If they have any kind of range at all, they will be popular.
@ministashy Yes - this will definitely continue to be a factor. I cannot imagine it going away any time soon. For many, even a PHEV makes no sense over a hybrid or ICE vehicle, with no convenient overnight place to plug in. My own situation is ideal for one electric car and tenable for two, but not ideal.
But I believe there are still lots and lots of car-buying public with two car garages, but they want a moderately priced, nicely appointed SUV. And they just want choice. The Model X is obscenely priced ($75k+). On the other hand, it's not hard to price a RAV4 or CR-V or Rogue up to the $40k range that some upcoming electric SUVs will play in. (The Model Y should play in a more reasonable range.)
I mention those particular SUVs because they are top-selling vehicles in the U.S: https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2019-us-vehicle-sales-figures-by-model/#vwspc-section-5 Each of the three individually sold more in 2019 so far than all electric cars sold in the U.S. for all of 2018.
The RAV4 Prime will probably become the best-selling Toyota before long, and we'll be left to wonder when Toyota, Honda and Nissan will go all-electric with their SUVs.
Oh yes! I don't think the Skoda will come to our shores, but the Audi and Jaguar are around. Electric SUVs are very much high-end luxury items right now. The I-Pace starts at about $70,000 USD. The Audi is a bit more!
In 2018, just under a quarter million EVs were sold in the U.S. About 75% of those were from Tesla. In that same year, over 5.3 million total passenger cars were sold, and another nearly 12 million light trucks, just in the U.S. We love our cars, and we're clearly mostly still buying ones with engines that burn juice from the Earth.
But we really love choice. We love going to dealers (despite the horrible experience) and walking away with a car that perfectly says "Me." And right now, we can only do that with an electric car if "Me" is represented by the mediocre economy box Nissan Leaf, or the fancy, pretty, expensive Tesla Model 3 (or beyond.)
Our American companies that love building gas engines haven't been putting much effort in (to say nothing of Japan or Germany.) GM called it in with the Bolt. While I personally think it's a very interesting car, there's no arguing that it's like the Leaf in dorky appearance, and it's still kind of pricey compared to frugal alternatives.
That might start to change! The Ford Mustang Mach-E0 is a CUV with good performance, good range, a reasonable price, and the most recognizable nameplate in America.
Of course, classic muscle car buffs will cringe at the name reuse, but I'm making the call now.
People will go to Ford dealerships and check these out. And when people do that, despite their best intentions, they often walk away with a shiny car that says "Me."
It's small enough to look kind of good, but thanks to the advantages of electric powertrains, it'll also hold American-sized people and stuff, too. And unlike Tesla, things like AWD ($2700) and colors other than white ($400-600) will be reasonably priced.
Altogether you can pay $8100 to get the extended-range ($5000) AWD version in rapid red, sparkling white, or Ford's iconic blue. Compare that to the long-range, AWD options of Tesla (to say nothing of their crazy paint color and fancy rim upcharges!) And in the Southern half of the U.S., people can skip the AWD and enjoy the fun of RWD with all that electric motor power.
So my prediction is that this is the bellwether we've been waiting for. A major player with a massive fan-base and dealer network, the resources and partners to ensure an accessible charging network is finally building an electric car Americans will want to buy.
Others will finally follow, and once the American car-buying public has appealing choices with electric motors, they'll finally start buying them in large quantities.
0 https://www.ford.com/suvs/mach-e/2021/ (https://www.ford.com/suvs/mach-e/2021/)
My current car is a Subaru Outback, which now starts at $26.7k; and therein lies the problem. Buying another Outback is cheaper than any comparable EV (even with incentives) by probably 10k. And while the wife loves and is waiting for a 2020 model of an EV, with regards to finishes it feels cheap compared to other vehicles at the same price point (with or without incentives).
Don't forget there are significant savings in maintenance (offset by replacement batteries) and fuel costs. The latter can be particularly great if you have excess home solar capacity, but even if you're buying from your utility, electricity is cheaper than petrol/gasoline (even in the US).
Fiat 500e, VW e-Golf, Chevy Bolt, Kia Niro Electric, Hyundai Kona Electric, Honda Clarity Electric, or Hyundai Ioniq Electric.
Wait what? The Model 3 starting at $39,490 is fancy, pretty and expensive, but the Mustang Mach-E which starts at (the base "select" model) $43,895 is a reasonable price?
Follow?
Multiple automakers have goals to have multiple electrified models out before 2025.
As far as I can tell, on paper, the Ford is a solid entry.
And when I go to replace my car I will have it in the running. But that running will include a host of long range AWD EVs (to deal with NE snow and winter range loss) that includes the Tesla 3, Byton M-byte, and similar.
My current car is a Subaru Outback, which now starts at $26.7k; and therein lies the problem. Buying another Outback is cheaper than any comparable EV (even with incentives) by probably 10k. And while the wife loves and is waiting for a 2020 model of an EV, with regards to finishes it feels cheap compared to other vehicles at the same price point (with or without incentives).
You like and are excited about the Mustang Mach-E, so am I! Hell it might be the first Mustang I consider (I always have and probably always will call them rustangs). But I do not think it as major a development as you do.
Are you trying to sell me on electric cars, or the American consumers?
Long-term savings are a very tough sell on those car-buyers. The evidence shows that they look at the payment size and if they "feel" good about the car they are about to buy. Of course there are factors like what they believe about bad weather, reliability and long-term costs, but they are more minor in the decision-making process.
Fiat 500e, VW e-Golf, Chevy Bolt, Kia Niro Electric, Hyundai Kona Electric, Honda Clarity Electric, or Hyundai Ioniq Electric.
Of these, the Niro and Kona are probably the best bet. They aren't completely hideous, but they are SUVs that start below $40k. They haven't moved the needle significantly. For example, the Niro has sold about 25k total in 2019 (including non-EV), and the Kona about 33k. In general, these are all cars that people do not want to buy. It's great that they exist and provide choice, but they have to be better. Better looking, better size for American car-buyers. Better brand names. The e-Golf actually looks perfect for the few hatchback buyers like me, except for the limited range.
Wait what? The Model 3 starting at $39,490 is fancy, pretty and expensive, but the Mustang Mach-E which starts at (the base "select" model) $43,895 is a reasonable price?
Follow?
Multiple automakers have goals to have multiple electrified models out before 2025.
QuoteAs far as I can tell, on paper, the Ford is a solid entry.
And when I go to replace my car I will have it in the running. But that running will include a host of long range AWD EVs (to deal with NE snow and winter range loss) that includes the Tesla 3, Byton M-byte, and similar.
My current car is a Subaru Outback, which now starts at $26.7k; and therein lies the problem. Buying another Outback is cheaper than any comparable EV (even with incentives) by probably 10k. And while the wife loves and is waiting for a 2020 model of an EV, with regards to finishes it feels cheap compared to other vehicles at the same price point (with or without incentives).
You like and are excited about the Mustang Mach-E, so am I! Hell it might be the first Mustang I consider (I always have and probably always will call them rustangs). But I do not think it as major a development as you do.
Well it's a wild hairy guess about the future, so it's possible I'm wrong. But I don't think so. I think this will have a greater impact on shifting sales from ICE to EV in volume than Tesla has had, and a little kick to the seat of the pants of competitors that are barely tipping their toes in the water. Credit where it's due, Tesla has absolutely led the charge (ha!) in getting this option on people's minds and building the necessary charging network to alleviate range anxiety. If I'm mostly likely to be wrong about anything, it's that the charging network Ford is relying on through VW / Electrify America will still be problematic (read: either too expensive or insufficiently comprehensive; long waiting lines, etc.)
This must be the new ultra American EV for all the truck lovers.
https://www.tesla.com/no_no/cybertruck
This must be the new ultra American EV for all the truck lovers.
https://www.tesla.com/no_no/cybertruck
Don't forget there are significant savings in maintenance (offset by replacement batteries) and fuel costs. The latter can be particularly great if you have excess home solar capacity, but even if you're buying from your utility, electricity is cheaper than petrol/gasoline (even in the US).
The design is growing on me. The specs are amazing. 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds, 120V and 240V AC outlets onboard, air compressor on board, air suspension, built in ramp (truck lowers on air to allow loading), 500 mile range
It is also going to be the official truck of Mars, so there is that.
+1
I hated it when I first saw it. But now the design is growing on me as well. The shape is dictated by the fact that the exterior is the exoskeleton.
146k people liked it enough to put in their reservation in 48 hours.
Beyond this wild hypothesis, any minor points are quibbles. I don't think Ford is some kind of holy brand - whether or not they succeed with this effort. I'm not trying to paint them as that or insinuate they are superior. I just think the Mach-E is a big step towards electric cars a lot of people might actually buy in the United States.
146k people liked it enough to put in their reservation in 48 hours.
Most Americans are conformists (although they like to think otherwise) so what will really move the needle is when electrics become common enough that most people know someone with one. Once that happens, and purchasing an electric no longer seems like an oddity or affectation, I think we’ll see a very swift movement towards electrics. Totally guessing on when that will happen but I think more than five years and less than ten.
Beyond this wild hypothesis, any minor points are quibbles. I don't think Ford is some kind of holy brand - whether or not they succeed with this effort. I'm not trying to paint them as that or insinuate they are superior. I just think the Mach-E is a big step towards electric cars a lot of people might actually buy in the United States.
I agree, the Mach-E is a good sign for the future of EVs as part of the trend of more and more EVs, that are not just compliance cars, coming to the market (both from existing brands and from start-ups).
IMO, the biggest hurdle is not going to be availability, it is going to be education/outreach/consumer familiarity. As I mentioned we have decided to buy an EV as the DW's next car and the amount of push-back from friends and family (of all ages, generations, political orientations, and education) is amazing. From older family members believe that a Tesla (with the Supercharger network) cannot go beyond your daily commute, to college educated and work for environmental regulatory agencies insisting that you MUST have a gasoline backup in the electric fails, or people you just think all EVs are a major compromise/sacrifice.
I'm willing to bet this will fade when people can see the charging stations out and about and are exposed to more and more people who drive EVs.
And of course there is still price point.Many people will buy the ICE variant if the EV variant has a higher up front cost.
For those who want to understand how clean energy and electric cars will do, this great talk by Tony Seba, a futurist, is great.
He argues that the Electric Vehicle, battery storage, and solar power, along with autonomous vehicles, are a perfect example of a 10x exponential process that will wipe fossil fuels off the market in about a decade. This talk was made 2.5 years ago.
https://youtu.be/2b3ttqYDwF0
So I was mostly looking at stats and photos before, and it totally slipped by me. Ford only plans to produce 50,000 Mach-Es in the first year. The "First Edition" has already sold out... but that's probably 20,000 or less! Ugh.
The Honda E looks cute, but it's not coming to the U.S., and the range wouldn't work here for many people, especially at that price.
Maybe electric cars are expensive to build? :)
On the bright side, my 4 year old car has less than 30,000 miles on it. I've got time... just got to bide my time.
This is not the truck you're looking for.
This is not the truck you're looking for.
Certainly isn't the truck I'm looking for, was disappointed with the Cybertruck unveil. I may be fine with unibody construction (depends on a few details), but don't want an "exoskeleton" where the exterior body panels are structural and of a material that's difficult to repair. Want a bed, not a vault with super high bedrails -- I'm tall but not that tall! -- and don't want to mod the vault just to fit a camper shell or lumber rack or any number of aftermarket options. And I don't want a super aggressive looking truck with sharp angles and bullet proof body and armored glass. I still prefer the old body style over the more aggressive looking new body style of the Big Three, but willing to live with it on my F150 because it's very well made and gets decent MPG (~20 highway) for a proper 4WD with skid plates and an e-locker. All the other Cybertruck features (air compressor, power outlets, etc.) are bells and whistles, they need to get the fundamentals right first. I do think Cybertruck will sell, but agree that it's a niche market.
My 8 year old F150 runs great and only has 50k miles (I'm FIRE, no commute, only use it for outdoor adventures) so I will bide my time. Here's hoping that Tesla can sell enough Cybertrucks to parlay their success into a "normal" pickup.
This is not the truck you're looking for.
Certainly isn't the truck I'm looking for, was disappointed with the Cybertruck unveil. I may be fine with unibody construction (depends on a few details), but don't want an "exoskeleton" where the exterior body panels are structural and of a material that's difficult to repair. Want a bed, not a vault with super high bedrails -- I'm tall but not that tall! -- and don't want to mod the vault just to fit a camper shell or lumber rack or any number of aftermarket options. And I don't want a super aggressive looking truck with sharp angles and bullet proof body and armored glass. I still prefer the old body style over the more aggressive looking new body style of the Big Three, but willing to live with it on my F150 because it's very well made and gets decent MPG (~20 highway) for a proper 4WD with skid plates and an e-locker. All the other Cybertruck features (air compressor, power outlets, etc.) are bells and whistles, they need to get the fundamentals right first. I do think Cybertruck will sell, but agree that it's a niche market.
