Electric Cars Are Better for the Planet - and Often Your Budget, Too
By: Veronica Penney - The New York Times
New data published Thursday shows that despite the higher sticker price, electric cars may actually save drivers money in the long-run
Trying to compare electric to gasoline is difficult.
Gasoline is hugely subsidized - something like eighty or ninety percent of its pump price .
You pay for your neighbor's gas-guzzling pickup twice: once at the pump, and then in environmental clean-up.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Electric vehicles are better for the climate than gas-powered cars, but many Americans are still reluctant to buy them. One reason: The larger upfront cost.
New data published Thursday shows that despite the higher sticker price, electric cars may actually save drivers money in the long-run.
To reach this conclusion, a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated both the carbon dioxide emissions and full lifetime cost — including purchase price, maintenance and fuel — for nearly every new car model on the market.
They found electric cars were easily more climate friendly than gas-burning ones. Over a lifetime, they were often cheaper, too.
Source: carboncounter.com by the MIT Trancik Lab
Note: The chart shows data for new cars, SUVs and other models that retail for $55,000 or less.
The most fuel efficient trim for each car is included and additional trim levels are shown for cars over $35,000
if they have a lower fuel economy rating than other trims shown (they are less efficient) by at least 4 miles per gallon.
Climate scientists say vehicle electrification is one of the best ways to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, the transportation sector is the largest source of emissions, most of which come from cars and trucks.
Jessika Trancik, an associate professor of energy studies at M.I.T. who led the research, said she hoped the data would "help people learn about how those upfront costs are spread over the lifetime of the car."
For electric cars, lower maintenance costs and the lower costs of charging compared with gasoline prices tend to offset the higher upfront price over time. (Battery-electric engines have fewer moving parts that can break compared with gas-powered engines and they don't require oil changes. Electric vehicles also use regenerative braking, which reduces wear and tear.)
The cars are greener over time, too, despite the more emissions-intensive battery manufacturing process. Dr. Trancik estimates that an electric vehicle's production emissions would be offset in anywhere from six to 18 months, depending on how clean the energy grid is where the car is charging.
The new data showed hybrid cars, which run on a combination of fuel and battery power, and can sometimes be plugged in, had more mixed results for both emissions and costs. Some hybrids were cheaper and spewed less planet-warming carbon dioxide than regular cars, but others were in the same emissions and cost range as gas-only vehicles.
Traditional gas-burning cars were usually the least climate friendly option, though long-term costs and emissions spanned a wide range. Compact cars were usually cheaper and more efficient, while gas-powered SUVs and luxury sedans landed on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Dr. Trancik's team released the data in an interactive online tool to help people quantify the true costs of their car-buying decisions — both for the planet and their budget. The new estimates update a study published in 2016 and add to a growing body of research underscoring the potential lifetime savings of electric cars.
Comparing individual cars can be useful — and sometimes surprising .
Source: carboncounter.com by the M.I.T. Trancik Lab
Note: For their calculations, the M.I.T. researchers assumed each car would last 15 years and drive an average of 13,000 miles per year.
The most closely comparable drivetrain and trim levels are shown in each vehicle pairing in this chart.
Take the Tesla Model 3, the most popular electric car in the United States. The M.I.T. team estimated the lifetime cost of the most basic model as comparable to a Nissan Altima that sells for $11,000 less upfront. (That's even though Tesla's federal tax incentive for electric vehicles has ended.)
Toyota's Hybrid RAV4 S.U.V. also ends up cheaper in the long run than a similar traditional RAV4, a national bestseller, despite a higher retail price.
The charts above use nationwide average prices for gasoline and electricity to estimate lifetime costs, but the results may shift depending on where potential buyers live. (The interactive tool allows users to input their local rates.)
Hawaii, Alaska and parts of New England have some of the highest average electricity costs, while parts of the Midwest, West and South tend to have lower rates. Gas prices are lower along the Gulf Coast and higher in California. But an analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists still found that charging a vehicle was more cost effective than filling up at the pump across 50 major American cities. "We saw potential savings everywhere," said David Reichmuth, a senior engineer for the group's Clean Transportation Program.
Still, the upfront cost of an electric vehicle continues to be a barrier for many would-be owners.
