Lots of issues facing EVs.......

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
20,298
4,628
1
They both one part right....the carbon trading scheme. VW has stated they are going all electric post haste but it takes time and money. Especially money, lots of it for new designs, mew factories, new tooling, training employees and more. So this scheme penalizes a large firm that is going all in on electric hundreds of millions of dollars. Money that could be going to accelerate their conversion to electric.

Makes a lot of sense to take away hundreds of millions of dollars and delay the production of more electric vehicles.......only in the mind of a big government prog.

They both one part right....the carbon trading scheme. VW has stated they are going all electric post haste but it takes time and money. Especially money, lots of it for new designs, mew factories, new tooling, training employees and more. So this scheme penalizes a large firm that is going all in on electric hundreds of millions of dollars. Money that could be going to accelerate their conversion to electric.

It's not like this stuff was put in place last month. They have years to be compliant. Instead VW spent money coming up with ways to cheat diesel emissions tests.

Money that could be going to accelerate their conversion to electric.

The money is going to companies that accelerating the conversion to electric. It's going to companies that are doing it better. If VW wants some of that sweet emissions credit money then they have to up their game.

You want VW to be rewarded for being last? Should they get a participation trophy?

I mean I've seen countless posts on this board complaining about the high Co2 emissions from China. Now they doing something about it and people complain about that.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
4,623
4,203
1
Just another reason not to buy one until the technology imporoves....no reason to spend more money on an underpowered short range fire hazard.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
20,298
4,628
1
Just another reason not to buy one until the technology imporoves....no reason to spend more money on an underpowered short range fire hazard.

Just another reason not to buy one until the technology imporoves

The best idea is to keep purchasing technology that you know for sure is out of date? Hmmm, I doubt many people are going to go for that.

no reason to spend more money on an underpowered short range fire hazard.

If you were really worried about fire hazard then you would be switching to an Ev.

There were almost 190,000 vehicle fires in the U.S. in 2019, and they happen in gasoline vehicles at a much higher rate. It notes that from 2012 to 2020 there was about one Tesla vehicle fire per 205 million miles traveled—versus one per 19 million miles traveled for all types, citing data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation.​
 

fairfaxlion2

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2014
7,388
5,590
1
Just another reason not to buy one until the technology imporoves....no reason to spend more money on an underpowered short range fire hazard.

Unless gasoline prices rise dramatically, or non-battery costs fall dramatically, EVs still don't make sense. But once the crossover point is reached and sustained for a year, the market for new cars will just shift from non-EV to EV overnight. It won't be gradual. It will just go from <10% to 90% immediately. There is no reason to mandate something like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
6,803
5,437
1
I hope to own an electric car some day, and be able to recharge it at home, or down the street. That said ...

My concern is that, with the federal government being "blue," they will make rules that tend to hurt people in rural areas who can least afford it. If that isn't me, it certainly pertains to the people that live near me, so it impacts the society around me.

The cost of these "rules" will be either direct (by electrification decree) or indirect (through taxation to cover EV subsidies and electrification infrastructure).

Democrats almost never get it right. There are always holes and unintended negative consequences. This is why they don't put enough detail into their spending bills.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
4,623
4,203
1
Just another reason not to buy one until the technology imporoves

The best idea is to keep purchasing technology that you know for sure is out of date? Hmmm, I doubt many people are going to go for that.

no reason to spend more money on an underpowered short range fire hazard.

If you were really worried about fire hazard then you would be switching to an Ev.

There were almost 190,000 vehicle fires in the U.S. in 2019, and they happen in gasoline vehicles at a much higher rate. It notes that from 2012 to 2020 there was about one Tesla vehicle fire per 205 million miles traveled—versus one per 19 million miles traveled for all types, citing data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation.​
If its out of date why does it out perform the EV? So ill ask again why should i spend more money on a low range underpowered fire hazard?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
20,298
4,628
1
It also has more power funtionality and twice the range and a longer lifespan at a lower price point. Again why should i pay more for less?