My 8 year old F150 runs great and only has 50k miles (I'm FIRE, no commute, only use it for outdoor adventures) so I will bide my time. Here's hoping that Tesla can sell enough Cybertrucks to parlay their success into a "normal" pickup.
I can image that Tesla also will introduce a more normal looking car with truck-like features. Our maybe the competitors will.
https://rivian.com/r1t/
This is not the truck you're looking for.
Certainly isn't the truck I'm looking for, was disappointed with the Cybertruck unveil. I may be fine with unibody construction (depends on a few details), but don't want an "exoskeleton" where the exterior body panels are structural and of a material that's difficult to repair. Want a bed, not a vault with super high bedrails -- I'm tall but not that tall! -- and don't want to mod the vault just to fit a camper shell or lumber rack or any number of aftermarket options. And I don't want a super aggressive looking truck with sharp angles and bullet proof body and armored glass. I still prefer the old body style over the more aggressive looking new body style of the Big Three, but willing to live with it on my F150 because it's very well made and gets decent MPG (~20 highway) for a proper 4WD with skid plates and an e-locker. All the other Cybertruck features (air compressor, power outlets, etc.) are bells and whistles, they need to get the fundamentals right first. I do think Cybertruck will sell, but agree that it's a niche market.
My 8 year old F150 runs great and only has 50k miles (I'm FIRE, no commute, only use it for outdoor adventures) so I will bide my time. Here's hoping that Tesla can sell enough Cybertrucks to parlay their success into a "normal" pickup.
I can image that Tesla also will introduce a more normal looking car with truck-like features. Our maybe the competitors will.
https://rivian.com/r1t/
I'm glad others are working on this, and the high initial price is to be expected. Will be interesting to see how closely Tesla hits their announced prices initially and over time, and how competition and advancements temper this prices. As a Mustachian, I still can't see spending over $25k on a truck... I simply can't extract enough value out of it compared to a $40 rental here and there. But I know the market is full of people with money and ideas...
https://rivian.com/r1t/
I'm glad others are working on this, and the high initial price is to be expected. Will be interesting to see how closely Tesla hits their announced prices initially and over time, and how competition and advancements temper this prices. As a Mustachian, I still can't see spending over $25k on a truck... I simply can't extract enough value out of it compared to a $40 rental here and there. But I know the market is full of people with money and ideas...
I don't want to spend starter house money (around here) on a vehicle that I then beat up with outdoor adventures, hardware store runs, and trips to the dump.
Then it's not for you! That's less than 5 years of property tax around here.I don't want to spend starter house money (around here) on a vehicle that I then beat up with outdoor adventures, hardware store runs, and trips to the dump.https://rivian.com/r1t/I'm glad others are working on this, and the high initial price is to be expected. Will be interesting to see how closely Tesla hits their announced prices initially and over time, and how competition and advancements temper this prices. As a Mustachian, I still can't see spending over $25k on a truck... I simply can't extract enough value out of it compared to a $40 rental here and there. But I know the market is full of people with money and ideas...
Then it's not for you! That's less than 5 years of property tax around here.I don't want to spend starter house money (around here) on a vehicle that I then beat up with outdoor adventures, hardware store runs, and trips to the dump.https://rivian.com/r1t/I'm glad others are working on this, and the high initial price is to be expected. Will be interesting to see how closely Tesla hits their announced prices initially and over time, and how competition and advancements temper this prices. As a Mustachian, I still can't see spending over $25k on a truck... I simply can't extract enough value out of it compared to a $40 rental here and there. But I know the market is full of people with money and ideas...
Less than 2.5 years where I live. And now I'm sad :(
Then it's not for you! That's less than 5 years of property tax around here.I don't want to spend starter house money (around here) on a vehicle that I then beat up with outdoor adventures, hardware store runs, and trips to the dump.https://rivian.com/r1t/I'm glad others are working on this, and the high initial price is to be expected. Will be interesting to see how closely Tesla hits their announced prices initially and over time, and how competition and advancements temper this prices. As a Mustachian, I still can't see spending over $25k on a truck... I simply can't extract enough value out of it compared to a $40 rental here and there. But I know the market is full of people with money and ideas...
Less than 2.5 years where I live. And now I'm sad :(
$69k (Rivian pricing) is 2.5 years? Shit, I don't feel so bad anymore.
Then it's not for you! That's less than 5 years of property tax around here.I don't want to spend starter house money (around here) on a vehicle that I then beat up with outdoor adventures, hardware store runs, and trips to the dump.https://rivian.com/r1t/I'm glad others are working on this, and the high initial price is to be expected. Will be interesting to see how closely Tesla hits their announced prices initially and over time, and how competition and advancements temper this prices. As a Mustachian, I still can't see spending over $25k on a truck... I simply can't extract enough value out of it compared to a $40 rental here and there. But I know the market is full of people with money and ideas...
Less than 2.5 years where I live. And now I'm sad :(
$69k (Rivian pricing) is 2.5 years? Shit, I don't feel so bad anymore.
I was referring to the "$25k on a truck" part, thankfully :)
I put a deposit on a 2017 Bolt EV today. $19k, was $43k new. I will be driving on solar, which will be nice :)
The older Leafs aged terribly -- their battery life wasn't great to start with, and with degradation + cold weather I wasn't sure I'd be able to complete my 32 mi round trip commute during winter. The Leaf Plus is 2019+, so honestly I didn't even look at them. I have a coworker who leased a 2019 Bolt a few months ago and I was sold after I drove his. They seem to be doing quite well re: battery durability so far, so I was comfortable getting one.I put a deposit on a 2017 Bolt EV today. $19k, was $43k new. I will be driving on solar, which will be nice :)
Did you shop the Leaf Plus again the Bolt? I'm seriously considering a Bolt. My employer has a Leaf Plus and a Leaf standard. Like them, worry about the air cooled batteries, neither have enough miles to show any wear yet.
Ooh, tell me more about the Bolt. I’ve been trying to decide on hybrid vs electric for my next car. I want a used car preferably less than $15k. Top 3 important factors in a car for me are reliability, high gas mileage, and price. My current car is a Honda Fit and my last car was a Toyota Echo. My house has solar panels and I work from home. I drive for pleasure trips, though, and to see family. Current candidates for my next car are:
Toyota Prius
Chevy Bolt
Chevy Volt
Hyundai Ioniq (impressive gas mileage but reliable?)
Honda Insight
Yes to what JLee says about the maintenance. The electric car doesn't have a whole lot of components in it so therefore hardly any reasons to take it in to get repaired.
With the EV tax credit in the US (phasing out for Tesla but is still available for Ford) the base model Mach E will set you back ~$36k, which puts it firmly in the "average" new car purchase price. That's quite good for a crossover SUV with 240 miles of range capable of 150 kW fast charge. And it's a good looking vehicle with a nicely done interior. I think Ford has a winner with this one.
Bumping this thread because I just found out the new Mustang electric is going to be an SUV and I don't like it.
Cheaper gas certainly doesn't help. But doing the math on total cost of ownership is tricky since it involves so many local variables. In California gas is about $1 more per gallon, but it also cost thousands more/year to insure a Tesla here compared to other brands.
BEVs are way cheaper to maintain and electric motors should essentially last forever...but, there's the issue of battery lifespan. In theory this doesn't look too bad for Teslas, but there isn't enough real-world data to know for sure.
The price differential between BEV and ICE is worse than $10k. Let's say you live in the Mountain West and plan on frequently driving in the mountains during winter so you want AWD. The cheapest Model 3 with AWD is the dual motor at ~$48k, whereas you can pick up a Subaru Crosstrek for ~$22k. If gas is $3/gallon, the gas savings don't cover the higher price until you drive the Tesla 260,000 miles. That's 17 years assuming an average 15k miles/year. If you're FIRE and/or living a MMM lifestyle, say 3k/year of driving, then it would take 87 years to make up the difference.
I realize the Model 3 is a nicer car than a base trim Crosstrek, so this isn't completely fair. But the issue remains that there are very few sub-$30k BEV options since the industry is focused on the higher end of the market with its higher margins. All this to say, the BEV market needs to come down in price *and* offer a lot more in the way of options before it becomes truly competitive. Once this happens they will hit the mainstream.
Until then, I doubt cost is a major concern among the current crop of buyers. Nothing says "I'm wealthy and educated and green" like driving around in a BEV, which is why the Mach E makes a point to market its vegan interior. Coastal California is worlds apart from the middle of the USA, with different values and concerns. Sure, there are green consumers in every state, but I suspect BEVs would be more successfully marketed in middle America by appealing to things like patriotism and energy independence, as a way to choke off oil revenues to regimes such as Venezuela and Iran. Alas, BEV == environmentalist is so deeply ingrained at this point that I don't see this changing in our increasingly polarized nation.
Bumping this thread because I just found out the new Mustang electric is going to be an SUV and I don't like it.
Do don't like it as in:
you do not like that a Mustang will be a SUV;
you do not like that a Mustang will be an EV; or
you do not like the vehicle for another reason independent of the Mustang name?
Bumping this thread because I just found out the new Mustang electric is going to be an SUV and I don't like it.
Do don't like it as in:
you do not like that a Mustang will be a SUV;
you do not like that a Mustang will be an EV; or
you do not like the vehicle for another reason independent of the Mustang name?
Don't like that the mustang will be an SUV. Otherwise I think it's cool and good looking. I'm late to the party.
Gotcha.
As a person who has a slightly unnecessary affection for cars, I had the same initial reaction.
But after I thought about it for a moment, is seems smart. Other than converting an entire brand (like Lincoln) or reviving a dead brand as all electric (like Mercury) it seems that using the Mustang brand gives the EV is best chance.
Plus it makes to move the Mustang into the SUV/CUV realm, much like with Porsche introduced its first SUV. And it does align with Ford dropping most cars from its US lineup.
I am not sure how an existing brand Ford with a legacy dealer network, and its obligations, will ultimately compare to the wave of EV start-ups that have a direct-to-consumer model.
The price differential between BEV and ICE is worse than $10k. Let's say you live in the Mountain West and plan on frequently driving in the mountains during winter so you want AWD. The cheapest Model 3 with AWD is the dual motor at ~$48k, whereas you can pick up a Subaru Crosstrek for ~$22k.
The price differential between BEV and ICE is worse than $10k. Let's say you live in the Mountain West and plan on frequently driving in the mountains during winter so you want AWD. The cheapest Model 3 with AWD is the dual motor at ~$48k, whereas you can pick up a Subaru Crosstrek for ~$22k.
Yep but you can buy a Chevy Bolt used with 15K miles right now at CarMax for around $25K. Picked CarMax b/c its an easy search. Might be better deals out there.
To me a 15K mile old car is functionally new.
New Subbie or nearly new EV. Your choice.
Edited: fixed wording.
The price differential between BEV and ICE is worse than $10k. Let's say you live in the Mountain West and plan on frequently driving in the mountains during winter so you want AWD. The cheapest Model 3 with AWD is the dual motor at ~$48k, whereas you can pick up a Subaru Crosstrek for ~$22k. If gas is $3/gallon, the gas savings don't cover the higher price until you drive the Tesla 260,000 miles. That's 17 years assuming an average 15k miles/year. If you're FIRE and/or living a MMM lifestyle, say 3k/year of driving, then it would take 87 years to make up the difference.
Coastal California is worlds apart from the middle of the USA, with different values and concerns.
Sure, there are green consumers in every state, but I suspect BEVs would be more successfully marketed in middle America by appealing to things like patriotism and energy independence, as a way to choke off oil revenues to regimes such as Venezuela and Iran. Alas, BEV == environmentalist is so deeply ingrained at this point that I don't see this changing in our increasingly polarized nation.
Living in the mountain west, I'd suggest that most people would do exactly what we do (and most of the people I know do if they care about this sort of thing): Have one car for most of the year, and a truck with 4WD and high ground clearance for getting into the mountains in the winter. Most EVs have poor ground clearance, at best. It improves efficiency, so for the 95% of miles on dry or wet ground, it's a win. But it means that even with snow tires, you'll struggle to get an EV into the mountains - they just bottom out. But putting a thousand miles a year on a truck, the truck will last basically forever. Things don't rust here to any meaningful extent. So you keep a truck (or large SUV) around for the things that need it, and you drive something else the rest of the year.
But the per-mile cost of an EV is significantly lower than the cost of an efficient car, and radically lower than a truck. I figure the Volt is around $0.05-$0.07/mi to run, with energy/tire costs ($0.03/mi in power, $0.025/mi in tires, depending on the season). I casually budget my truck at $0.50/mi to run ($0.30/mi in fuel, $0.04/mi in tires, I don't have a bypass oil filter so that's $150/yr in oil, and any other parts have the truck tax applied). I just don't use the truck as a casual runabout very often.
