No worries, with Tylenol under scrutiny,autistic programmers should fade out and we can all be happy.

We do not need a centralized grid. We only need food. There are many ways to live. Try a bit of imagination. Else ask chatgpt.

I do not think that was implicitly there. You may have projected something there. That is why you should keep reading. Judging is too easy.

Definitely a positive example. Government screws up, people do not stick to complaining about it and take initiative. Oy, US, taking notes?

Just file the paperwork for cutting the trees. I did this here (EU) Had to draw a plan on which all trees with a circumference of more than 1 meter were indicated. Made a rough plan. Did not spend too much effort on it. It was... accurate enough. Filed the paperwork and got a permit a few weeks later. As I had to cut down too many trees, I had to pay 2000 euro. That money is put in a fund to preserve and expand other forests. All makes sense to me. Consequences of being not alone on this world.

What do you mean by a four hour turnaround? I’m really confused.

My EV has a 330 mile range and my charging is either done at home (plug in at night, unplug in morning) or at my destination (typically a hotel, and once again plug in at night, unplug in the morning). If I really have to do a fast charge on a longer trip, I can go 10 to 80% in about 40 minutes, so I’ll time a charge for when I’m hungry. But I’ve only done that a couple of times in the last two years.

So it might well be that my current EV meets your nominal needs. Unless you mean something else by turnaround.

EU here. I have solar panels on my roof. In summer my electricity bill is zero. Is it a good investment? Yes, pays itself back in a year or 5. I bet they numbers are similar in the US.

This 15k replacement battery thing is clearly absolutely a totemic piece of idiocy that you guys are absolutely stuck on, isn’t it?

I used to have a Renault Zoe with an NMC pack. Here’s the numbers:
Summer range when new: 245 miles
UK average daily driving: 20 miles/day
Battery reaches 80% state of health after 750 equivalent full cycles (EFC) (could actually be as high as 1500 cycles, but let’s be cautious)

1. Daily distance driven = 0.08 of an EFC (20/245)
2. Days to reach 750 EFC = 750 / (20/245) = 9187.5 days.
3. Years to 750 EFC = 9187.5 / 365.25 = approx 25.15 years.
4. If you assume linear degradation and solve, that reduces to approx 23 years

At which point the thing will *still* drive you 200 miles in the summer.

If we now look at a new EV with a 300 mile LFP battery, then the battery will reach 80% state of health after more like 3000 cycles. So we are talking about 300 * 3000 = 900,000 miles of driving, which would take the typical UK driver more than 120 years to reach. At which point the battery would *still* be good for 240 miles of range.

Worrying about range degradation is right up there with worrying about fire risk as being a stupid thing to worry about.

Go Africa, show us how it is done!

Ending subsidies is also *not* the only thing the Trump administration has done to damage the EV market, so you’re whaling away on a strawman of your own invention. The Trump administration has also:
- Rolled back vehicle emissions / fuel-economy standards
- Attempted to revoke California’s EV-friendly regulatory authority / waivers
- Imposed tariffs on EV supply-chain components
- Raised tariff and non-tariff barriers on Chinese EVs
- Cut EV infrastructure support including *removing installed chargers*
- Ended the regulatory credit system that benefited EV makers
- Raided the Hyundai battery plant
Etc

It's very simple.
Big oil don't want you to get an EV, for really obvious reasons that should not elude anyone by now.

Their entire infrastructure and business model is built on the gas-station.
Mom & Pop gas stations don't want to invest in EV chargers either, basically because it's slower, will take up more space.

There is another phenomena on the rise, EV-charging malls. Innovative businesses have found out that if they make a parking lot with EV chargers, then they have an incentive to make customers their destination rather than the ones without a charging facility.

The prolonged charging time - has another advantage, you stay, you eat, and the longer you stay, the more you are enticed to make more purchases.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of what you said. But that still doesn't rebuke that ending subsidies isn't "actively trying to kill EVs", which is an inaccurate, partisan trope. I believe the main thrust of the subsidies in the first place was to promote the technology to a point it could compete in the free market. Many (including myself) believe we are at that point.

What holds most buyers back now isn't some price subsidy (nor lack of different models, nor safety, nor lack of information/exposure), it is primarily the lack of being able to charge in a convenient/workable manner. A large part of the potential market is locked out because they are not as fortunate as some of us.... I charge in my own garage; not so easy for those in apartments and condos, or with only on-street parking.

>"since Trump and his puppet-masters are actively trying to kill EVs for some reason."

Ending subsidies is not "actively trying to kill EVs", it is simply removing PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT of EVs. If they slapped penalties on them, THAT would be trying to kill them. There is enough supply and demand they should be able to do fine on their own merits, like almost all other products.

LOTS of EV models lost their federal tax incentives based on sales, from 2022 and on, and others lost them due to manufacture location or battery sourcing. And there were income restrictions. But there was a leasing loophole for some models, which is why leasing them became really popular. It is all more complicated than people assert.

For the remaining models, there would, indeed, be an artificial "bubble" of sales leading up to the end of the artificial price reductions. And that will result in a slump of sales for a while after, and then prices will likely adjust back down and the sales will likely return to "normal" again.

And I think it's safe to say they're going to lose sales. I don't think they'll lose all of them but I would expect to lose about half that quarter or about 12%. Worst case it could be as high as 15.

A normal company losing 15% of its sales would be dead meat. Wall Street would cut it up for parts.

But people bought into Tesla when it was so ridiculously overvalued that everybody is afraid of being the one who pulls the trigger. Nobody wants to get caught holding the bag when it eventually collapses.

Meanwhile Elon musk's last two pay packages are worth about $100 billion dollars. If you're wondering how he's going to get that money since those were stock deals he's going to dump the stock into pensions and 401ks. To put that into perspective it's more money than Tesla can make in 50 years with the subsidies...

It's not a question of when company is going to collapse it's just which of the big four are going to buy up the remains and who gets caught holding the bag. I am pretty certain it won't be Elon

After world war II Russia was a burnt-out husk and it never fully recovered. Putting a criminal in charge of the country was the final straw. Russia was never a threat and there was zero reason to have a cold war with them except to keep the military industrial complex going and to line the pockets of well connected defense contractors at the expense of the public at Large.

At this point with Russia not even able to subdue a nation of 20 million it's stupidly obvious they are no threat so we can't use them to go booga booga at voters.

So China is the next step. And China for their part is happy to use America as an external threat to keep their populace in line. Because we've always been at war with Eurasia.

We never fucking learn.