The federal government offers a tax credit for some new electric vehicle purchases, but that does nothing to reduce the initial purchase price and does not apply to used cars. That means it disproportionately benefits wealthier Americans. Some states, like California, offer additional incentives. President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. has pledged to offer rebates that help consumers swap inefficient, old cars for cleaner new ones, and to create 500,000 more electric vehicle charging stations, too.
Chris Gearhart, director of the Center for Integrated Mobility Sciences at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said electric cars will become more price competitive in coming years as battery prices drop. At the same time, new technologies to reduce exhaust emissions are making traditional cars more expensive. "With that trajectory, you can imagine that even immediately at the purchase price level, certain smaller sedans could reach purchase price parity in the next couple of years," Dr. Gearhart said.
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
I admit that I'm like most people: wary of the sticker price.
A car can flaunt all its bells and whistles to demonstrate its superiority to other models. But ultimately, it will come down to price. However, as technology improves and production expands, the price should drop accordingly, within reasonable limits. There's also the issue of how long people will drive a car for. Some might only want it for a few years before trading in for a newer model. Others might drive their car for years until it dies.
What angers me is that this would be a no-brainer in favor of electric, if gasoline wasn't so heavily subsidized.
Our taxes pay for the destruction of the planet.
Well done, America!
That's part of the problem. The other issue is the general lack of infrastructure to support large numbers of electric vehicles. Not to mention the cost of converting or altering the current infrastructure to support EVs.
Yep
Again, there's a pattern with all new technologies.
I used the exple of price for laptops.
But there's been other advances as well (in addition to the cost decreasing over time). The original laptops were considerably slower and less powerful than desktops. And OMG-- were they heavy! This made them a poor choice for most uses...
Of course all that's changed...
True. As long as technology is refined and improves, it becomes cheaper to produce and lower costs.
Well the transition won't be overnight.
So for a while there's no need to convert the infrastructure. (Gas station).rRather than having to convert gas stations to Electric charging stations...the gas stations will remain and in addition to them Electric charging stations will be built!
Of course not. Not to mention there are those that might be resistant to change.
I see no reason to waste my time. We both know you won't accept anything I produce.
If you really want to know, a quarter-hour with Google...
Bob, we disagree on a lot, but on this I'm with you 100%.
I admit that I'm like most people: wary of the sticker price.
True, the prices are outrageous now.
But that's the trend with new techologies-- initially those products are incredibly expensive, but over time the price goes down...
I was an "early adopter" of computer technology-- owned a computer (desktop) before most people did. Then when the first laptops came out, I really wanted one!
But initially the prices were outrageous.
Eventually the prices came down--- so I bought one.
There's no doubt in my mind that over time EVs ("Electric Vehicles") will be reasonably priced.
I had a Commodore 64.
I had an Oric...
LOL. So did I.
I also had a Mattel Aquarius. How's that for obscure?
Never heard of it... but... Wikipedia !
I wsa already living in France, and apparently it was never released there.
I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it. It wasn't around very long. Still a cool system for the time.
It was a fun time. There were lots of strange machines coming out of the woodwork.
Not just machines, but games too. Back then, it seemed like every company was making a game. Remember when Purina made their "Chase the chuck wagon" game? Another obscure reference.
I had Heathkit/Zenith H88 circa 1980, still have it.
Me too!
Nice. Old (classic) electronics are like classic cars: they have an appeal and personality all their own.
It was a great system (for the day), was it not? The keyboard was big, which made the loud clicking sound whenever you pressed the keys. Then the floppy disk drive, which sone times made a grinding noise when reading the disk. One might have thought their floppy was being shredded when the drive started grinding, Lol
Our son's first computer was a C64. He had it for several years. It was a pretty good machine as a starter.
I had an Atari computer.
From what I've read, these were pretty good, and precursors of technology to come.
I loved mine and for the time, they were pretty darned awesome. I learned a bit of code language (basic commands) in my computer class in middle school and I applied it to my Atari computer at home.
Ah... Basic!
... the hours I wasted...
Oh yes, the "16 bit revolution!"
The C64 was awesome. A good library of games too.
I remember trying to cross a river filled with crocodiles.
Sounds like Jungle Hunt. Possibly Frogger.
Same here. My two kids grew up with the C64!
Frogger!!
My late wife was addicted to Centipede! I was addicted to River Raid.
A classic!
River Raid was a good game. I wasn't crazy about Centipede. I was more into Galaga. Or Gyruss.
It seemed most people I've met over the years had started with a Commodore.
I never had one-- you were earlier than me.