Do you actually know many "middle Americans"? You'd have far better luck focusing on operating costs as a cheap commuter, and keeping miles off the nice car. Import cheap Leafs into the central part of the country. Power is fairly cheap, roads are good, and the cost of operating a used EV is a fraction the cost of operating a nicer vehicle. The more you ignore the polarizing issues, the better. It's sad watching a large group use the "choke a red smurf until they're a blue smurf" sort of approach to EV uptake, not actually understanding the market they're trying to sell to. No, you're not going to sell a $100k Tesla to someone who lives on a gravel road in Iowa, but an $8k Leaf for running into town and back on less than a dollar of energy? That's far more interesting.
And, importantly, those operating costs are far, far less varying than gas costs. People know gas costs whipsaw around quite a bit, but electricity costs are quite stable in almost all of the country.
Agree - I have a truck used in much the same way. Though a Subaru or similar is a fine choice for getting around on plowed roads w/o the hassle of chains, and can be used in much the same way. Eventually decent lower-cost BEV AWDs will come to market and then filter down in the used car market.
I know a handful of middle Americans, though mostly familiar with rural Californians (yes, there are actually "red" parts of the state), and agree that EV marketing to this segment is missing the mark...this was the point I was trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully. I grew up in a poor rural area so I get it. Not convinced cost of ownership facts are effective given the number of folks commuting in full size pickups and SUVs. When discussing EVs with conservative friends and relatives, I find that focusing on things like energy independence is effective whereas environmental concerns are a dead end. Cost of ownership? Seems like a secondary concern for most, a nice-to-have. They care about performance (EVs do well in this area) but it also has to look "normal." The Bolt and the Leaf aren't the right body style for this group. At some point someone is going to figure out how to make a nice looking AWD crossover with reasonable range for ~$35k, which will have broad appeal.
Agree - I have a truck used in much the same way. Though a Subaru or similar is a fine choice for getting around on plowed roads w/o the hassle of chains, and can be used in much the same way. Eventually decent lower-cost BEV AWDs will come to market and then filter down in the used car market.
If you're working with plowed roads, I'd take a 2WD vehicle and snow tires over a Subaru, unless you're also putting snow tires on it. I've driven just about every combination of drivetrain option with and without snow tires. A Subaru on all seasons is hysterically fun in the winter, but less capable than a typical 2WD car on good snow tires. A Subaru on snow tires, of course, is virtually unstoppable. Though I have gotten one stuck. It took 5 of us an hour to dig it out, and we very nearly got a 3/4 ton Excursion stuck in the process.
In any case, the "snow vehicle" is definitely a thing, and means that an EV just doesn't have to cover those cases to be quite useful.QuoteI know a handful of middle Americans, though mostly familiar with rural Californians (yes, there are actually "red" parts of the state), and agree that EV marketing to this segment is missing the mark...this was the point I was trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully. I grew up in a poor rural area so I get it. Not convinced cost of ownership facts are effective given the number of folks commuting in full size pickups and SUVs. When discussing EVs with conservative friends and relatives, I find that focusing on things like energy independence is effective whereas environmental concerns are a dead end. Cost of ownership? Seems like a secondary concern for most, a nice-to-have. They care about performance (EVs do well in this area) but it also has to look "normal." The Bolt and the Leaf aren't the right body style for this group. At some point someone is going to figure out how to make a nice looking AWD crossover with reasonable range for ~$35k, which will have broad appeal.
My understanding is that rural California is it's own somewhat special beast, compared to the Midwest, at least. I'm quite familiar with California having red areas, as a lot of them are abandoning those areas and moving to Idaho. The midwest is a lot more casual, at least in my experience.
Environmental points are certainly a dead end, energy independence and locally sourced energy is valuable, but I find an awful lot of ears perk up when I talk energy costs for distance traveled. I'm out in a rural area outside town, and while we do drive quite a few more miles than many people on this forum, at least, the Volt optimizes that quite nicely. A round trip into town is about $1, vs about $3 on gas - and that adds up in a hurry.
Though I agree about body styles. I'm reasonably convinced that's what gave Tesla their success - it was a normal looking car that was electric, instead of... whatever the Leaf/i3/Bolt/etc are trying to be. Nissan has gotten away with some quirky designs, but I don't think I know anyone above the age of about 30 who owns one. A pure electric Civic or Focus or Camry is going to be quite popular.
If you're working with plowed roads, I'd take a 2WD vehicle and snow tires over a Subaru, unless you're also putting snow tires on it. I've driven just about every combination of drivetrain option with and without snow tires. A Subaru on all seasons is hysterically fun in the winter, but less capable than a typical 2WD car on good snow tires. A Subaru on snow tires, of course, is virtually unstoppable. Though I have gotten one stuck. It took 5 of us an hour to dig it out, and we very nearly got a 3/4 ton Excursion stuck in the process.
My understanding is that rural California is it's own somewhat special beast, compared to the Midwest, at least. I'm quite familiar with California having red areas, as a lot of them are abandoning those areas and moving to Idaho. The midwest is a lot more casual, at least in my experience.
Environmental points are certainly a dead end, energy independence and locally sourced energy is valuable, but I find an awful lot of ears perk up when I talk energy costs for distance traveled. I'm out in a rural area outside town, and while we do drive quite a few more miles than many people on this forum, at least, the Volt optimizes that quite nicely. A round trip into town is about $1, vs about $3 on gas - and that adds up in a hurry.
Yes to what JLee says about the maintenance. The electric car doesn't have a whole lot of components in it so therefore hardly any reasons to take it in to get repaired.
Of course, I say that and then find out that my Bolt seems to be fond of turning its headlights off while I'm driving at night. x.x
Service manual on the way....I'm still inside powertrain and battery warranty, but unfortunately outside of the comprehensive warranty.
Yes to what JLee says about the maintenance. The electric car doesn't have a whole lot of components in it so therefore hardly any reasons to take it in to get repaired.
Of course, I say that and then find out that my Bolt seems to be fond of turning its headlights off while I'm driving at night. x.x
Service manual on the way....I'm still inside powertrain and battery warranty, but unfortunately outside of the comprehensive warranty.
Did this get fixed? Was it expensive ?
I suppose it depends on the state. In CA level 2 chain controls (R2) require 4WD/AWD with all seasons, or chains. In practice they never get to R3 requirements and instead shutdown the road. I've done my share of winter driving in the Sierras with a gen1 Prius. It performed well, but chaining and unchainging for multiple passes sucks.
The California exodus is real, we've had quite a few friends and family move to OR, WA, ID, CO, TX, TN, WI, and AZ. We are planning our exit this year. The state is hollowing out as families and those with middle incomes increasingly realize they cannot make it here.
I'm not familiar with CA's requirements specifically, but how does that interact with "real" snow tires (studded or studless)? As opposed to the M+S rated all seasons (which are mostly worthless in the winter)?
My knowledge of this is somewhat dated, but as I recall things, studded snow tires are considered equal to tire chains in many areas in terms of pass requirements. You could either chain up, or have "real snow tires." So a Prius with studded snow tires should be permitted through "chains required" areas. Just, not with all seasons ("three seasons" if you get a real winter).
I'm pretty sure that actual snow tires solve the problem for all reasonable levels of solved.
Yeah. Just remember that CA policies are why the place is unliveable unless you're either making well into 6 figures or shitting on sidewalks. The "CA Exodus" isn't very welcome when it shows up in perfectly nice and affordable rural places and tries to make them coastal CA.
In CA there's no distinction for a true winter tire vs all seasons. R2 restrictions require all season/winter tire AND 4WD/AWD. In any case, west of the Sierras it's often far too warm during winter for proper winter tires.
The Bolt isn't in the same class as the Subaru. AWD has yet to filter down the to cheaper BEVs.
If they have any kind of range at all, they will be popular.
For me this is the X factor in buying an electric car. We do A LOT of cross-state (western US) driving that we'll continue to do after retiring and settling down. Until charge mileage or recharging infrastructure is big enough for me to feel comfortable driving those kinds of trips I'm holding off. In the meantime I'm driving a ten year old Prius.
If they have any kind of range at all, they will be popular.
For me this is the X factor in buying an electric car. We do A LOT of cross-state (western US) driving that we'll continue to do after retiring and settling down. Until charge mileage or recharging infrastructure is big enough for me to feel comfortable driving those kinds of trips I'm holding off. In the meantime I'm driving a ten year old Prius.
If you plan to use the car for long trips, and not just commuting (any eV will suffice for most daily commutes), Tesla is the only real choice. The Tesla Superchargers make cross country travel very practical- only slightly slower, and a lot cheaper, than an ICE gas guzzler.
We drove our Tesla Model S from South Texas to upstate NY last fall, and had no problem with range. Every 4-5 hours, we'd stop for a meal or whatever, and recharge- right off the highway at a Tesla Supercharger. You can't do that with a Leaf/Bolt/whatever.
If they have any kind of range at all, they will be popular.
For me this is the X factor in buying an electric car. We do A LOT of cross-state (western US) driving that we'll continue to do after retiring and settling down. Until charge mileage or recharging infrastructure is big enough for me to feel comfortable driving those kinds of trips I'm holding off. In the meantime I'm driving a ten year old Prius.
If you plan to use the car for long trips, and not just commuting (any eV will suffice for most daily commutes), Tesla is the only real choice. The Tesla Superchargers make cross country travel very practical- only slightly slower, and a lot cheaper, than an ICE gas guzzler.
We drove our Tesla Model S from South Texas to upstate NY last fall, and had no problem with range. Every 4-5 hours, we'd stop for a meal or whatever, and recharge- right off the highway at a Tesla Supercharger. You can't do that with a Leaf/Bolt/whatever.
That's the biggest reason I sold my Bolt -- I massively undervalued the Supercharger network initially.
If they have any kind of range at all, they will be popular.
For me this is the X factor in buying an electric car. We do A LOT of cross-state (western US) driving that we'll continue to do after retiring and settling down. Until charge mileage or recharging infrastructure is big enough for me to feel comfortable driving those kinds of trips I'm holding off. In the meantime I'm driving a ten year old Prius.
If you plan to use the car for long trips, and not just commuting (any eV will suffice for most daily commutes), Tesla is the only real choice. The Tesla Superchargers make cross country travel very practical- only slightly slower, and a lot cheaper, than an ICE gas guzzler.
We drove our Tesla Model S from South Texas to upstate NY last fall, and had no problem with range. Every 4-5 hours, we'd stop for a meal or whatever, and recharge- right off the highway at a Tesla Supercharger. You can't do that with a Leaf/Bolt/whatever.
That's the biggest reason I sold my Bolt -- I massively undervalued the Supercharger network initially.
The Tesla Supercharger network means that Teslas can go anywhere a gas guzzler can go, it's a huge advantage over the other electric makers. If someone buys a Leaf/Bolt/that ugly BMW electric Larry David drive on "Curb Your Enthusiasm" (i3?)/etc you almost have to keep at least one ICE vehicle in the household for long trips (or rent, I guess).
We currently have a Tesla and one ICE model, but we will probably buy another Tesla in the next couple of years. Either the Model Y or the Tesla Truck. I'm weird, I kind of like the hideous styling of the Tesla truck- looks like something Mel Gibson could have driven in the original "Mad Max." :)
I think the engineering in the Taycan will absolutely destroy anything Tesla can put into its Model S - I'm not talking about straight line speed in particular.
I love how the conversation has shifted from
"If electric cars can finally become popular in the US"
To
"Is Tesla a better EV or is Porche Taycan better"
The first question seems to have been laid to rest, electric cars are here to stay.
Of course, I am a bit biased since I own a Tesla Model 3 ;-)
Existing infrastructure favors internal combustion cars. Gas stations abound with standard billing, convenience and standardized technology. I doubt whether either charging or battery swaps can be done as quickly as a fill of one's gas tank. Of course another significant advantage is overall operating cost. The low cost of gasoline favors the purchase of an internal combustion car. A lot of gasoline can be purchased with the price differential of an electric vs a conventional internal combustion car.
Another advantage that may strike you as odd is how to deal with the vehicle after 10 years. An electric vehicle may need new batteries. This is extremely expensive. You can nurse an internal combustion engine car along for a long time as it falls apart and parts may be readily available. Some of us have had to drive "beaters."
Existing infrastructure favors internal combustion cars. Gas stations abound with standard billing, convenience and standardized technology. I doubt whether either charging or battery swaps can be done as quickly as a fill of one's gas tank. Of course another significant advantage is overall operating cost. The low cost of gasoline favors the purchase of an internal combustion car. A lot of gasoline can be purchased with the price differential of an electric vs a conventional internal combustion car.
Another advantage that may strike you as odd is how to deal with the vehicle after 10 years. An electric vehicle may need new batteries. This is extremely expensive. You can nurse an internal combustion engine car along for a long time as it falls apart and parts may be readily available. Some of us have had to drive "beaters."