You should definitely by an ICE now and into the foreseeable future.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
19,342
20,062
1
An altered state
Your ice car is bigger fire hazard. Stop spreading fud.
Not really. I have seen several ICE auto fires and they are rarely major conflagrations. Mostly just small engine compartment fires that are easily contained and put out.

The EV fires are massive fires impossible to put out with far more toxic fumes. So bad that the road surface is often seriously damaged .
 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
17,092
22,139
1
Protocols to put out EV car fires are much more resource and time intensive than ICE car fires. Passenger rescues are also much more dangerous.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
20,298
4,628
1
to summarize. GM built a defective product and then tried to cheap out on the fix. Color me shocked.........

Didn't they do something similar with ignition switches Props to GM for being consistent.

General Motors faced an uproar in 2014 over its handling of a defective ignition switch in some of the cars it manufactured — a problem that led to at least 13 deaths.​
In the first three months of 2014, GM ordered the recall of 2.6 million small cars because of faulty ignition switches that have been linked to at least 97 deaths since 2005. The faulty switches could inadvertently shut off car engines and airbags during driving. Recalled models included Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn Ions.​
Worse still, evidence has emerged that GM knew about the faulty switches since at least 2003 — but had been slow to fix the problem, possibly because it would have cost too much.​
The faulty ignition switches were a huge problem — drivers could inadvertently knock them to "off" or "accessory" mode while driving, if, say, they were using a heavy keychain. Once that happened, the engine would shut off and cars would lose their power steering and power braking capabilities. The airbags also wouldn't inflate in the event of a crash.​
Noticing the problem (2001–2004): GM engineers noticed a defect in the ignition switch for Saturn Ions in 2001 and for Chevrolet Cobalts in 2004 — the ignition could inadvertently switch off while driving if, say, hit by a driver's knee. (There's some evidence that GM had considered a more resilient ignition switch in 2001 but rejected it for cost reasons.)​
Failing to fix it (2005): GM investigated the issue several times. One inquiry was closed off in March 2005 because, according to a project engineering manager, the ignition switch was too costly to fix. (Emails unearthed by Reuters suggested the fix would have cost GM 90 cents per car.) Another design change was approved in May 2005 but never implemented for unclear reasons.​
Possible fix (2006): Finally, in April 2006, a GM engineer approved a new ignition-switch design to increase torque performance. Delphi, a parts maker, later told Congress that the new switch for 2008 models was harder to move out of position but "still below GM's original specifications."​
So it's not clear that this redesign actually fixed the problem. What's more, the new design was never given a new parts number — which means that the earlier, faulty switch might have been inadvertently been installed in later models when those cars went in for repairs.​

One theory for inaction is that GM's management simply thought the replacement was too expensive. According to an email chain from 2005 unearthed by investigators, GM's managers estimated that replacing the key ignition-switch component would cost 90 cents per car but only save 10 to 15 cents on warranty costs.​
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
4,623
4,203
1
You should definitely by an ICE now and into the foreseeable future.
Ill be sticking with a standard V8 until an EV is made that isnt inferior to said standard V8. And even then only if it is functionally on par.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
14,070
20,247
1
Just another reason not to buy one until the technology imporoves

The best idea is to keep purchasing technology that you know for sure is out of date? Hmmm, I doubt many people are going to go for that.

no reason to spend more money on an underpowered short range fire hazard.

If you were really worried about fire hazard then you would be switching to an Ev.

There were almost 190,000 vehicle fires in the U.S. in 2019, and they happen in gasoline vehicles at a much higher rate. It notes that from 2012 to 2020 there was about one Tesla vehicle fire per 205 million miles traveled—versus one per 19 million miles traveled for all types, citing data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation.​
I think I've asked this before, but didn't see a response. Which Tesla model do you drive? Or, do you drive another EV?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
20,298
4,628
1
Ill be sticking with a standard V8 until an EV is made that isnt inferior to said standard V8. And even then only if it is functionally on par.