The first computer I ever saw up close was a pc-- an "8088". A friend of mine was a stock market forecaster, put out a monthly newsletter. He had an 8088 and a later model pc, a "286".
Later I met someone who was the head of the computer dept, in a PR firm. We became friends and I spent some time in her house while she showed me a few things about how to use a computer-- she also had a pc, a "386".
I was very impressed so I decided to buy one.
Toshiba 386SX!
Math coprocessor!
An interesting story about the purchase. I asked her where I could buy one. Well, at the time a computer seemed like an "appliance"-- you plugged it in, turned on a switch, pushed some buttons to make it work.
Where did you buy appliances? Sears Roebuck!!
So we drove to the nearest Sears (2 towns over) and I bought my first computer-- a Packard Bell 386.
It had Windows 3.1, but only 2 MB RAM. So for the first few months I only used DOS programs. Internal modem, but I didn't go online for a few months. I took an "Introduction to Computing" course, learned the 3 standard office programs at the time (all DOS): WP5.1, Lotus 1-2-3, and DB 3+. Also took Intro. to Programming, learrned the rather simple GW BASIC. Later Harvard Graphics.
Our first PC was ''compatible''... more or less...
After hassling with the ''less'', we also got a Packard Bell...
I'm driving my Fiesta until it's DEAD. I think I've determined that I filled up my Fiesta's tank (approx. 10 gal. ea. time) for a total of 6 times in a year; yes, because of the pandemic and not having to drive 60 miles round trip. However, at an AVERAGE of $2 / gal for March 2020 through today in MI, and roughly 60 gal. = $120 for 10 months of driving, which clearly isn't a lot of driving.
My boss's boss is trying to convince the "powers that be" that we've proven to be just as, if not more productive working from home than being in office AND that it's reducing emissions for our entire team.
I also thought you might like this article:
And this article ( ) is what he was responding to; I actually saw the episode and I agree with Adam's assessments and yes, I actually checked out the references from that episode.
I love my classic cars as do many in the "Motor City" but while they're not daily drivers, we still like the ability to own them and drive them occasionally. Fossil fuels aren't going away completely; at least not in my lifetime. It's just too complicated. The industrial revolution made us dependent, at least on some level, for a long time to come.
Yes. People tend to think of gasoline and fuel when they hear the term fossil fuels but it's used everywhere. Fertilizer, plastic and more. Here's a site that lists a few things fossil fuels are used in.
I just mentioned plastics down below.
Ah yes-- Plastics!
There's a great future in Plastics!
Plastics? Fossil Fuel?
So you still think that Trump actually won the Election?
I admit I am a part of the problem. I still have a 2002 Tahoe. Still drives fine for almost being twenty years old. I know I shouldn't but I always loved the size and comfort afforded by larger vehicles. Being as tall as a truck yet able to turn on a dime. Plenty of room to haul a bunch of people and I even use it to tow.
Now I don't drive it everyday anymore but still can't get rid of it.
That's an issue that Electrics are a long way from solving. If you own a camper or boat you need a vehicle capable of towing a long distance. I'd like a boat but I'm not going to buy a tow vehicle and while my van could tow a boat 20' or under pretty easily I couldn't count on it being able to pull it out of the water at the boat ramp 100% of the time.
Truth. There's some companies (Volvo being one) that is working on increasing torque and distance for towing capacity; mainly commercial use, but it would easily trickle down to consumer use. It's an issue that's being worked on and by some good automotive companies.
I have only pulled a double Jetski trailer, loaded of course and utility trailers. It had no problem backing them in and out.
Don't get me wrong, I think we need to move on and forward. EV's are great for commuting yet that is not all people do.
A fact of life here in the US is vehicles are used as utilitarian as much as used for commute.
How often do you do tow something like this? How complicated would it be to rent a vehicle for the day?
Most of the vehicles in Yuma are pickups. Many have pristine loadbeds and few are loaded. I have to wonder if many non-professionals really need a pickup. It looks to me like they buy pickups like people used to buy ''longer, lower, wider''.
Agreed. At my house, we always have an "econo-box" which is usually my car; and a truck, which is usually my husband's vehicle.
It's not generally for just a day when it's a camper trailer or utility trailer. And many rental companies actually stipulate that you cannot tow with their rental vehicle. Moreover, most rental vehicles don't have the required harnesses, hitch, and ball.
Oh... and when people do their own home repairs, renting a vehicle is an additional expense to that home repair... IF a truck rental is available when you want to do the job.