So - if a fuel were sold that did not contribute additional greenhouse gases, the existing fleet of internal combustion engines could take advantage of said fuel. The many man years of experience in dealing with internal combustion engines could continue to be utilized in sales and repair. The teething pains that are often seen with new products (electric cars) would not trouble the consumers who continued to buy cars with the bugs worked out.
Existing infrastructure favors internal combustion cars. Gas stations abound with standard billing, convenience and standardized technology. I doubt whether either charging or battery swaps can be done as quickly as a fill of one's gas tank. Of course another significant advantage is overall operating cost. The low cost of gasoline favors the purchase of an internal combustion car. A lot of gasoline can be purchased with the price differential of an electric vs a conventional internal combustion car.
Another advantage that may strike you as odd is how to deal with the vehicle after 10 years. An electric vehicle may need new batteries. This is extremely expensive. You can nurse an internal combustion engine car along for a long time as it falls apart and parts may be readily available. Some of us have had to drive "beaters."
So - if a fuel were sold that did not contribute additional greenhouse gases, the existing fleet of internal combustion engines could take advantage of said fuel. The many man years of experience in dealing with internal combustion engines could continue to be utilized in sales and repair. The teething pains that are often seen with new products (electric cars) would not trouble the consumers who continued to buy cars with the bugs worked out.
A few counterpoints:Finidng a fuel that does not contribute to greenhouse gases would be great... but is at present a pipe dream. Currently EVs contribute far less to greenhouse emissions provided the electricity you use for recharging is at least partially supplied by greener technologies. Evern if you are in one of the worst areas, this can be mitigated by installing your own PV array.
- Electrical infrastructure is far more extensive than petrol infrastructure. EVs allow you to charge at home, at a friend's house, at a charging station, or really anywhere there's an outlet. Fast charging (e.g. L2 chargers) are indeed in shorter supply,but can be built out anywhere and without any environmental precautions, unlike petrol stations. Which is hwy my workplace has four L2 chargers
- The cost of a new battery-pack must be considered, but it's far less than the components that need servicing in an ICE engine under similar timeframes (e.g. the water pump, transmission, exhaust system, serpentine and timing belts, oil changes, etc). Overall maintenence on EVs are far lower than on ICE engines, and we've got a solid decade of data from these more modern cars
- Contrary to popular opinion, EVs do not rely on "new" technology. Electrical engines are as old as ICE engines, and are used in everything from large ships to home appliances. Even the latest generation of EVs (e.g. Tesla S, Leafs, etc) have been 'in the wild' for over a decade. These aren't new prototypes or compete redesigns anymore.
[/list]
Existing infrastructure favors internal combustion cars. Gas stations abound with standard billing, convenience and standardized technology. I doubt whether either charging or battery swaps can be done as quickly as a fill of one's gas tank. Of course another significant advantage is overall operating cost. The low cost of gasoline favors the purchase of an internal combustion car. A lot of gasoline can be purchased with the price differential of an electric vs a conventional internal combustion car.
Another advantage that may strike you as odd is how to deal with the vehicle after 10 years. An electric vehicle may need new batteries. This is extremely expensive. You can nurse an internal combustion engine car along for a long time as it falls apart and parts may be readily available. Some of us have had to drive "beaters."
So - if a fuel were sold that did not contribute additional greenhouse gases, the existing fleet of internal combustion engines could take advantage of said fuel. The many man years of experience in dealing with internal combustion engines could continue to be utilized in sales and repair. The teething pains that are often seen with new products (electric cars) would not trouble the consumers who continued to buy cars with the bugs worked out.
A few counterpoints:
- Electrical infrastructure is far more extensive than petrol infrastructure. EVs allow you to charge at home, at a friend's house, at a charging station, or really anywhere there's an outlet. Fast charging (e.g. L2 chargers) are indeed in shorter supply,but can be built out anywhere and without any environmental precautions, unlike petrol stations. Which is hwy my workplace has four L2 chargers
I am over 6 months into EV land and there's only been one trip where I needed fast charging (I sold my Bolt to a friend almost 300 miles away and delivered it). That trip cemented the vast superiority of Tesla's network vs everyone else's DC fast charging...superchargers are massively better than anything else out there right now.
- Electrical infrastructure is far more extensive than petrol infrastructure. EVs allow you to charge at home, at a friend's house, at a charging station, or really anywhere there's an outlet. Fast charging (e.g. L2 chargers) are indeed in shorter supply,but can be built out anywhere and without any environmental precautions, unlike petrol stations. Which is hwy my workplace has four L2 chargers
This is true, but not really very helpful. Say you have a Tesla and drive somewhere for a weekend trip, 200-250 miles, and you leave on a Friday night. The typical 110V charger will not have recharged the battery by the time you leave on Sunday afternoon.
More broadly, and I bring this up whenever it comes to my attention on these threads, there are a significant number of people who just don't have access to electricity for their car. I think about 30% of people live in apartments without garages. And people who live in apartments with garages can't add electricity themselves - they have to get their landlord to do it.
Electric cars will become exponentially more popular until they hit a wall, when they'll have to overcome charging infrastructure problems. My guess is that'll be ~30% of the market.
Existing infrastructure favors internal combustion cars. Gas stations abound with standard billing, convenience and standardized technology. I doubt whether either charging or battery swaps can be done as quickly as a fill of one's gas tank. Of course another significant advantage is overall operating cost. The low cost of gasoline favors the purchase of an internal combustion car. A lot of gasoline can be purchased with the price differential of an electric vs a conventional internal combustion car.
Another advantage that may strike you as odd is how to deal with the vehicle after 10 years. An electric vehicle may need new batteries. This is extremely expensive. You can nurse an internal combustion engine car along for a long time as it falls apart and parts may be readily available. Some of us have had to drive "beaters."
So - if a fuel were sold that did not contribute additional greenhouse gases, the existing fleet of internal combustion engines could take advantage of said fuel. The many man years of experience in dealing with internal combustion engines could continue to be utilized in sales and repair. The teething pains that are often seen with new products (electric cars) would not trouble the consumers who continued to buy cars with the bugs worked out.
A few counterpoints:
- Electrical infrastructure is far more extensive than petrol infrastructure. EVs allow you to charge at home, at a friend's house, at a charging station, or really anywhere there's an outlet. Fast charging (e.g. L2 chargers) are indeed in shorter supply,but can be built out anywhere and without any environmental precautions, unlike petrol stations. Which is hwy my workplace has four L2 chargers
This is true, but not really very helpful. Say you have a Tesla and drive somewhere for a weekend trip, 200-250 miles, and you leave on a Friday night. The typical 110V charger will not have recharged the battery by the time you leave on Sunday afternoon.
More broadly, and I bring this up whenever it comes to my attention on these threads, there are a significant number of people who just don't have access to electricity for their car. I think about 30% of people live in apartments without garages. And people who live in apartments with garages can't add electricity themselves - they have to get their landlord to do it. And charging capacity is expanding, but most rapidly in the places that 1) already have good public transportation and low car ownership (NYC, SF), or have electricity costs that can make it more expensive to run an electric car than a gasoline car (Boston, some parts of Southern California).
Electric cars will become exponentially more popular until they hit a wall, when they'll have to overcome charging infrastructure problems. My guess is that'll be ~30% of the market.
I too see long trips as the main personal barrier for going all-EV. We're a household of two people and two cars. We could absolutely go EV with one of our cars with no issues. Most of my driving is just commuting, derping around to the grocery store, etc. I'd probably be able to charge 99% of the time at home, which would be far more convenient than stopping at the gas station every ~300 miles.
- Electrical infrastructure is far more extensive than petrol infrastructure. EVs allow you to charge at home, at a friend's house, at a charging station, or really anywhere there's an outlet. Fast charging (e.g. L2 chargers) are indeed in shorter supply,but can be built out anywhere and without any environmental precautions, unlike petrol stations. Which is hwy my workplace has four L2 chargers
This is true, but not really very helpful. Say you have a Tesla and drive somewhere for a weekend trip, 200-250 miles, and you leave on a Friday night. The typical 110V charger will not have recharged the battery by the time you leave on Sunday afternoon.
Technically true, but I think misses the point. If you're talking about a hotel trip, there are already many hotels that offer L2 charging. So you simply choose to stay at one of those instead of a choosing at random, and you start the morning with a full battery.
Oh, you're not staying at a hotel, we're visiting relatives? Fine, plug it in when you're not using it that weekend. No it won't be back up to 100% by Sunday afternoon, but it'll be up to maybe 75%. Quite possibly that's enough to get you home, or you stop at an L3 charger along the interstate on the way back for 15 minutes to make up the difference.
The inconvenience of EV charging is massively overblown, and that'll only become more true as other manufacturers / charging networks start to catch up to Tesla.
no brake repairs.
As someone who started this thread, wants Tesla to continue to succeed, and wants electric cars to become popular and mainstream, I am still hesitant!
At the top of my list - I want choice. I do not want to be stuck with Tesla, Tesla chargers and Tesla service. I also don't want to limit my choices for hotels, restaurants and camp sites to be limited either! I want multiple manufacturers who make options that can work for me, and I want competitive charging options.
As someone who thinks about not only my situation, but others, I want friction to decrease. Right now, if I bought an electric car... I'd have to A) spring for an upgrade to my 100A service, B) kick my wife's car out of the one-car garage, C) make a new rule that we can't use the garage for "stuff" temporarily because I need to be able to charge. That's not too bad, but the up front costs are way above what I had to do to get into a used ICE car. And I'm in a cushy situation compared to many. (My last house didn't have a garage or external outlet, so I'd had have to pay for installing the outlet, and have to plug my car in outside regardless of weather. I'm sure it's "fine" but far from ideal.) In between houses, I lived in two different apartments with zero options for plugging in. (This goes back to choice... now you've got to limit options for where you live based on your car! Take a few hairs out of your mustache, it will.)
Maintenance... my recent maintenance included cabin air filter, wipers, FOB battery, windshield wiper fluid... wait, these are things common to every car! And that's a big list. Yes, electric drivetrains are superior and almost certainly massively less expensive to maintain over the long haul, but it is limited to the drivetrain. But that's OK. It just seems to be used in a disingenuous way in a lot of arguments. (Because arguments tend to be black and white rather than fine-grained!)
As someone who thinks about not only my situation, but others, I want friction to decrease. Right now, if I bought an electric car... I'd have to A) spring for an upgrade to my 100A service, B) kick my wife's car out of the one-car garage, C) make a new rule that we can't use the garage for "stuff" temporarily because I need to be able to charge. That's not too bad, but the up front costs are way above what I had to do to get into a used ICE car.
Holy shit, I did not realize 80% in 20 minutes was the norm for superchargers. My info was way out of date. Playing with that trip calculator, it looks like a 310 mile range Tesla would get her just about anywhere she'd want to go (and back) with reasonable stops for charging (most common trip routes of hers I can plug in are half an hour or less). 255 mile range models gets kind of stupid though for her use - 70 min of charging during a 300 mile drive one-way.I too see long trips as the main personal barrier for going all-EV. We're a household of two people and two cars. We could absolutely go EV with one of our cars with no issues. Most of my driving is just commuting, derping around to the grocery store, etc. I'd probably be able to charge 99% of the time at home, which would be far more convenient than stopping at the gas station every ~300 miles.
But my GF's business means she travels a lot (at least in years that aren't 2020). Sometimes that means driving 300 miles and staying in a hotel for two days before coming home. The scenario you described solves that (assuming an EV with 300+ miles of range). Often though, it means driving 200-300 miles one-way, sometimes at a place like a state park (unlikely to have a public charging station any time soon), spending maybe 2-3 hours there, and then turning around and driving the 200-300 miles home. Last thing on her mind will be wanting to stop for an hour to charge. She just wants to be home in time for dinner. I don't see EVs with 500 miles of range popping up anytime soon (at least at anything close to a reasonable cost).
Something like a Volt would do the trick though, so maybe we could eventually go one EV, one PHEV.
You have a lot of misconceptions about EV and charging. So, as someone who has owned a Tesla for about 15 months and who has driven about 15k miles on it, let me see if I can clear it up.
My car has a 310-mile range when it is 100% charged. A little less in winter due to the heating of the car/battery. I usually keep the charge set to 250 miles at home and only increase to the max on trips.
I have made several long-distance trips from Central NJ, multiple times to Massachusetts (Cape Cod, etc), Washington DC, and to Rochester NY. Charging is never an issue and is not hour-long at any time. I stop at a supercharger when I want a break, which is every 3-4 hours. These superchargers are located in the parking lots where I have a choice of one or more restaurants. I plugin and after a quick pit-stop and minor refreshments, I am ready to leave. The charge is complete in 20 minutes or so (to 80%). The majority of charging stops, my car was recharged before I had completed my break. My wife still has range anxiety after so long, so I end up charging more than needed just to keep her happy.
