750; ownership costs: $64,539. Net EV savings: $15,425.

actually, I have several pairs.
wearing the gray soft pair right now...

From Forbes eh?

Did it occur to you to actually go to the manufacturers websites and try ordering one?

Sounds typical.