I don't know where you live, but here that's not the case. The last rental car I had was clean, 100% undamaged and had a full tank of fuel. They inspect rental cars quite thoroughly when you hand them back and you pay for any damage that wasn't noted when you picked up the vehicle, whether you caused it or not.
The last rental property I lived in was also clean and tidy. I had to pay a huge amount of money for bond and once again, unless the property was in a good state when I moved out, they would have been able to keep some or all of the bond to make it good. Public toilets, well I wouldn't exactly eat off the floor or anything like that, but they're bearable...

I work for a company that sells and develops Add-On products for Microsoft Dynamics NAV (formerly Navision).

They have moved to a MONTHLY "Cumulative Update" model, and are obviously deprecating the idea of "big yearly releases" (with the occasional, "voluntary", "Hotfix" or "Cumulative Update") that they have used for years.

It's no fun.

So, when Windows 10 goes this same way, we will have a situation where the OS is constantly in-flux, and the Applications (like NAV) are also constantly in-flux, with the possibility of every single month having to track down incompatibilities and update-caused-bugs.

And, if it's anything like what they are doing with NAV, these aren't just little bugfixes; no, they seem to be churning through all the code, continuously making SWEEPING changes, refactoring sections of working code, and generally just tromping around through the source ALL the time. This cannot help but to decrease stability, and with a modifiable product like NAV, these MONTHLY changes are consuming a significant amount of resources at the "reseller" end, and are actually stymying product improvement for our add-ons.

It's a bad, bad thing. Bad Microsoft, Bad!

Oh, yeah. I forgot that they supplanted their joke-of-a-range with the ability to run on gasoline.

Guess it was the only way to make a "product" out of it.

So, with the use-cases:

1. Long commutes (Read: Everyone in California) - Gasoline

2. Vacations - Gasoline

3. Any running-about-town > approx. 40 miles - Gasoline

That's a lot of exceptions to the "ideal" use-case.

Now, get that range to the 150-250 mile-mark, and we're talkin' !!!

That's why I like the idea of TRUE fuel-cell vehicles, like the one Mercedes is working on. Hydrogen and (I think) Salt-Water in. Power and Water Vapor Out. And according to Wikipedia, they already have a range of 250 miles, and are closing in on 450 (with a 10,000 psi H2 Tank!!!)

Now THAT's the way to build an alternative-fuel vehicle!

As I said in another response, I have basically zero experience with 3 ph. AC Motors and Vector Drives. But, as a former motor-controller/motor-drive developer, I know enough about them to understand that that IS a whole-nuther ballgame!

I admit I was surprised to find that Tesla is warrantee-ing their batteries for 8 years. Maybe things are getting a little better...

I will cede that I have almost zero experience with Vector-Drives; and it is possible that they can seriously enhance the torque curve of the motors in the Model S.

I want to thank you and congratulate you: You are the ONLY Poster who actually UNDERSTOOD what I was looking for: That is, a RATIONAL explanation as to WHY I was all wet!!!

DAMN, THANK YOU!!!

And, as a bonus, I understand your arguments, and they also seem quite reasonable and well-presented...

I couldn't agree more.

But the postulate I was attempting to bring forth was that, in the United States of America, at this time in history, that EVs were, when all was said and done, in most cases, not nearly as "green" as their proponents would have us believe.

And when we all have that, it will be a much different situation.

But it simply isn't even close to that, now.

That's not opinion; it's physics.

It is physics-ly impossible to convert energy from one form to another with zero loss. Even superconductors have SOME resistance. Resistance equals heat. Heat equals loss.

It had BETTER be more efficient, since your "tank" only holds the equivalent of about a litre of gasoline, energy-wise!

I know this probably doesn't make enough of a difference to matter; but did you know that, as motor windings heat up, the resistance goes up; and as the resistance goes up, the heat goes up. And as the heat goes up, the resistance goes up, and as the resistance goes up... It's called I squared R loss, and it's the same thing that causes the voltage-drop in a long extension cord if the wire gauge is too small. I'm not an expert on ICE, but I'm pretty sure that they get more efficient as they heat up, not less, like electric motors do.

You see, in a former life, for about 12 years, I designed industrial motor controls for a living; so what I am saying is not all opinion.

BTW, since I drive about 42 miles a day to work and back, I would get REAL tired of always worrying about finding an outlet at each end of the journey, especially since it would be basically impossible at the "work" end.

No, I was challenging EVs in general; I wasn't trying to pick on Tesla, per se.

In fact, I would love to have an EV; but I won't do it if it means that I'm just moving the smoke plume out of my locality and into another.

You're right. And when (and if) that happens, then I will be right there in line. But as I said, in the U.S., and for now, I don't see it making actual environmental sense.

I have read that claim several times in this thread; but so far, no one has backed it up with a single citation, or even a cockamamie theory. Instead, people just keep parroting the same phrases without a shred of actual facts, like with "man-made Global Warming", er, "Climate Change".

Yes it does.