There are superchargers everywhere (except N. Dakota). Add a trip to https://www.tesla.com/trips and see how and where the charging is done.
I do agree that the price was higher than a comparable car, but over a period of time, I expect to easily make up the difference. No oil changes, no 12k mile check-up, no transmission repairs, no brake repairs. Nothing. Only service items I expect to spend money on are tires, windshield wiper fluid/blades, and the cabin air filter. My per mile cost is about 1/3 or 1/4 what I would spend on gas. I refuel at home and I hate the idea of going to gas station and waiting for someone to fill up gas (I'm in NJ where self-serve is prohibited). Even worse in other states where I have to fill my own gas.
But the part I love the most about this car is that I leave every other car in the dust when the lights turn green. I might have gotten old, but the lead-foot has not changed ;-)
I have to add that my way may not be the only way with an EV. Check out @sol posts of buying a second hand Nissan Leaf and how he uses solar panels to charge it. Much cheaper than my car.
You also don't need to put a fast-charger in your garage. No idea what your house layout is, but you can install it outside (e.g. on the side of your home/garage) with a 10' (or longer) cord.
it's quite possible this won't work for you and your circumstances, but it sounds like you've got some preconceived notions of what you need for an EV, which may not be true.
AS for maintenence... yeah, you will still need cabin air filters and washer fluid and wipers, but the big repairs, the ones you budget for, are different. Once a decade you'll have to spend a few grand to replace the battery pack, but you also don't have oil changes every ~5k or the other larger expenses associated with exhaust, drivetrain and power. No belts, pulleys, muffler or oil system. For whatever reason I have noticed that tires seem to be eaten up faster on EVs.... maybe the higher starting torque?
You also don't need to put a fast-charger in your garage. No idea what your house layout is, but you can install it outside (e.g. on the side of your home/garage) with a 10' (or longer) cord.
it's quite possible this won't work for you and your circumstances, but it sounds like you've got some preconceived notions of what you need for an EV, which may not be true.
AS for maintenence... yeah, you will still need cabin air filters and washer fluid and wipers, but the big repairs, the ones you budget for, are different. Once a decade you'll have to spend a few grand to replace the battery pack, but you also don't have oil changes every ~5k or the other larger expenses associated with exhaust, drivetrain and power. No belts, pulleys, muffler or oil system. For whatever reason I have noticed that tires seem to be eaten up faster on EVs.... maybe the higher starting torque?
I'd say my "pre-conceived" notions are simply - it shouldn't be noticeably less convenient than owning an ICE car, and my parking spot is more than 25' from the garage. And I really don't want to plug in outside. I want the plugging in "stuff" to be indoors. Probably because I'm old-fashioned that way! (And the weather here often sucks, and it wreaks havoc on things you leave outside.)
The maintenance stuff is also interesting because... I'm not one of those responsible folks that keeps a car for multiple decades. Or one decade. So the savings from maintenance would almost certainly not pay itself back for me. My $37 oil changes twice a year are really not hurting my budget that much. I haven't had to replace an exhaust component in a car since the early 2000s; same with transmission, engine, etc. I replaced an alternator in my wife's car for about $50 four years ago.
It's not really about math, though, it's mostly about choice. When I can buy an EV from one of multiple vendors, charge from one of multiple networks, get service from a third party... without those things I'm giving up choice, I'm giving up DIY, etc. I'm not anti-Tesla, just pro-choice.
As someone who started this thread, wants Tesla to continue to succeed, and wants electric cars to become popular and mainstream, I am still hesitant!
At the top of my list - I want choice. I do not want to be stuck with Tesla, Tesla chargers and Tesla service. I also don't want to limit my choices for hotels, restaurants and camp sites to be limited either! I want multiple manufacturers who make options that can work for me, and I want competitive charging options.
Maintenance... my recent maintenance included cabin air filter, wipers, FOB battery, windshield wiper fluid... wait, these are things common to every car! And that's a big list. Yes, electric drivetrains are superior and almost certainly massively less expensive to maintain over the long haul, but it is limited to the drivetrain. But that's OK. It just seems to be used in a disingenuous way in a lot of arguments. (Because arguments tend to be black and white rather than fine-grained!)
And I really don't want to plug in outside. I want the plugging in "stuff" to be indoors. Probably because I'm old-fashioned that way! (And the weather here often sucks, and it wreaks havoc on things you leave outside.)
AS for the charger being outdoors... ::shrug:: They do just fine here in snowy New England. I'm not sure why you'd park your car outside but not want to charge it there. Maybe you can elaborate?
One advantage that EV's have that ICE cars do not have is getting emissions checked.
Here in NJ, you have to go to the DMV once in a couple of years, spend an hour in the lane and get your emissions checked. My car does not have the sticker and I do not have to get one. I love this!
But trying to "logic" me into converting to a Tesla person is a waste of time, like most internet arguments ;) This is why I want Ford (and others) to sit up and put out actual electric cars that "lots of people" will buy. Like lots of people. Like more 2% of the auto sales market.
If it helps, for the storm of people trying to change my mind... it's irrelevant! I own a car worth about $12k and I might sell it and go to a one-car household, assuming my ability to work remotely continues indefinitely. The spouse's car would serve some of the same purposes my car does - getting stuff from Home Depot / Lowes like 8' lumber, etc. This is also doable with a Prius and some of the Tesla varieties. But those same Tesla varieties are not $12k cars...
Back to choice, beyond wanting lots of manufacturers to wake up and make competitive EVs, I want all the varieties of transportation to exist. Fun cars, fast cars, useful cars, budget cars, etc. Sporty budget hatchbacks are my jam... the closest EV to that is probably the Bolt, but it's hideous compared to a Model 3 or Mazda 3. I'm old enough that cars are not just a spreadsheet item; they are an emotional item. But I'm also a general contrarian and underdog fan. Tesla is an underdog compared to ICE, but for the aforementioned reasons, I wouldn't dare spend $35k+ on such an item. I also thank and respect the early adopters here for helping Tesla succeed and to help push others to compete in this space.
But trying to "logic" me into converting to a Tesla person is a waste of time, like most internet arguments ;) This is why I want Ford (and others) to sit up and put out actual electric cars that "lots of people" will buy. Like lots of people. Like more 2% of the auto sales market.
I want more manufacturers to put out EVs too, and the more there are the less this (rather silly) concern of insufficient charging infrastructure will go away. But I don’t believe that a lack of manufacturers explains why just 2% of cars are EVs. Honestly I think it comes back to people *thinking* that charging infrastructure is far worse than it is (they are remembering articles written circa 2012), and that get range anxiety even though models routinely exceed 250 miles and can get an 80% charge in 15 minutes. Or they assume all EVs carry the price tag of the Tesla model S and model X.
That said I kinda like the way the Bolt looks, and that one we are seriously considering (available with rebates/discounts now for ~$21k brand new!!).
Today someone said to me that the production of electric cars is much worse for the environment than a regular ICE car, because of the batteries.
I guess he meant specifically the mining of lithium but I don't know to what he was referring.
The emissions from regular ICE vehicles I think is far worse, and I read that they cause all kinds of health problems and ultimately deaths.
I think we (the collective thread contributors) agree on a lot of things.
And I mostly speak from personal perspective and what I think others that kinda agree with me think.
For example, my friend got a $60k Model 3. I hate the interior. I mean, sure I'd probably get used to it and it doesn't matter. But that kind of minimalism isn't my style. And that's fine, but it's not at all hard for me to picture anyone going to buy a Model 3 and getting in and just thinking - this isn't for me. This isn't a problem Tesla should solve. This is a problem GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc. should solve. They know how to make a wide variety of cars to suite these irrationally diverse tastes. (I say this almost ironically, because I look around and most cars seem to look the same; they are almost certainly white or gray/silver or maybe black. On rare occasions they are red or blue or some other color.)
I’m a huge fan of Tesla’s, and I wish I could make the math work in buying one, but right now I think they are like the $10k flat screen TVs of 20 years ago; we all know it’s the future, but we also all know they’ll be a lot cheaper and competitive in the future, I am not willing to buy today for $50k what will be available for $20k in 10 years (nor am I willing to buy one of those hideous Bolts or Leafs).
Having spent a long weekend with a Tesla Model X (my wife won a weekend with one in a charity auction a couple years ago) the two things people tend to not realize/ignore/gloss over are:
1. How much the cold really impacts your range (I had it in winter in Chicago when it was like 10* out, range took a HUGE hit.
2. How crowded the super chargers can be. It’s one thing to say “oh it only takes 20 min” but if there are 2 cars ahead of you now it’s an hour. Filling with gas takes 2-3 min so if there are two cars ahead of you it now takes 10, that’s a huge difference. And people are more likely to wander off for 20 min charging than 2 min getting gas so you may be waiting even longer (I know the app discourages this but still). And currently there aren’t enough super chargers in most places to where you can just go across the street to a different one if this one is too crowded.
I expect these problems will be solved and I’ll own an EV in the next 10 years, but for right now it’s too bleeding edge for me and a lot of other Americans.
The range anxiety was strong, not going to lie. It was cold, and this was the lowest model from a battery perspective (75D). At one point, I supercharged it to 90% (not sure why it stopped there, but it went from ~18% to 90% in ~1 hour, and then told me it was done when I hit 90%). I drove 4.7m to my house, very sedately (using autopilot) and it chewed up ~6% of the range (I arrived home at 84%). That's...unimpressive. And charging on 120v, that just sucked; added about 14% both nights in about 10-12 hours. I think it would be twice as fast on 240v, but still, not great. And around here, EVs are not unpopular, so public chargers can fill up fast. There were about 8 Teslas at the supercharger I went to, and I mentioned earlier the EV chargers in front of my office were both taken this morning. It's one thing to say, hey, we'll drive 2 hours and then supercharge while we eat and then drive 2 more, but if you get there and have to wait an hour for a charger AND THEN charge, that's not great. I could see it getting to be that way soon. I wasn't too scientific about tracking my usage, but I can tell you I ran it down from 84% to 24%, charged it up to 38%, ran it down to 18%, supercharged to 90%, then ran it down to 22%, charged it to 36%, and then it was back to about 24% when I drove it to work this AM. That was while putting ~200 miles on it. In theory, the range is ~237 miles on it, so that should have been 1 charge. Clearly that wasn't the case for me.
I’m a huge fan of Tesla’s, and I wish I could make the math work in buying one, but right now I think they are like the $10k flat screen TVs of 20 years ago; we all know it’s the future, but we also all know they’ll be a lot cheaper and competitive in the future, I am not willing to buy today for $50k what will be available for $20k in 10 years (nor am I willing to buy one of those hideous Bolts or Leafs).
Having spent a long weekend with a Tesla Model X (my wife won a weekend with one in a charity auction a couple years ago) the two things people tend to not realize/ignore/gloss over are:
1. How much the cold really impacts your range (I had it in winter in Chicago when it was like 10* out, range took a HUGE hit.
2. How crowded the super chargers can be. It’s one thing to say “oh it only takes 20 min” but if there are 2 cars ahead of you now it’s an hour. Filling with gas takes 2-3 min so if there are two cars ahead of you it now takes 10, that’s a huge difference. And people are more likely to wander off for 20 min charging than 2 min getting gas so you may be waiting even longer (I know the app discourages this but still). And currently there aren’t enough super chargers in most places to where you can just go across the street to a different one if this one is too crowded.
I expect these problems will be solved and I’ll own an EV in the next 10 years, but for right now it’s too bleeding edge for me and a lot of other Americans.
I’m surprised to hear that the superchargers are crowded near you. There are three stations near us and each has multiple chargers - I’ve yet to encounter a time when they were all full, and typically at least half are available. Then again I’m also baffled at how one can fill an ice gas tank in 2 minutes.
Yes, cold does have an impact, particularly if you like to crank the heat as I do. Total range might drop as much as a third on sub zero days
Light passenger vehicle pump flow rate ranges up to about 50 litres (13 US gallons) per minute (the United States limits this to 10 US gallons (38 litres) per minute); pumps serving trucks and other large vehicles have a higher flow rate, up to 130 litres (34 US gallons) per minute in the UK, and airline refueling can ...
Can they finally become popular in the United States?CNET basically parrots a company’s marketing lines. They’re key focus is hyping new technology, and as such they are always forward-looking and spend essentially no time reviewing whether a company’s marketing promises lived up to the hype. So: I take any of their articles with as much faith as I would a company’s promises at a trade show (e.g. CES, where CNET also has a big presence).
Looks like GM is ramping up to build more electric cars.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2020/01/14/gm-picks-lordstown-site-for-battery-plant/4468957002/ (https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2020/01/14/gm-picks-lordstown-site-for-battery-plant/4468957002/)
The following article says they are going after Tesla customers. Yet the proposed products seem different than what I've known Tesla to produce.
The article says the beancounters that run GM are putting big money behind this venture. Can Tesla expect a lot more competition in the next few years? The article says the GM cars may have a range of 400 miles.