At my house, it's the opposite. I have the "econo box" and my wife has the SUV. I'm not picky and just am happy with a ride getting me where I want to go.......economically. I only have a 34 mile round trip per day for work.
I have had to haul two Jetskis, four teenage boys, coolers for drinks and snacks, extra gas, lifevests and anything else needed for the day.
It is just not practical to rent a vehicle.
I am all for moving forward. I hope Biden restores the emissions goals started by the Obama administration.
I think the main gripe is there are varying needs and wants. Especially depending on location.
All of what you say is true... but it's self-fulfilling. IF there's demand, then the renters will provide the product. Yay capitalism!
My question was ''How complicated would it be?'' I was assuming that the product would be available, of course. It would require a run to the renter to swap vehicles. And would mean a car as daily driver rather than a truck.
If we assume that nothing can be done about anything, we're probably not going to make much progress. The planet is burning, so immobilism is probably not our best plan.
Why not? This is the kind of practical question that we really, really need to work on. No non-professional needs a truck all the time. If gasoline's pump price weren't so heavily subsidized... if it cost its true price of around TWELVE DOLLARS PER GALLON, what would we be driving?
We surely would not have monster trucks.
So we need to think in terms of ''How do we get from here to there?''
Somehow I think we still would.
Americans have always had a love affair with cars.
You're trying to tell me that in order to get rental places to start allowing people to rent trucks with hitches, hitch balls, and tow harnesses, I simply need to rent trucks more often? That's not how it works. There's a liability on the rental company that they're not willing to take on, no matter how high the demand.
It's complicated, because rental places don't have the required set up, nor do they allow renters to use their vehicles for towing. And haven't we determined several people here have a CAR (an "econo-box") for a daily driver?
No one said that nothing can be done. Actually, I pointed out that several auto makers, including Volvo (a company that makes big transport trucks for overseas), that are working on an EV that can transport large quantities of goods or for towing needs. However, the tech isn't yet available to the public. Therefore, why would those of us that have a daily driver "econo-box" AND a truck, get rid of the truck (that we own outright) just to rent a truck on the occasions we need one... especially if our plan is for towing and rental places won't allow it, nor have their rental trucks set up for towing? I'm not going to pay movers $400 to move a jukebox that's worth less than the moving fee.
That doesn't stop people from driving their classic hot rod that takes Turbo Blue gasoline. It's $10-$11 per gallon. I think the highest I've ever seen it was $12.49 / gal.
Yup. That'smthe way things are now.
And if that's the way it is now...well, that's proof positive that it can never change!
NEVER!
The ''Adam'' debate is interesting... but four years old. The cost situation is evolving fast.
In Midwest states it's not changing very fast.
The "smart money" on Wall Street is betting on EVs. Here's a chart of the share price of Tesla stock compared to the DOW. (The dark blue line is the stock price of TSLA, the DOW is the light blue line on the bottom of the chart...)
I'm not sure any of this really matters in the long run. Personal ownership of cars for people in urban settings is most likely on the way out. When self driving car tech is perfected there will be fleets of them run by some company where all you have to do is request a pickup from your phone. Get in and it takes you to your desired destination. When you're ready to return, you request another and home you go.
No more car payments, car insurance, car storage, car maintenance, fooling with parking spaces or fees. It will free up thousands of dollars of a person's budget. Most people simply won't need them anymore. Garages at home will be repurposed. If such a service is significantly cheaper than today's taxis, cars are probably gonners.
You're probably right... at long term. I think we're going to have at least twenty years transitioning... and our eventual landing zone is unclear.
Speaking of which, I want a flying car. That would be awesome.
It may happen. Quadcopter.
Nice
Trust me when I say that it's further off than people think. I work for an automotive electronics tier 1 supplier. There's still work to be done.
Bummer. I'm rather looking forward to it, to tell the truth.
Is he wealthy yet ?
(There's a saying on "The Street":
If you're so smart-- why ain't ya rich?
Is who wealthy yet?
Oh... and you do realize that most cars, even EVs are made with plastic, right? Polypropylene for dashboards, expanded polystyrene for bumpers [behind the polyethylene covers], and we use polyvinyl chloride (PVC) quite regularly, including in car parts... there's other plastics used in cars for various purposes, but the point is... we're not getting rid of fossil fuels anytime soon.
.