Great, we need people like you who are willing to settle for less. The demand for EV's is outstripping supply and will probably continue to do so for years into the future.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
19,342
20,062
1
An altered state
Didn't they do something similar with ignition switches Props to GM for being consistent.

General Motors faced an uproar in 2014 over its handling of a defective ignition switch in some of the cars it manufactured — a problem that led to at least 13 deaths.​
In the first three months of 2014, GM ordered the recall of 2.6 million small cars because of faulty ignition switches that have been linked to at least 97 deaths since 2005. The faulty switches could inadvertently shut off car engines and airbags during driving. Recalled models included Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn Ions.​
Worse still, evidence has emerged that GM knew about the faulty switches since at least 2003 — but had been slow to fix the problem, possibly because it would have cost too much.​
The faulty ignition switches were a huge problem — drivers could inadvertently knock them to "off" or "accessory" mode while driving, if, say, they were using a heavy keychain. Once that happened, the engine would shut off and cars would lose their power steering and power braking capabilities. The airbags also wouldn't inflate in the event of a crash.​
Noticing the problem (2001–2004): GM engineers noticed a defect in the ignition switch for Saturn Ions in 2001 and for Chevrolet Cobalts in 2004 — the ignition could inadvertently switch off while driving if, say, hit by a driver's knee. (There's some evidence that GM had considered a more resilient ignition switch in 2001 but rejected it for cost reasons.)​
Failing to fix it (2005): GM investigated the issue several times. One inquiry was closed off in March 2005 because, according to a project engineering manager, the ignition switch was too costly to fix. (Emails unearthed by Reuters suggested the fix would have cost GM 90 cents per car.) Another design change was approved in May 2005 but never implemented for unclear reasons.​
Possible fix (2006): Finally, in April 2006, a GM engineer approved a new ignition-switch design to increase torque performance. Delphi, a parts maker, later told Congress that the new switch for 2008 models was harder to move out of position but "still below GM's original specifications."​
So it's not clear that this redesign actually fixed the problem. What's more, the new design was never given a new parts number — which means that the earlier, faulty switch might have been inadvertently been installed in later models when those cars went in for repairs.​

One theory for inaction is that GM's management simply thought the replacement was too expensive. According to an email chain from 2005 unearthed by investigators, GM's managers estimated that replacing the key ignition-switch component would cost 90 cents per car but only save 10 to 15 cents on warranty costs.​
Wait until Tesla has 30-40 million cars on the road and we will see how many have defective parts and how Tesla handles those issues.
 

DandyDonII

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2002
6,884
5,552
1
As I am waiting on my F150 order (apparently it has been sitting in Michigan waiting for a chip since 8/23) I was thinking about getting a Tesla S instead, especially if the tax incentives were restored....Then I looked at the freaking price tag, they are up to 91.5k after picking the gray color.....100k if you want the self drive.....Is it me, or are the prices up 30% from a year or two ago?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
20,298
4,628
1
As I am waiting on my F150 order (apparently it has been sitting in Michigan waiting for a chip since 8/23) I was thinking about getting a Tesla S instead, especially if the tax incentives were restored....Then I looked at the freaking price tag, they are up to 91.5k after picking the gray color.....100k if you want the self drive.....Is it me, or are the prices up 30% from a year or two ago?

Do you realize that the Model S does not have a cargo bed? Are you seriously considering a Ford F150 pickup truck vs a Tesla model S? I can't imagine many people cross shopping those two vehicles.
 

DandyDonII

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2002
6,884
5,552
1
Do you realize that the Model S does not have a cargo bed? Are you seriously considering a Ford F150 pickup truck vs a Tesla model S? I can't imagine many people cross shopping those two vehicles.