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/general-motors-chevy-buick-gmc-hummer-cadillac-electric-vehicles/ (https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/general-motors-chevy-buick-gmc-hummer-cadillac-electric-vehicles/)
With a few exceptions, GM has never struck me as an innovative company. Anybody willing to offer an opinion?
But my GF's business means she travels a lot (at least in years that aren't 2020). Sometimes that means driving 300 miles and staying in a hotel for two days before coming home. The scenario you described solves that (assuming an EV with 300+ miles of range). Often though, it means driving 200-300 miles one-way, sometimes at a place like a state park (unlikely to have a public charging station any time soon), spending maybe 2-3 hours there, and then turning around and driving the 200-300 miles home. Last thing on her mind will be wanting to stop for an hour to charge. She just wants to be home in time for dinner. I don't see EVs with 500 miles of range popping up anytime soon (at least at anything close to a reasonable cost).
I just checked, and there are zero at any of the parks or other similar areas she's been to recently for a day-trip that I can think of in the range I described:But my GF's business means she travels a lot (at least in years that aren't 2020). Sometimes that means driving 300 miles and staying in a hotel for two days before coming home. The scenario you described solves that (assuming an EV with 300+ miles of range). Often though, it means driving 200-300 miles one-way, sometimes at a place like a state park (unlikely to have a public charging station any time soon), spending maybe 2-3 hours there, and then turning around and driving the 200-300 miles home. Last thing on her mind will be wanting to stop for an hour to charge. She just wants to be home in time for dinner. I don't see EVs with 500 miles of range popping up anytime soon (at least at anything close to a reasonable cost).
Check again, several of the closest state parks in my flyover state has EV chargers...
You just need to download the most popular apps and do some planning at this stage. For anyone doing a repeating route, its easy to learn where to charge and where to sleep. Anyone venturing out into new territory (for them) it'll still require ten minutes of planning.
The charging is still a sticking point for me, as others have mentioned. Even if I had superchargers nearby (let's just assume the are at all the gas stations), 20 minutes is a LOT of time lost stopping. If I'm on a long trip, it's something I can get over. Probably a good time to walk around, eat, whatever. However, on a 20 minute trip to work, adding 20 minutes is really ugly (vs the 5 minutes a gas fillup takes).
So, either they need to get a lot faster at charging (and I'd take a 95% charge in exchange for those 15 minutes), or I need a home charger.
Now, home chargers have another whole set of problems. The charger itself is a big chunk of change that needs to be added on to the cost of that first EV. Then, there's the likely (depending on age/construction of home) required home electrical system/service upgrade. I've got what's typical for my area, a 100 amp panel. Due to that limitation and the cost to upgrade service, the previous owners converted the dryer from electric to gas just so they could install Air Conditioning!
I really, really would like an electric car and an electric motorcycle, but right now the path to an electric car is still too daunting. The motorcycle is easier technically (even there, I don't have an unshared 120v outlet to dedicate to it right now!), but in that case the vehicle cost is ridiculously high. I can buy an awful lot of gas for the extra $10,000 that electric motorcycle is going to cost me. :-(
The charging is still a sticking point for me, as others have mentioned. Even if I had superchargers nearby (let's just assume the are at all the gas stations), 20 minutes is a LOT of time lost stopping. If I'm on a long trip, it's something I can get over. Probably a good time to walk around, eat, whatever. However, on a 20 minute trip to work, adding 20 minutes is really ugly (vs the 5 minutes a gas fillup takes).
So, either they need to get a lot faster at charging (and I'd take a 95% charge in exchange for those 15 minutes), or I need a home charger.
Now, home chargers have another whole set of problems. The charger itself is a big chunk of change that needs to be added on to the cost of that first EV. Then, there's the likely (depending on age/construction of home) required home electrical system/service upgrade. I've got what's typical for my area, a 100 amp panel. Due to that limitation and the cost to upgrade service, the previous owners converted the dryer from electric to gas just so they could install Air Conditioning!
I really, really would like an electric car and an electric motorcycle, but right now the path to an electric car is still too daunting. The motorcycle is easier technically (even there, I don't have an unshared 120v outlet to dedicate to it right now!), but in that case the vehicle cost is ridiculously high. I can buy an awful lot of gas for the extra $10,000 that electric motorcycle is going to cost me. :-(
The 2020 Hyundai Kona Electric looks promising.These were already available for the 2019 model year, meaning they are starting to trickle onto the used market (https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?listingId=551131475).
The 2020 Hyundai Kona Electric looks promising.These were already available for the 2019 model year, meaning they are starting to trickle onto the used market (https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?listingId=551131475).
The vast majority of drivers don’t need a L2 supercharger in their home - they just need to plug it in overnight in a normal outlet. On long-distance trips you simply stop every 3 hours or so for 10–20 minutes (depending on how much further you need to go before your next stop).
The vast majority of drivers don’t need a L2 supercharger in their home - they just need to plug it in overnight in a normal outlet. On long-distance trips you simply stop every 3 hours or so for 10–20 minutes (depending on how much further you need to go before your next stop).
I agree with you, but having a L2 charger at home does make a psychological difference. Switching from thinking about your average mileage per day and what about the upper-limit 5% of cases are, to not thinking about it and approaching the car with a "oh the battery is getting low, I guess I'll bother to plug it in tonight" attitude, removes a huge barrier to entry.
I really like the UK's "L2 charging required in all new-construction garages" rule. That kind of thing is really easy to do if you're building everything from scratch anyway, and a lot harder to retrofit. Hopefully a lot more places will start following their example.
A lot of EV advocates believed new ICE cars sales pointed to a sizeable portion of the public "waiting" on buying a new car in hopes of a) saving up enough money for an EV and/or b) waiting to see if the prices would come down on new EVs, and/or c) waiting to see if range limits would increase.
I think this pandemic could really end up hurting EV sales in 2020 and 2021, though you'll still find some EV advocates who say the adoption of EVs is "inevitable" or whatever. But I do think for ~95% of Americans, a new EV purchase would be considered a "luxury." And luxuries are taking a back seat as millions are out of work and many COLA/merit increases, and bonuses are being waived this year, etc. A lot of people who may have the income to afford an EV (typically, higher-paying "white collar" jobs) are working from home a lot (or permanently), so the wear and tear on their ICE/hybrid car is a lot less. The need to upgrade probably isn't there, either.
It has been fascinating to watch the market share grow - but I don't anticipate a big jump in 2020 or 2021. Still around ~2%, and that 2% includes PHEVs if I'm not mistaken.
A lot of EV advocates believed new ICE cars sales pointed to a sizeable portion of the public "waiting" on buying a new car in hopes of a) saving up enough money for an EV and/or b) waiting to see if the prices would come down on new EVs, and/or c) waiting to see if range limits would increase.
I think this pandemic could really end up hurting EV sales in 2020 and 2021, though you'll still find some EV advocates who say the adoption of EVs is "inevitable" or whatever. But I do think for ~95% of Americans, a new EV purchase would be considered a "luxury." And luxuries are taking a back seat as millions are out of work and many COLA/merit increases, and bonuses are being waived this year, etc. A lot of people who may have the income to afford an EV (typically, higher-paying "white collar" jobs) are working from home a lot (or permanently), so the wear and tear on their ICE/hybrid car is a lot less. The need to upgrade probably isn't there, either.
It has been fascinating to watch the market share grow - but I don't anticipate a big jump in 2020 or 2021. Still around ~2%, and that 2% includes PHEVs if I'm not mistaken.
A lot of EV advocates believed new ICE cars sales pointed to a sizeable portion of the public "waiting" on buying a new car in hopes of a) saving up enough money for an EV and/or b) waiting to see if the prices would come down on new EVs, and/or c) waiting to see if range limits would increase.
I think this pandemic could really end up hurting EV sales in 2020 and 2021, though you'll still find some EV advocates who say the adoption of EVs is "inevitable" or whatever. But I do think for ~95% of Americans, a new EV purchase would be considered a "luxury." And luxuries are taking a back seat as millions are out of work and many COLA/merit increases, and bonuses are being waived this year, etc. A lot of people who may have the income to afford an EV (typically, higher-paying "white collar" jobs) are working from home a lot (or permanently), so the wear and tear on their ICE/hybrid car is a lot less. The need to upgrade probably isn't there, either.
It has been fascinating to watch the market share grow - but I don't anticipate a big jump in 2020 or 2021. Still around ~2%, and that 2% includes PHEVs if I'm not mistaken.
You'd think that, but rowing machines are basically impossible to find ($900-1000 Concept 2 rowers are going for $1300+) and sim racing hardware is massively overpriced (going for 50% over ordinary retail). People are still spending, but in different areas.
The lack of commute is IMO a much bigger factor..as you mentioned, those most likely to be able to afford a new EV are now likely working from home, so there's not much point.
The 2020 Hyundai Kona Electric looks promising. Subcompact SUV, 258 mile range, and overall reasonable specs for under $40k. And it looks like a normal car from an established auto maker with existing service network. Can fast charge to ~80% in under an hour.
Don't think I would want to road trip with it, but for a daily driver/commuter/around town it looks pretty ideal.
If the trend continues of price and technology improving, then Americans will start buying a lot more EVs. Especially two vehicle households. It makes a lot of sense to have an EV for short trips and an ICE for longer trips.
A lot of EV advocates believed new ICE cars sales pointed to a sizeable portion of the public "waiting" on buying a new car in hopes of a) saving up enough money for an EV and/or b) waiting to see if the prices would come down on new EVs, and/or c) waiting to see if range limits would increase.
I think this pandemic could really end up hurting EV sales in 2020 and 2021, though you'll still find some EV advocates who say the adoption of EVs is "inevitable" or whatever. But I do think for ~95% of Americans, a new EV purchase would be considered a "luxury." And luxuries are taking a back seat as millions are out of work and many COLA/merit increases, and bonuses are being waived this year, etc. A lot of people who may have the income to afford an EV (typically, higher-paying "white collar" jobs) are working from home a lot (or permanently), so the wear and tear on their ICE/hybrid car is a lot less. The need to upgrade probably isn't there, either.
It has been fascinating to watch the market share grow - but I don't anticipate a big jump in 2020 or 2021. Still around ~2%, and that 2% includes PHEVs if I'm not mistaken.
You'd think that, but rowing machines are basically impossible to find ($900-1000 Concept 2 rowers are going for $1300+) and sim racing hardware is massively overpriced (going for 50% over ordinary retail). People are still spending, but in different areas.
The lack of commute is IMO a much bigger factor..as you mentioned, those most likely to be able to afford a new EV are now likely working from home, so there's not much point.
And as nereo pointed out - gas is pretty cheap. Not sure what it is nationally but I've seen it under $2/gallon for a long time now. So the "fuel savings" aren't even there to be realized if your cost per mile is similar and your total miles driving are much less as well.
And as nereo pointed out - gas is pretty cheap. Not sure what it is nationally but I've seen it under $2/gallon for a long time now. So the "fuel savings" aren't even there to be realized if your cost per mile is similar and your total miles driving are much less as well.
Well to be clear, there are still fuel savings to be made, they just won’t be quite as much under the low fuel prices and less driving scenario. Currently EVs cost roughly 2.5¢ to 4¢ per mile depending on the model, your driving conditions and electricity rates. If you are generating your own electricity already and have a surplus (as we do) the cost is effectively 0¢ (up to some maximum threshold of electricity generated).
To compare, a car which gets 35mpg costs 5.7¢ per mile when gasoline is at $2/gallon (or 8.6¢ @ $3, and 11.4¢ @ $4/gal). So at current low fuel prices, someone driving 8,000 miles/year pays ~$450 more each year for gasoline than an EV owner pays for electricity to drive the same amount. As we’ve outlined above there are other maintenance savings as well.
So it’s not true to say the “fuel savings aren’t even there to be realized” - they are, they are just smaller. Gasoline prices would need to drop below $1.40 before gasoline became cheaper, or MPG would have to be much higher than 35mpg. Just for kicks, if you want to compare a Prius driven gently getting 52mpg, the break-even gasoline price would be $2.08 — almost exactly where we are at right now in my city (gasoline prices right now are $2.0599 with cash discount)
And as nereo pointed out - gas is pretty cheap. Not sure what it is nationally but I've seen it under $2/gallon for a long time now. So the "fuel savings" aren't even there to be realized if your cost per mile is similar and your total miles driving are much less as well.
Well to be clear, there are still fuel savings to be made, they just won’t be quite as much under the low fuel prices and less driving scenario. Currently EVs cost roughly 2.5¢ to 4¢ per mile depending on the model, your driving conditions and electricity rates. If you are generating your own electricity already and have a surplus (as we do) the cost is effectively 0¢ (up to some maximum threshold of electricity generated).