From the above link:
Plastic in itself is a major problem of our time.
Yes, it is. I miss my glass bottle Coca-cola, which yes, I can get the "old school" that's made and bottled in Mexico, but not everyone carries it. I am also a fan of Faygo, but not all flavors are available in glass.
I'm not a huge fan of plastic, but I know that to get the mandated emissions / fuel mileage from a vehicle, they have to use plastics. We don't have the public transportation in MI that many states do. We don't have a subway, trains are used to go to Chicago or NY, but are far too expensive to take to say, San Francisco, and while yes, we have busses, it would take me 4-5 hours to get to work because of the amount of stops... and they don't take the freeway. The "Motor City" did NOT make it easy or practical to travel unless one owns a vehicle.
Here it was always a cold bottle of Barq's rootbeer.
Yeah, infrastructure is in need of an overhaul.
You couldn't live in this area without a car. Our bus system does work, I have taken it before. Cheap and wasn't that bad. Just have to plan for it. Of course being a peninsula makes it a lot easier. Haha
Indeed:
WHAT IS THE GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH?
Well, admitted not being able to buy Coke in a glass bottle is indeed a major problem!
But in addition, there are a few minor problems-- such as what's its doing to the environment...
You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until it comes time to dispose of billions of spent PV panels and electric vehicle batteries. We really need to start on recycling and long term storage processes for these things NOW before it is too late and the impact to the environment becomes worse than fossil fuel emissions or carbon. In the case of EV batteries, the emphasis has been on maximizing vehicle range and fast-charging capability, without much emphasis at all on proper recycling programs. The seeded article does not mention if battery disposal/recycling, or even the environmental impact of producing such batteries, was included in the life-cycle cost study.
Another thing to consider is the timing of vehicle charging. In California for example, the ISO has identified that the peak Utility loads these days have shifted into the late afternoon/early evening, especially during the summer, as people return home, turn on HVAC and start cooking dinner and doing laundry, etc. At the same time the production of PV power begins to wane and Utilities must quickly return to base load generation (likely gas, clean coal, and nuclear power - although the latter is now nearly gone in California).
This creates what is known in the industry as the "duck curve", and what it indicates is that along with public expenditure on more solar and wind power, we must also build base load generators to quickly spin up and adequately serve the load in the neck of the duck curve (late afternoon/early evening). This represents a double whammy on both public cost and utility plant emissions. Now add to that the front end of a home charging cycle for EVs as more and more people come home in their electric vehicles, and the duck curve deepens even further requiring even more base load generation. Utilities in California are already beginning to change their rate structures to shift peak pricing periods into the late afternoon and early evening in an effort to reduce load in the neck of the duck curve and hopefully reduce the need for building more and more base load resources. This too needs to be considered and addressed in figuring the true cost of EVs as the bulk of the home charging anyway will now occur during the highest cost time of use.
That being said, I've had my eye on a new Tesla for quite some time. At some point the upfront cost, cost of adding a charger at my home, access to charging stations across the state, and the increase in gasoline prices here in California will tip my wallet in that direction.
In another article it appears the US is moving toward battery systems to supplement large PV systems, which certainly can help with the "duck curve" problem in the now, but will most certainly exacerbate the battery recycle/disposal problem in the future.
So with increasing use of batteries in EVs as well as utility scale backup systems, we need to keep an eye on the environmental and financial impact of manufacturing, recycling, and/or disposing of these batteries at the conclusion of their useful life. More reading HERE .
We've got some work to do and we better do it fast at the rate lithium-ion batteries are being produced and used.
Good post.
Everything we do has an impact. You're right that batteries are a fairly big impact, and need to be controlled right from the start. We do not want the same mess that petroleum has put us in!
Necessarily, the technical solutions come after the expression of the problem. I've seen articles on the topic. Next time, I'll send what I come across.
Here's the history of Science (short version!);
Just when most people agree that something can't be done-- someone invents it!
Most people were sure something like the airplane couldn't be invented-- after all it was too heavy..
Then it was.
A "Horseless Carriage"?
Impossible.
And on and on and on.
There will always be the naysayers-- Luddites who insist "it can't be done".
Because that's the way it is, and that's the its always been.
So-- it can never change!
I understand how and when things happened. It took a long time for all of the aforementioned. I never once said that it couldn't happen; I'm saying that it won't happen for a long time from current date.
Are you arguing that just because it is that way-- it will always have to be that way?