Oh crap! Ha, oh I do understand that they are at two different ends of the spectrum but they would serve different needs (ok, desires)...And if the Tesla was still priced at around 70, I would seriously consider it.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
4,623
4,203
1
Great, we need people like you who are willing to settle for less. The demand for EV's is outstripping supply and will probably continue to do so for years into the future.
Again im not settling for less....EV is inferior at the moment cant haul as much cant go as far and dont last as long..they do however cost more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
4,623
4,203
1
Do you realize that the Model S does not have a cargo bed? Are you seriously considering a Ford F150 pickup truck vs a Tesla model S? I can't imagine many people cross shopping those two vehicles.
Compare it with the GT500 mustang......the S is inferior in this category as well....and as usual for a much higher price tag.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
20,298
4,628
1
Compare it with the GT500 mustang......the S is inferior in this category as well....and as usual for a much higher price tag.

They aren't really going after the same market right? The is a 5 seater family sedan, the mustang not really.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
19,342
20,062
1
An altered state
If GM is setting the bar then I'm not too worried.
Well when the founders of Tesla are long gone and the bean counters take over they will be the same as GM. It pretty inevitable as almost every company goes through the same cycle.

And that is assuming the US is still around then which is highly doubtful.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
4,623
4,203
1
Compare it with the GT500 mustang......the S is inferior in this category as well....and as usual for a much higher price tag.
I was beung generous...if we compare it to others in the class it still is not up to par with its competition. U need to come to terms that EV is still inferior to standard engines. And they are wayyyy over priced for their functionality
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
20,298
4,628
1

That's just fake news.

But a mid-priced EV, such as Chevrolet Bolt, Nissan Leaf or a Tesla Model 3, would cost $12.95 to drive 100 miles in terms of costs that include recharging the vehicle using mostly a commercial charger.

Most people will be charging 99% of the time at home. They do not charge the car exclusively at commercial chargers.

I daily drove a Leaf to work for three years. It cost me about 30 bucks a month for the electricity to drive a 1,000 miles. In three years I never paid to "commercially" charge the car. There are plenty of free level 2 chargers around.

What a stupid anti ev fud story.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
19,342
20,062
1
An altered state
That's just fake news.

But a mid-priced EV, such as Chevrolet Bolt, Nissan Leaf or a Tesla Model 3, would cost $12.95 to drive 100 miles in terms of costs that include recharging the vehicle using mostly a commercial charger.

Most people will be charging 99% of the time at home. They do not charge the car exclusively at commercial chargers.

I daily drove a Leaf to work for three years. It cost me about 30 bucks a month for the electricity to drive a 1,000 miles. In three years I never paid to "commercially" charge the car. There are plenty of free level 2 chargers around.

What a stupid anti ev fud story.
So you are angry this story cherry-picked information to suit a predetermined storyline. Funny. Ever hear of global warming? Or Russiagate? Of Hunter’s laptop? Or pretty much every top story of the last decade?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
20,097
12,255
1
That's just fake news.

But a mid-priced EV, such as Chevrolet Bolt, Nissan Leaf or a Tesla Model 3, would cost $12.95 to drive 100 miles in terms of costs that include recharging the vehicle using mostly a commercial charger.

Most people will be charging 99% of the time at home. They do not charge the car exclusively at commercial chargers.

I daily drove a Leaf to work for three years. It cost me about 30 bucks a month for the electricity to drive a 1,000 miles. In three years I never paid to "commercially" charge the car. There are plenty of free level 2 chargers around.

What a stupid anti ev fud story.

$30 for a 1000 miles is right in line with the article is saying based on commercial charging rates 4X residential rates. 99% have home chargers??? I guess everyone who buys an EV must live in a condo with a garage or rent or own a home, I'd say you are wrong again not that it all that surprising.
 

fairfaxlion2

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2014
7,388
5,590
1
I hope to own an electric car some day, and be able to recharge it at home, or down the street. That said ...

My concern is that, with the federal government being "blue," they will make rules that tend to hurt people in rural areas who can least afford it. If that isn't me, it certainly pertains to the people that live near me, so it impacts the society around me.

The cost of these "rules" will be either direct (by electrification decree) or indirect (through taxation to cover EV subsidies and electrification infrastructure).