To compare, a car which gets 35mpg costs 5.7¢ per mile when gasoline is at $2/gallon (or 8.6¢ @ $3, and 11.4¢ @ $4/gal). So at current low fuel prices, someone driving 8,000 miles/year pays ~$450 more each year for gasoline than an EV owner pays for electricity to drive the same amount. As we’ve outlined above there are other maintenance savings as well.
So it’s not true to say the “fuel savings aren’t even there to be realized” - they are, they are just smaller. Gasoline prices would need to drop below $1.40 before gasoline became cheaper, or MPG would have to be much higher than 35mpg. Just for kicks, if you want to compare a Prius driven gently getting 52mpg, the break-even gasoline price would be $2.08 — almost exactly where we are at right now in my city (gasoline prices right now are $2.0599 with cash discount)
Those rates are surely valid for some people, but I think you're understating the range of costs for EVs. A Tesla in California costs 6.7 cents per mile on average. In New York: 6.0 cents per mile; in Massachusetts, 7.9 cents per mile. Given that California alone is responsible for about half of EV sales in the US, I think you need to recalibrate what the actual, typical cost of running an EV is. Sure, it can still save money on operating costs (but not always), but not nearly as much as you indicate in your post.
Also, home solar isn't free: it's prepaid. That may or may not make the price lower than grid electric (hopefully it does), but it's a huge upfront cost.
I think we're not talking about the same thing here. What I was calculating above was the electricity cost per mile driven, which is just one component of the total cost per mile driven. FWIW the range of 2.5¢ to 4¢/mi of electricity is based on electriciy rates of 7.5¢/kw*h to 12kw*h and an EV efficiency of 3mi/kw. To put those numbers into context, the median residential electricity price in the US is around 12¢*kw last I checked. I do see that most states fall into this range - the ones that don't are basically in California, New England or AK/Hawai'i. One should certainly adjust for their locale. Yet newer EV efficiency is often better than 3mi/kw; the Tesla Model 3's EPA rating is 4.1; Chevy Bolt 2020 is 3.4.
If you want to calculate electricity cost per mile for higher-cost states (CA = 19¢/kw*h; NY = 17.8¢; MA = 21.6¢ per Mr Google). The corresponding rates on a Model 3 would be 4.6¢/mi; 4.3¢ and 5.2¢ -- respectively. That would put the gasoline/electricity "break-even" point at $1.50 to $1.82 compared to an ICE engine with 35mpg efficiency.
And of course the normal caveats apply; change any of hte variables (cost of electricity, efficiency of either the EV or the ICE and the cost of gasoline) and the point shifts.
As ofr home solar, you are correct that it a large upfront cost. My broader point is that we are currently producing an excess of power which are building up as credits (i.e. 'net metering'). Unused they are a lost opportunity and basically worthless. So if I'm measuring the cost of driving our ICE vehicle vs EV, the fuel-cost per mile will be (current cost of gasoline / mpg) vs Zero (up to the point where we do not have an excess of credits). But as you mentioned it is also fair to say this was factored into our decision and already paid for, in which case we've estimated that our PV will be cost-neutral in about 7 years with our energy consumption and charging 6,000 miles/year at an average gasoline cost of $3/gallon. Any changes in those variables shifts the payoff period somewhat. After this point one could either back-calculate and reduce the cost of electricity generated over the total time period, or assume all power from that point forward is "free". Both methods have thier issues.
I've never lived anywhere where I could charge an electric vehicle at home, so for me this is a purely academic exercise for me, but I was trying to figure out the cost per mile for a Leaf. Sources on the internet tell me it takes about 30 kWh per 100 miles. I pay about 25 cents per mile[sic - should be kWh] for electricity (mostly thanks to poor planning by politicians), so that works out to $7.50 per 100 miles or 7.5 cents per mile.
In comparison, a gallon of gas is about $2.75 here. For a vehicle that gets 30 mpg, that's about 9.2 cents per mile.
The 2019 is the wife's new car. She just wanted to get another Subaru and be done with it I made her cross shop the Subaru with comparable ICE cars (Toyota/Mazda/VW) and, since based on her past cars, she will have it for 10-15 years I dragged her to look at EVs (Bolt/Tesla/Kona/Niro). Range killed some EVs, like the E-golf even if just because of range anxiety.
I fully expected her to drive the EVs and dislike them and if I had to have bet, I would have said she bought another Forester.
She liked the Tesla, but couldn't get behind the image she felt owning one would project. But, the Kona EV was her favorite car we test drove. She liked that there is a dealer nearby, that there was surplus range for her daily commute, that at first glance it doesn't look different than a regular car, that it has a good feature list, and that the brand doesn't have the same kind of baggage as say a Tesla.
It has quickly taken from my car as the car we take when we are going somewhere together.
The only real knocks I have on the Kona Electric are:
Some of the interior parts are pretty cheap. We compared and sat in all EV trims and there are plenty of pieces that are right at home in the ~20k base model ICE Kona that feel really out of place/flimsy in a ~46k (if you were to get the EV ultimate) car (it reminds me a little of a early 2000's wrx I had an economy car they put all the money into the drivetrain).
And the back seat is bad, knee room isn't great and the floor is raised to house the batteries which makes it worse. If you have people with legs that can reach the floor that routinely ride in the back seat for an appreciable distance at a time it is probably best to consider the Kona's near twin the Kia Niro EV (or perhaps the delayed Kia Soul). For us it wasn't an issue, it is just the two of us with not plans to change that and the seating it ok for a quick jaunt if we were carpooling with another couple to dinner. Plus the Kona is the better looking and better driving car.
Despite being marketed as a SUV/CUV I would say it is much closer (at least in EV trim) to a hot hatch; 6.4 second 0-60, FWD only, less functional rear seats . . .
Oh and the way the DW drive it projects over EPA rated range at 80% change which is her day-to-day charging limit at 100% it guesses somewhere around 310; but they do call it a guess-o-meter with good reason.
Are insurance rates better, worse or similar for electric cars?
Are insurance rates better, worse or similar for electric cars?
I've not noticed any difference between driving comparable classes and $$ of ICE cars.
From a liability standpoint there's little reason for there to be much of a difference. If we are comparing a $40k EV to a similar $40 ICE, Liability, Collision, Personal Injury and Uninsured should all be identical or very, ery similar. Not sure how much Comprehensive would change, but we have a $1k deductible anyhow so it's only a few dollars per month for us. A big driver of comprehensive IIRC is how likely your car is to be stolen. In the distant past I drove a VW that had a much higher than expected comprehensive... I asked why and it was because it was one of THE top models for theives to target... not just to steal the entire car but also for tires/rims and whatnot.
I think in the rush to claim some (currently pretty small) fuel savings, and very small maintenance savings (an oil change is like $30 and most cars need one once a year; brakes are maybe $300 DIY/$1k from a dealer and once every 5 years...) we are ignoring the massive up front cost difference. A Bolt stickers for $37k and is comparable in all but drivetrain to a Spark or Sonic that costs $13-17k. A Leaf is $32k, but comparable to a $15k Versa or $20k Sentra. Yes there are some tax incentives available in there potentially, but the flip side is depreciation on new EVs that aren’t Tesla’s tends to be massive (granted, good if you are buying used).
I think in the rush to claim some (currently pretty small) fuel savings, and very small maintenance savings (an oil change is like $30 and most cars need one once a year; brakes are maybe $300 DIY/$1k from a dealer and once every 5 years...) we are ignoring the massive up front cost difference. A Bolt stickers for $37k and is comparable in all but drivetrain to a Spark or Sonic that costs $13-17k. A Leaf is $32k, but comparable to a $15k Versa or $20k Sentra. Yes there are some tax incentives available in there potentially, but the flip side is depreciation on new EVs that aren’t Tesla’s tends to be massive (granted, good if you are buying used).
My 3 yo Leaf was also $18k CAN. But it came with a L2 charger and snow tires on their own rims.I think in the rush to claim some (currently pretty small) fuel savings, and very small maintenance savings (an oil change is like $30 and most cars need one once a year; brakes are maybe $300 DIY/$1k from a dealer and once every 5 years...) we are ignoring the massive up front cost difference. A Bolt stickers for $37k and is comparable in all but drivetrain to a Spark or Sonic that costs $13-17k. A Leaf is $32k, but comparable to a $15k Versa or $20k Sentra. Yes there are some tax incentives available in there potentially, but the flip side is depreciation on new EVs that aren’t Tesla’s tends to be massive (granted, good if you are buying used).
My 2.5yo Bolt was $18k :) Depreciation can be awesome if you time it right!
Also nice to be able to "idle" an EV and not get poisoned. I've napped in a Leaf with the a/c on for half an hour.
Also nice to be able to "idle" an EV and not get poisoned. I've napped in a Leaf with the a/c on for half an hour.
A youth pastor at my old church very nearly accidentally killed one of his kids by accidentally leaving the car idling in the garage overnight when the kid's bedroom was above the garage. I'm sure this is not a common occurrence, but it was close enough to home to be striking to me. Tesla also claims that electric cars are 11x less likely to catch on fire than gas vehicles.
These are small things, yes. But I truly believe that electric cars are better vehicles.
Are insurance rates better, worse or similar for electric cars?
Tesla also claims that electric cars are 11x less likely to catch on fire than gas vehicles.
Tesla is not an honest company.
It certainly must be true that the electric cars are much less likely to catch on fire than internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. There is a much smaller market penetration of electric cars. Electric cars are still the rarity and not the norm.Likelihood denotes probability. It is independent of the total number of units or individuals.
It certainly must be true that the electric cars are much less likely to catch on fire than internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. There is a much smaller market penetration of electric cars. Electric cars are still the rarity and not the norm.
Tesla also claims that electric cars are 11x less likely to catch on fire than gas vehicles.
Tesla is not an honest company.
https://twitter.com/MidwestHedgie/status/1120763087139811328
Looks like the phrase said "cars" and not "car." So I would think any car in the set catching fire would count.
Looks like the phrase said "cars" and not "car." So I would think any car in the set catching fire would count.
You may think me silly,........and I am.
That is where you would be mistaken.
To illustrate, if a study said "People in Canada are 4x more likely to be hockey fans than people in the United States" - it doesn't mean there are 4 times as many total hockey fans in Canada. It's the proportion of the overall population in each country. With almost 10x the population there would still be more total fans in the US than Canada.
Looks like the phrase said "cars" and not "car." So I would think any car in the set catching fire would count.
You may think me silly,........and I am.
That is where you would be mistaken.
To illustrate, if a study said "People in Canada are 4x more likely to be hockey fans than people in the United States" - it doesn't mean there are 4 times as many total hockey fans in Canada. It's the proportion of the overall population in each country. With almost 10x the population there would still be more total fans in the US than Canada.
She was joking.
Tesla also claims that electric cars are 11x less likely to catch on fire than gas vehicles.
Tesla is not an honest company.
https://twitter.com/MidwestHedgie/status/1120763087139811328
Tesla also claims that electric cars are 11x less likely to catch on fire than gas vehicles.
Tesla is not an honest company.
https://twitter.com/MidwestHedgie/status/1120763087139811328
https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-facing-scrutiny-for-car-fires-but-more-ice-fires-2019-5
One out of eight fire department calls are for vehicle fires, or 157 per day - meanwhile it seems every time a Tesla catches on fire, there's a news article about it.
Tesla averaged roughly 370k cars "on the road" in any given month in 2018, and had 530k cars on the road to begin 2019. Thus, if Tesla were an average car, we would have expected 0.23 Tesla fire deaths in 2016, 0.35 in 2017, 0.45 deaths in 2018, and 0.16 deaths in 1Q 2019.
Tesla also claims that electric cars are 11x less likely to catch on fire than gas vehicles.
Tesla is not an honest company.
https://twitter.com/MidwestHedgie/status/1120763087139811328QuoteTesla averaged roughly 370k cars "on the road" in any given month in 2018, and had 530k cars on the road to begin 2019. Thus, if Tesla were an average car, we would have expected 0.23 Tesla fire deaths in 2016, 0.35 in 2017, 0.45 deaths in 2018, and 0.16 deaths in 1Q 2019.
In other words, if Tesla fire safety is average, there will have been 1.19 total fire deaths from 2016 through 1Q 2019. How many Tesla fire deaths have their been?
A lot more than 1.19. At the time of the writing (April 2019), there were at least 5 fire-related deaths in Tesla vehicles from 2016 through Q1 2019.
Why deaths? Why not just fires? Isn’t that more related to the claims made?
Why deaths? Why not just fires? Isn’t that more related to the claims made?
Yes, but the twitter guy argues that deaths are actually more relevant to "safety" than fires are, because who cares if the car catches fire in a parking lot and insurance replaces it. Which I buy to an extent, although it sure would be nice to not have a car of any stripe catch on fire in my garage.
And while I'm sure Tesla didn't just pull the "11x less likely to catch on fire" figure out of thin air, it also seems unlike to me that they would be 11x less likely to catch on fire AND 2x more likely to kill you. So they are at least loosely related.
