Sponsored
Vercingetorix
Well-Known Member
DCYL725
Well-Known Member
They are not as bad as people think they are.
Tyler Durden is both reliable and trust worthy.
though ev sales are indeed down and has been down for the past 2 years.
expecting major manufacturers to push back their EV commitments.
speedingcarefully
Member
- First Name
- Dave
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2022
- Threads
- 3
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 7
- Location
- Sarasota, FL
- Vehicles
- 2022 Taycan Turbo, 2020 Macan
Dismissing the news site as right wing doesn’t change how my car has depreciated over 50% in one year.
speedingcarefully
Member
- First Name
- Dave
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2022
- Threads
- 3
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 7
- Location
- Sarasota, FL
- Vehicles
- 2022 Taycan Turbo, 2020 Macan
I was going to update my wife’s Macan to the new EV but now I think it’s best to wait a year and pick one up for half off.
groatzky
Active Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2024
- Threads
- 4
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 96
- Location
- USA
- Vehicles
- 2025 Taycan 4S (On the way)
No, but the article is missing the context that you probably have... that the Taycan drop in value is largely due to the announcement of a much better version of the same car being released. Responsible journalism would have explained that.
Caraholic
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Don
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
- Threads
- 10
- Messages
- 844
- Reaction score
- 555
- Location
- South Carolina
- Vehicles
- Taycan Turbo S, FL5 Type R, 392XR JL, F430, Cayman S
Would have to disagree with this the drop happened way before the announcement. With that being said the drop is completely normal for a luxury sedan and nothing to do with it being electric. It only occurred all at once due to the crazy COVID nonsense that went on in the years prior.
OP
OP
Ducs
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #9
I find it interesting that articles simply reporting data have a "left" or "right" wing bias. Especially when the so called rebuttal link is a Borg website with equally biased reputation. Wikipedia is highly preferential in its politics and objectivity adverse.
Either way, clearly I own an EV. I enjoy the tech immensely. But I also partake in energy purchasing and production which affords me meetings with energy procurement specialists, traders, and producers.
Here in Kentucky for instance a massive project called Blue Oval KY began construction of 2 battery production facilities in coordination with SK. One of the 2 buildings is already shelved bc car manufacturers are saddled with copious supply on their lots.
I don't have a preference one way or the other. (I know the end game of solar/battery tech isn't saving the planet but limiting travel.). Solar/wind is fantastic augmentative power. Highly incapable of producing sufficient high demand, constant state for heavy industry or severe draws.
WasserGKuehlt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2022
- Threads
- 5
- Messages
- 2,066
- Reaction score
- 2,456
- Location
- WA
- Vehicles
- 4CT, 996C2, MacanS
You would agree that omitting, or otherwise carefully selecting data is a form of bias, yes?
(Yes, it's a joke/pun, sheesh..)
Your credentials notwithstanding, there are mitigating circumstances to your observations: sales/supply/stocks are probably still settling after the shocks of the last 3-4 years, shelving a multi-decade investment for a limited period (a year?) is not an indictment of that market segment, and finally, political calculus is most certainly influencing business decisions in an election year.
So, then, perfect for travel? (Or did you mean "limited to traveling" instead of "limiting travel"?) There is no reason that at least half of the civilian fleet can't be electric; people are just delusional, biased or simply don't care.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Ducs
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #11
"omitting data"? What data did the article omit? The numbers are the numbers. There is no implication on my OP that they were down, for one reason or another. They are simply down yoy and whatever way you or I want to take it doesn't change that data point. So sure...the "bias" is that the market, for whatever reason, selected EVs as a subpar choice. (I can produce other instances of other battery plants construction being either shuttered or put on hold as well. I didn't say why they were other than they are affecting EV adoption.)
As far las delusional you are using adjectives via your filter. I don't presume to understand everyone's financial ability to adopt, their living arrangements, their geographic locale, nearby infrastructure, etc.
Some may be uninformed some may have no wish to adopt some may live in a rural area like me and cannot afford to purchase both the new tech and do not possess a garage. Others live in apt complexes with hundreds of ppl and only a few dozen chargers which is highly impractical for the apartment dweller.
As far as half the citizenry adoption:....
where do you get your energy consumption figures?
Do you know the exact demand that puts on the existing infrastructure?
(Our research shows it couldn't begin to handle that much demand.)
Also, is your goal with EV to be more eco-responsible?
If so, consider this scenario that we have witnessed playing out repeatedly:
In the last year of NYs IPEC Indian Point Energy Center generated 16.7 terawatt hours of excellent baseload from 2.1GW combined capacity (25% of NYC's total demand). By June 2020 only 1 reactor operative due to the green lobby. It encompassed only 1 square km of land and provided 100% capacity energy for the remainder of the year...flawlessly.
April 21 ceased operation.
NYSIO New York System Independent Operator was faced with the difficult task of keeping the stopgap measures/lights on with the loss.
How did they fill this lack? Wind? Solar? Hydrogen?
No, they built shiny new natural gas power plants despite no existing pipelines to feed them. Ultimately as you can see from the graphic below carbon emission SOARED past the previous levels by absurd amounts.
Sure the greens could go home knowing they won their little battle against nuclear but achieved exactly nothing except unqualified waste to shutter one source and build others along with the immense carbon footprint they increased. (and I am not even mentioning the fact that they also rely heavily on back up from Hydro Quebec and the James Bay project (look that one up if you want eye watering destruction to the land, wildlife and indigenous folk).
That's just one project that resulted in demonstrably more carbon emissions and I can assure you this plays out year after year with every green lobby that thinks they're solving an issue. These people have zero understanding of logistics, energy processes/generation.
They're consistently infinitely more responsible for environmental and financial self-annihilation all while being insufferably smug.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Ducs
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #13
Lol....it is. But daaayyyumm is it fun to drive. I can't speak for speedingcarefully but I didn't buy mine for a political statement, a climate hedge, collector status, or (depreciating) investment. lol
It drives like it's on rails. Arguably one of the most exciting and fun cars to drive today for under $300k.
It drives like it's on rails. Arguably one of the most exciting and fun cars to drive today for under $300k.
Vercingetorix
Well-Known Member
OP
OP
Ducs
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #15
We've used IEA data in our calculations in the past. IEA used to provide solid data.
Since their climate marriage to the IPCC/adoption of COP28/Agenda 21 etc they've accepted fair amounts of persuasive (dare I say biased) funding. Both orgs have been called out for collating only data that fit their narrative instead of objectively comparing data and letting the chips fall where they may. Subsequently we stopped using their data when we pointed out irregularities that they decided didn't fit the goals and were omitted.
Doesn't matter to me what agency provides data as long as they are pro-energy, pro-development, and run their numbers from resource procurement, processing, cost, end product and resulting product's energy footprint.
It's great if more units are sold and people find value. Wonderful tools and exciting to drive.
But panacea for supposed climate emergencies that are still up for debate? Nah.
You seem to squarely have that axe to grind. I'm in it for the fun. If we develop cars that run on water with similar performance sign me up. It's a great side benefit. I like energy. I don't like a tech for its vaunted messiah status... unless of course it's cold fusion and all our problems are forever solved.
Sponsored