Democrats almost never get it right. There are always holes and unintended negative consequences. This is why they don't put enough detail into their spending bills.

You've got a strange coalition with this one, though. Both sides. The enviros like it, any state that has a tie to car mfg likes it, and the electric utilities (who have sway over both sides) obviously love it. So you've got a coalition that is not going to be one-sided and will like this issue. Also there is an argument to be made that it is better for the US since the fuel would all be generated here. Just calling it how I see it - in the long run I just see both sides going all in on EV
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
20,298
4,628
1
$30 for a 1000 miles is right in line with the article is saying based on commercial charging rates 4X residential rates. 99% have home chargers??? I guess everyone who buys an EV must live in a condo with a garage or rent or own a home, I'd say you are wrong again not that it all that surprising.

The stupid is strong with this one.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/patricia-valderrama/electric-vehicle-charging-101

On average, US car owners drive about 31 miles a day—a range that newer EVs can meet several times over on a single charge. Further, according to the US Department of Energy, over 80 percent of EV charging happens at home, where EV owners have set up their own chargers. Many drivers can also fill up their batteries at their workplaces.​
https://insideevs.com/news/319765/81-of-electric-vehicle-charging-is-done-at-home/
The initial findings from a survey of 3,247 individuals conducted by PlugInsights (full results here) show that 81 percent of electric vehicle charging occurs at home.​
https://www.transportenvironment.or...t-ev-charging-happens-public-charging-points/
Despite the perception that public recharging is a major barrier to the mass uptake of electric vehicles (EV), public chargers are only used for about 5% of charging events, including on-street city charging, car parks and fast charging along road corridors. The data compiled in various studies to date shows that the vast majority of EV charging happens at home or work and it is a lack of choice and availability of electric cars that is the principal barrier.​
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
14,070
20,247
1
The stupid is strong with this one.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/patricia-valderrama/electric-vehicle-charging-101

On average, US car owners drive about 31 miles a day—a range that newer EVs can meet several times over on a single charge. Further, according to the US Department of Energy, over 80 percent of EV charging happens at home, where EV owners have set up their own chargers. Many drivers can also fill up their batteries at their workplaces.​
https://insideevs.com/news/319765/81-of-electric-vehicle-charging-is-done-at-home/
The initial findings from a survey of 3,247 individuals conducted by PlugInsights (full results here) show that 81 percent of electric vehicle charging occurs at home.​
https://www.transportenvironment.or...t-ev-charging-happens-public-charging-points/
Despite the perception that public recharging is a major barrier to the mass uptake of electric vehicles (EV), public chargers are only used for about 5% of charging events, including on-street city charging, car parks and fast charging along road corridors. The data compiled in various studies to date shows that the vast majority of EV charging happens at home or work and it is a lack of choice and availability of electric cars that is the principal barrier.​
All that, and you don't even drive one.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
19,342
20,062
1
An altered state
All that, and you don't even drive one.
Interesting that he used to own one.....or at least drive one for three years. Note he never said he owned the Leaf. It was probably owned by his girlfriend that dumped him. And now he doesn’t have an EV.

Does he own drive an ICE? If so, why does he settle for such an inferior vehicle? And is destroying the planet at the same time?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
20,298
4,628
1
Interesting that he used to own one.....or at least drive one for three years. Note he never said he owned the Leaf. It was probably owned by his girlfriend that dumped him. And now he doesn’t have an EV.

Does he own drive an ICE? If so, why does he settle for such an inferior vehicle? And is destroying the planet at the same time?

I leased a Leaf for 3 years and drove about 40 miles round trip to work every day in it. I leased it because I figured it would depreciate rapidly if they came out with a model with a bigger battery. With a lease I could just walk away from it. And that's pretty much what happened. I couldn't convince Nissan to adjust to residual down and the end of the lease so I walked.

Now I'm driving a Prius hybrid car. Although to be honest I've been working from home for the last 12 months so I barely even need a car. I'm putting about 3,000 miles a year on it.