That Science will never come up with a substance that's more environmentally friendly than plastic? (And have better physical properties as well?)
No. I said nothing of the sort. I'm saying that we're not getting away from fossil fuels in my lifetime... which means probably no one else's here either.
So is Poison Ivy-- but I wouldn't put it in my Salad!
Completely agree with that sentiment.
The main point of the message you quoted, is that the fossil fuels that everyone says we need to rid of completely are being used in far more products than most people realize. There are thousands of products that need complete overhaul or people need to learn how to live without those products altogether... including but not limited to, computers, cell phones, vinyl fencing, car parts, microwaves, yard tools, garbage cans, prepackaged foods, window blinds, ceiling fans, wind turbines, hydroelectric components, solar panels, etc.... all of which contain plastic made from fossil fuels.
Do you have a solution to another material that would meet government standards for the aforementioned products to replace the plastic components? I know that I don't.
Of course not. Krishna isn't a chemical engineer. (At least... I don't think he is...) I don't think your question is the right one.
''Is there a solution?'' would be better, and asked of the appropriate people.
There are ''biodegradable'' and ''compostable'' non-petroleum ''plastics''. As usual, it's a question of cost... and as usual some conclude that, considering current (wildly subsidized) petro-plastic costs... nothing can be done...
And again, I'm not one of those people saying that "nothing can be done." I'm again, simply making a point that it's not a quick nor easy solution to get rid of all fossil fuels.
Because that's the way it is, and that's the its always been.
So-- it can never change!
And then there are the Visionaries...the Dreamers.
Creative folks...who "Think Different":
“Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently.
They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them.
Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
So we have Steve Jobs partially to blame for the lack of proper conjugation? Think Different... No! Think Differently.
Well, there's the issue of precise use of grammar. But OTOH, on occasion, a slightly incorrect use of grammar can be more effective... it can be a matter of literary style.
Here's a famous example. Two ways to say the same thing.
Which is grammatically correct?
Which is more effective? (Granted, the latter is a matter of opinion).:
1. I will not put up with this type of errant pedantry.
2. This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put .
My guess is that incorrect usage here on NT is 20% typos, 10% linguistic error (we have some English-as-second-languge members), and 70% ''don't give a shit''... which is a bit of a fuck-you to all readers...
It's easy to type too fast. It doesn't take long to re-read.
your/you're/yore
to/too/two
and so on....
Bonus question for everyone: Without googling it, who was the famous orator who said it? (example #2)
Actually... one of your choices should be
The whole point is that ''with'' at the end.
Groucho?
Actually I think that's true on most Social Media sites.
I also think think that in the "linguistic error" category-- they're not all "English-as-second-language members". (Given the current state of most of our nation's schools...well, let's just say its possible to graduate Elementary School even if the student is "semi-literate").
Actually... one of your choices should be
This is a type of errant pedantry I will not put up with.
The whole point is that ''with'' at the end.
Good point! Actually I had considered using that-- but decided to limit the number of examples to two.
As an "Amateur" Psychologist, I have been intrigued with the Myers-Briggs Typology Indicator (AKA "The MBTI"), a system of personality types (there are 16) . As far as I know, there are only 3 people on this site who are the "ENTP" types. I am one of them.
One of our "faults" is that we tend to "talk too much"-- overly wordy. So in order to communicate more effectively, an ENTP should try to limit the number of words they use.
(And also remember to present only one concept at a time--ENTP's minds tend to be very , very quick-- we tend to see numerous possibilities in any situation-- too many too quickly for mot other types to "grok". )
----------
Actually I believe the applicable rule is:
It is never correct to end a sentence a preposition with!
----------
Groucho?
Good guess-- yes that would be typical of his style.
But actually in this case it was.Winston Churchill!
Amongst my favourite sources of excellent quotes is Winston Churchill, Yogi Berra, Robert Zimmerman, Oscar Wilde, Jesus, The Buddha...a few others!
I think that's the most common (or one of the most common) errors I've seen online.
(Although the times they are a changin').
Also confusing "literally" and "figuratively" (It can be literally nerve-racking to see them confused..well, figuratively speaking of course).
Two more (these are difficult)
its and it's
lay and lie
Just found this list (don't worry-- you don't have to know this!)
Commonly Confused Words
Your post is much too long!
Napoleon
there / they're
Are you referring to the post in which I said:
One of our "faults" is that we tend to "talk too much"-- overly wordy. So in order to communicate more effectively, an ENTP should try to limit the number of words they use.
