[LuisBoston]

Originally Posted by Esteves

from the images I've seen

I don't understand this change of strategy by BMW, I4, I5, I7, IX1 all similar to combustion engines, after the failure of Mercedes with electrics and with the few sales of the IX BMW wants to make the same mistake of making a car that doesn't look like a normal BMW...

It's not a change in strategy...the strategy is the the vehicles you mention are bridge vehicles for this next generation. The next generation will be completely thought-thru as EVs, because that's when they're the best.

Nothing competed with Tesla because it was a genuine EV platform, no make had such a platform to work with, so Tesla took off. This is a multi-generational transition. It won't happen in one model cycle, but over many.

We're still in the minor leagues in EV land, and the Neue Klasse is for the first inning of the first game of season 2 of automotive baseball.

By 2035, ICE vehicles will be in rapid decline, contrary to what is said today.

BTW: Mercedes hasn't failed, they put something out to test it. They're figuring it all out too. But both BMW and MB and the rest with EVs on the market are years ahead of the likes of Toyota.

History certainly isn't written yet, no matter what the fossil fuel drinkers want you to believe.

[Blue Angel]

Originally Posted by LuisBoston

History certainly isn't written yet, no matter what the fossil fuel drinkers want you to believe.

How prophetic and antagonistic all at once! Bravo?

The evolution to an EV-based transportation market depends on technologies that don’t yet exist. When an EV is an objectively better value for car shoppers, they’ll buy them. That’s common sense. We’re not there yet, which is factually true.

I don’t know why people get their nickers in a knot thinking they should be subsidized and mandated into everyone’s lives?

[LuisBoston]

Originally Posted by Blue Angel

subsidized and mandated into everyone’s lives?

And fossil fuels haven’t been for 100 years?

[Blue Angel]

Originally Posted by LuisBoston

And fossil fuels haven’t been for 100 years?

I didn’t say or deny that.

[Blue Angel]

Originally Posted by LuisBoston

And fossil fuels haven’t been for 100 years?

I didn’t know any details about US oil industry subsidies, so I read up on it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillin...h=51652f1d6e1c

I found it interesting that many of the “subsidies” are merely the same benefits other industries enjoy, so to exclude oil and gas from those would be discriminatory. I also like the closing statement:

“In 2012 the top two corporations paying federal taxes in the US were ExxonMobil and Chevron paying a combined total of $45.2 billion. On average, the industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up. By comparison the Healthcare Industry pays a total rate of 35% and the Pharmaceuticals pay an estimated rate of 21%.”

So there’s no doubt that oil and gas get certain benefits, but it would seem the situation may have been exaggerated slightly by the media.

[Blue Angel]

And if anyone is interested, here’s an excellent video explaining some of the challenges faced by utilities when integrating renewables:

He covers a lot of ground, and even explains why renewables make grid power more expensive. He’s an Engineer, not a Social Media Influencer or Politician, so trigger alert: there are facts in this presentation.

(It’s not an extremis viewpoint, it’s a family friendly presentation by a YouTuber I follow who does a very nice job of explaining things. Kids of all ages might find his channel interesting. I do.)

I know this isn’t directly related to the thread topic, just general info that might be of interest to those following green tech.

[hufington]

I wonder who is designing the hideous BMW wheels of late.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by LuisBoston

And fossil fuels haven’t been for 100 years?

Wait, google the Sherman Antitrust Act.