Anyway I'm pretty sure I will never buy another ICE car in my lifetime.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
20,298
4,628
1
So GM put out multiple warnings for people that own/drive Chevy Volts as it seems they are prone to fires.

So don’t park within fifty feet of anything. Don’t want fires to spread.

Only park on top floor of parking garages. Don’t want smoke and toxic fumes throughout parking garages.

Never leave unattended when charging. So does that mean you have to stay up at night?

Never charge over 90% and never drive below the 70 miles left warning.....that will really cut your range!

It takes up to 40,000 gallons of water to fight these fires. You can‘t put them out.....just keep them cool until they burn out so it doesn’t spread.

In Germany many areas are banning all EVs from parking on ground floors of office buildings and apartment buildings. A fire in one of those could be catastrophic as the fumes would poison those inside. Could this be the next terrorist tool? And where can people then park? There is very little parking now without eliminating parking garages.

UK will require all new charging units to shut off from 8 AM to 11 Am and from 4PM to 10 PM because the grid can’t handle the extra demand. Not too good if you are traveling and need to charge. Or on way to catch a flight or a medical procedure or a business meeting or........

My, my, my. Unintended consequences. Unseen complications. Unkown unknowns.


You are correct = "lots of issues facing EV's".

The issue is production not ramping up as fast as demand.

Rental car company Hertz has ordered 100,000 Teslas as part of an ambitious plan to electrify its fleet. A first tranche of Tesla’s Model 3 sedans will be available to rent from Hertz in major US and European markets from early November, said the company in a press statement. The announcement comes just months after Hertz escaped bankruptcy.​
News of the purchase was first reported by Bloomberg, which says the deal is the single largest order ever for electric vehicles, and worth $4.2. billion in revenue to Tesla. The automaker’s stock was up 4.3 percent on the news in pre-market trading. It was also reported this morning that Tesla’s Model 3 became the first electric vehicle to top monthly sales charts in Europe this September. Earlier this month, the company reported record sales in its third quarter, despite chip shortages denting the automotive market.​
Anyone renting a Tesla from Hertz will be able to use the automaker’s network of 3,000 superchargers across the US and Europe. Hertz says it’s planing on supplementing these chargers with “thousands” of its own, dispersed “throughout its location network.”​
In a press statement, Hertz’s interim CEO Mark Fields said: “Electric vehicles are now mainstream, and we’ve only just begun to see rising global demand and interest. The new Hertz is going to lead the way as a mobility company, starting with the largest EV rental fleet in North America and a commitment to grow our EV fleet and provide the best rental and recharging experience for leisure and business customers around the world.”​
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
6,803
5,437
1
You've got a strange coalition with this one, though. Both sides. The enviros like it, any state that has a tie to car mfg likes it, and the electric utilities (who have sway over both sides) obviously love it. So you've got a coalition that is not going to be one-sided and will like this issue. Also there is an argument to be made that it is better for the US since the fuel would all be generated here. Just calling it how I see it - in the long run I just see both sides going all in on EV

So the enviros like it, the car manufacturers like it, the electric utilities like it, and people that can shell out the extra money for an EV probably like it.

I think that leaves a pretty large group left out -- the average consumer, especially anyone in a rural area. That consumer is paying a premium for a car with a lot more weight and less space. We'll see what happens when the utilities cannot meet demand, the batteries hard to keep up with demand, and then the disposal of batteries.

I am not sure that the utilities are going to like it when they have to impose rolling blackouts. Let's remember that all of that battery energy is expected to replace the fuel equivalent of what is currently distributed through trucks, pipelines, and rail. All of that fuel transportation capacity needs to change to wire. Copper? That is going to get extremely expensive.

In short, the total cost is not apparent yet. We usually only see a part of the cost in any analysis. And they're now likely to do comparisons against artificially inflated fossil fuels, by governments withholding production. I doubt if they'll be able to build enough windmills fast enough to cover the loss in new fracking sites. It's an artificial, inflationary environment that I believe most consumers will be left completely unprepared.