(Comment # 5 .1 .7)
Yes.
(Notice the admirable concision.)
I already did!
.
Can you beat that?
English teachers would say the latter is incorrect
Can you beat that?
Yes.
(But in my experience its best to be a bit humble on Social Media sites...)
Humble and concise.
Magnificent!
English teachers would say the latter is incorrect
Well, strictly speaking, they'd be right.
But that quote is from Winston Churchill-- a very powerful orator. And obviously it was deliberate.
Opinions may differ but IMO often making a deliberate grammatical error can lead to more powerful speech (or writing).
One example I like is the use of split infinitives. When I was in Elementary School, we were taught that is was wrong to ever split infinives. But I actually like the "feel" of split infinitives on occasion. I deliberately do it sometimes..
(I recently researched it-- to my surprise, many "experts" now feel it should no longer be considered incorrect to ever split infinitives!
)
Of course some of this can be taken to extremes, and English usage is IMO often degraded to an extreme. (Perhaps we need an English equivalent of the Académie française?)
Correct.
I gave up ''never split'' maybe a decade ago. I'm so pleased that the experts have rallied to my position.
French is in a very different position from English. English is spoken world-wide. It is ''everyone's second language''.
French is a second-rank language. It needs defense to maintain a solid position on the world stage.
Then there's Mandarin...
A friend has a Tesla model S 2020 model year. That is one of the fastest cars I've ever been in and of course very quiet and beautiful handling. A bit on the pricey side around $70K but what a car. It's faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo in 0 to 60, under 3 seconds.
The city I live in has a population of 65,000 and some of the shopping centers have charging stations so around here it isn't a huge problem.
We have a bicycle, subway, buses, Uber and taxis. I haven't owned or leased a car for 14 1/2 years. Out of curiosity, is there a difference in insurance premiums for EVs as opposed to gas-driven?
I can only speak to the Detroit Metro Area; EVs and Hybrids are more expensive to insure. Mainly because the parts and labor to repair the vehicle are more expensive. Other reasons are, but not limited to:
For the Detroit Metro Area, insurance is also expensive because we're close to Detroit and those cars are frequently stolen... for parts.
Then comparing the overall expense of owning an EV or Hybrid with a gas-driven vehicle must also take into consideration the cost of insurance.
Since most EV's cost at least double what a comparable gas car costs you can add all the gas cost a typical subcompact gas car will use for 100,000 miles and still come well under the EV's purchase price. Higher insurance rates for full coverage is just the beginning because while a quality brand gas car will easily give you 250,000 miles on the engine and tranny the EV's battery pack will not make it to half that. The longevity of the EV's drivetrain is hard to estimate but you can count on most parts costing more than average.
Exactly. Like I said though, I can only speak to my area. I'm pretty sure it's less expensive to insure an EV or hybrid in California than it is in Michigan, but I'm not positive of that.
Especially if you own a "gas sipper" with a manual trans. I don't think that you can get a manual with an EV or hybrid. I love my manuals. And you're right... my friend's Prius hybrid needed a new battery pack (@ 65,000 mi), that she had to pay for ($1100 for a REFURB), and she was still paying on her vehicle. Her car is 2 years newer than my Fiesta. The only large repair I had to have done (*knock on wood*) was in December 2019; I had to get my trans rebuilt (@ 93,000 mi)($1700) because 5th gear went out, but I hadn't been paying on my car since March 2016 and technically I could still drive it... just couldn't use 5th gear and I had to be careful with Reverse, because it uses the same synchro.
My friend's insurance costs her twice as much as mine does through the same company; although, some of that is because she lives closer to Detroit than I do, but that's not the only reason.
I wonder if there will soon be significant tax breaks for owning an EV? (As a result of the recent elections)?
My memory is hazy on it but I seem to recall that sometime back in my early years a tax break was provided in Canada for some reason on the purchase of something, which COULD have been cars.
I think at some time there were tax breaks for purchases of energy efficient vehicles.
Of course there may be different reasons for tax breaks-- breaks for fuel efficient vehicles. rules to encourage purchase of American made cars, etc.
And with the federal system we have here in the states-- there are often a real c\"crazy quilt" of regulation-- different laws governing the same thing in different states.
Civilized countries - i.e. European countries - give a rebate for low emissions.
Obviously, EVs don't emit much...