Why deaths? Why not just fires? Isn’t that more related to the claims made?
Yes, but the twitter guy argues that deaths are actually more relevant to "safety" than fires are, because who cares if the car catches fire in a parking lot and insurance replaces it. Which I buy to an extent, although it sure would be nice to not have a car of any stripe catch on fire in my garage.
And while I'm sure Tesla didn't just pull the "11x less likely to catch on fire" figure out of thin air, it also seems unlike to me that they would be 11x less likely to catch on fire AND 2x more likely to kill you. So they are at least loosely related.
Completely unscientifically, it would strike me as likely an ICE car rarely catches fire sitting in a garage turned off, but if a Tesla was sitting there charging in a garage it would be more likely (could be near-zero, but still more likely) to catch fire than an ICE car not charging.
Wouldn’t stop me from getting a Tesla, I still really want one, but the fact pattern doesn’t really make sense. And agree, my primary concern is my car not catching fire in my garage and taking my whole house, to say nothing of the occupants, with it.
Fiat 500e, VW e-Golf, Chevy Bolt, Kia Niro Electric, Hyundai Kona Electric, Honda Clarity Electric, or Hyundai Ioniq Electric.
Of these, the Niro and Kona are probably the best bet. They aren't completely hideous, but they are SUVs that start below $40k. They haven't moved the needle significantly. For example, the Niro has sold about 25k total in 2019 (including non-EV), and the Kona about 33k. In general, these are all cars that people do not want to buy. It's great that they exist and provide choice, but they have to be better. Better looking, better size for American car-buyers. Better brand names. The e-Golf actually looks perfect for the few hatchback buyers like me, except for the limited range.
Why deaths? Why not just fires? Isn’t that more related to the claims made?
Yes, but the twitter guy argues that deaths are actually more relevant to "safety" than fires are, because who cares if the car catches fire in a parking lot and insurance replaces it. Which I buy to an extent, although it sure would be nice to not have a car of any stripe catch on fire in my garage.
And while I'm sure Tesla didn't just pull the "11x less likely to catch on fire" figure out of thin air, it also seems unlike to me that they would be 11x less likely to catch on fire AND 2x more likely to kill you. So they are at least loosely related.
Completely unscientifically, it would strike me as likely an ICE car rarely catches fire sitting in a garage turned off, but if a Tesla was sitting there charging in a garage it would be more likely (could be near-zero, but still more likely) to catch fire than an ICE car not charging.
Wouldn’t stop me from getting a Tesla, I still really want one, but the fact pattern doesn’t really make sense. And agree, my primary concern is my car not catching fire in my garage and taking my whole house, to say nothing of the occupants, with it.
Also anacdotal, but I've known two people who's ICE vehicle has caught on fire while parked in a garage turned off.
One was my roommate in college, who got woken up by the police on a Sunday morning with the question "is that your car on fire across the street?" - he hadn't driven it about 12 hours.
Seems faulty electrical systems causes this to happen enough where it's not entirely rare. It seems most brands go through some sort of recall after some of their vehicles catch fire, ofen while parked. A few (Kia, Hyundai) have even advised owners of certain models NOT to park them in garages due to the danger of collateral damage from their car spontanously combusting.
https://abc7chicago.com/bmw-car-fires-vehicle-what-causes-per-year/5121834/ (https://abc7chicago.com/bmw-car-fires-vehicle-what-causes-per-year/5121834/)
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/investigators/2020/03/02/if-you-own-one-of-these-cars-vans-or-suvs-dont-park-them-in-a-garage-automaker-says/ (https://www.clickorlando.com/news/investigators/2020/03/02/if-you-own-one-of-these-cars-vans-or-suvs-dont-park-them-in-a-garage-automaker-says/)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/engine-fires-linked-to-46m-recalled-fords/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/engine-fires-linked-to-46m-recalled-fords/)
https://www.carrcarr.com/recall-millions-of-ford-vehicles-due-to-potential-fire-risk/ (https://www.carrcarr.com/recall-millions-of-ford-vehicles-due-to-potential-fire-risk/)
For the record, if my cost instinct didn't stop me, I'd LOVE to drive a Rivian for a while. They look spectacularly cool.
I could see this being popular:
https://jalopnik.com/here-is-volkswagens-new-id-4-cross-ev-production-model-1844067856
I could see this being popular:
https://jalopnik.com/here-is-volkswagens-new-id-4-cross-ev-production-model-1844067856
Two companies I'm interested in seeing what they come up with are VW and Volvo. Both have pledged >50% of their fleet will be all-electric within a decade (*Volvo by 2025). Right now both seem to just have dipped their toes in the water (VW more than Volvo, with the eGolf - Volvo's XC40 won't be available here probably for at least 6 months). I'm guessing we'll see multiple new models unveiled from both in the next couple of years.
I could see this being popular:
https://jalopnik.com/here-is-volkswagens-new-id-4-cross-ev-production-model-1844067856
I could see this being popular:
https://jalopnik.com/here-is-volkswagens-new-id-4-cross-ev-production-model-1844067856
That thing reminds me of the old AMC Eagle from years ago.
Here's what I wonder a bit about. I bought a diesel Jeep a few years back. It was the first production run. It had a lot of problems. I told myself, "Self - Always buy a car that has been in production for a few years in the future- OK?"
So - With VW, SAAB, GM and others just getting their feet wet with the electric car thing. Is there a chance that their new models in the next few years will have some problems? If one waits a few years, will the reliability be up and the cost down? I know Chevy, for example, has had the EV-1, Volt, Bolt and some others, but I still think electric vehicles are new to many of these manufacturers.
I made that mistake with a flat screen TV. I bought one after the first price dip and if I had waited, my money would have gone further.
I could see this being popular:
https://jalopnik.com/here-is-volkswagens-new-id-4-cross-ev-production-model-1844067856
That thing reminds me of the old AMC Eagle from years ago.
Here's what I wonder a bit about. I bought a diesel Jeep a few years back. It was the first production run. It had a lot of problems. I told myself, "Self - Always buy a car that has been in production for a few years in the future- OK?"
So - With VW, SAAB, GM and others just getting their feet wet with the electric car thing. Is there a chance that their new models in the next few years will have some problems? If one waits a few years, will the reliability be up and the cost down? I know Chevy, for example, has had the EV-1, Volt, Bolt and some others, but I still think electric vehicles are new to many of these manufacturers.
I made that mistake with a flat screen TV. I bought one after the first price dip and if I had waited, my money would have gone further.
I'm resurrecting this thread because I just found it, and I'm genuinely interested in the topic as well.
My family is looking to replace both of our cars (I know! I can feel the face-punches but we're both members of the clown-commuting world until FI) in the next ~1-3 years. Our hope is to get one ~high mileage (for ICE cars) station wagon, and one electric vehicle.
With all of the EV models on the horizon, do you think it's best if I get the station wagon first, and wait a couple of years before shopping for an EV?
Also, I typically only buy used cars, but am worried about buying used with EVs since you don't know how well the battery was treated (or wasn't), and I worry about neglect/poor maintenance impacting degradation rate as the vehicle gets older. Does anyone have any insight/experience/thoughts on that?
Anyone here have personal experience with a hydrogenfuel cellvehicle?
With all of the EV models on the horizon, do you think it's best if I get the station wagon first, and wait a couple of years before shopping for an EV?
Also, I typically only buy used cars, but am worried about buying used with EVs since you don't know how well the battery was treated (or wasn't), and I worry about neglect/poor maintenance impacting degradation rate as the vehicle gets older. Does anyone have any insight/experience/thoughts on that?
nereo- thanks for your response to my questions. You advise to 'do your math', but how is that calculation done? Merely a depreciation calculation? FWIW our cars are 14+ years old, so definitely a similar scenario to yours.
I do not have any experience with a hydrogen car, but I'll respond anyway. ;)
In my opinion hydrogen cars are DOA. Electric cars are already good enough, and cheaper than hydrogen cars, and safer, and there's already charging stations and power lines everywhere. Hydrogen may have niche uses, but I cannot imagine that it'll overtake electric. Electric cars are the future.
nereo- thanks for your response to my questions. You advise to 'do your math', but how is that calculation done? Merely a depreciation calculation? FWIW our cars are 14+ years old, so definitely a similar scenario to yours.
I think he simply means to make sure that you can't get a new car for the same price. If you can get a new car for $40k after incentives does it really make sense to buy a 2-year-old car with 50k miles for $38k?
nereo- thanks for your response to my questions. You advise to 'do your math', but how is that calculation done? Merely a depreciation calculation? FWIW our cars are 14+ years old, so definitely a similar scenario to yours.
I think he simply means to make sure that you can't get a new car for the same price. If you can get a new car for $40k after incentives does it really make sense to buy a 2-year-old car with 50k miles for $38k?
The other complication to consider here is that some manufacturers have already used up the $7.5k federal tax credit (Tesla, GM) and in other cases it varies by car given the size of the battery. You can find the full list here (https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml). But that only matters for new, or if you're price-comparing with new, you don't get a tax credit for buying used. Also I think Colorado has an extra $5k incentive, although I don't know much about it. $12.5k off the sticker price can chance the math quite a bit on the new vs used calculation.
...
It's not really about math, though, it's mostly about choice. When I can buy an EV from one of multiple vendors, charge from one of multiple networks, get service from a third party... without those things I'm giving up choice, I'm giving up DIY, etc. I'm not anti-Tesla, just pro-choice.
Tesla is not an honest company.I would lump most of the larger automakers into that category too. Ford (Firestone Tire Scandal); Toyota (acceleration coverup); Volkswagen ('Diesel-gate"); Audi (acceleration); GM (Ignition-swiches). Not to mention suppliers such as Takata (airbag-shrapnel).
All of these were known problems with an deliberate coverup, a bunch of deaths, and massive financial settlements...
(especially since this thread has seemingly shifted into a Tesla-centric thread -vs- an EV in general one):
More than anything I think I'm just annoyed that there is such a large lack of choice when it comes to the EV market. Despite the above I'm not saying I'll never buy a Tesla, just that if I do I'll make the decision with my eyes open and aware of that decision.
DH initially loved how clean the Tesla dash was with it's tablet-like display and nothing else, then realized just how inconvenient that is when you actually want to do something like change your AC temp while driving.
can be controlled by voice command.
DH initially loved how clean the Tesla dash was with it's tablet-like display and nothing else, then realized just how inconvenient that is when you actually want to do something like change your AC temp while driving.
It definitely takes some getting used to, and many people dislike it (and that's fine). The one thing I'll say to Tesla's defense is that basically everything you'd actually want to do while driving (manual wiper override, music, AC, navigation, calling someone) can be controlled by voice command.
Hahaha! I am with you 100%can be controlled by voice command.
Oh dear god please do not make me talk by myself to control my car 😂 Personally my least favorite way to do anything at all ever is to talk to a non-human (followed somewhat closely by trying to get humans to respond the way I want!)
I tweak mine within a few degrees regularly. And Hubs and I switch cars often and have very different ideas of what is comfortable.DH initially loved how clean the Tesla dash was with it's tablet-like display and nothing else, then realized just how inconvenient that is when you actually want to do something like change your AC temp while driving.
It definitely takes some getting used to, and many people dislike it (and that's fine). The one thing I'll say to Tesla's defense is that basically everything you'd actually want to do while driving (manual wiper override, music, AC, navigation, calling someone) can be controlled by voice command.
I can't remember the last time I've changed the temperature in any of my cars -- with automatic climate control, I generally set it to 71-72 and exceedingly rarely touch it again.
can be controlled by voice command.
Oh dear god please do not make me talk by myself to control my car 😂 Personally my least favorite way to do anything at all ever is to talk to a non-human (followed somewhat closely by trying to get humans to respond the way I want!)
I tweak mine within a few degrees regularly. And Hubs and I switch cars often and have very different ideas of what is comfortable.
Pfttt... you people with your climate control systems. Mine ('05 Honda) broke about four years ago. What's the cabin temperature? About what it is outside the cabin...
My car is a 10 year old Volvo with 170k miles, which means it's barely broken in, but once it's past it's prime I will almost definitely buy a plug-in Hybrid. If it were to happen now it would probably be a Prius Prime or a Hyundai Ioniq
Pfttt... you people with your climate control systems. Mine ('05 Honda) broke about four years ago. What's the cabin temperature? About what it is outside the cabin...
You must live up north because if you didn't, it'd be about 40 degrees higher than what it is outside the cabin :P
My car is a 10 year old Volvo with 170k miles, which means it's barely broken in, but once it's past it's prime I will almost definitely buy a plug-in Hybrid. If it were to happen now it would probably be a Prius Prime or a Hyundai Ioniq
These are my top candidates too! I have a Honda Fit which I will probably gift to my parents since their cars are getting up there in age. I've started to see a couple more Ioniqs out there but they are still pretty scarce on the ground. I like the mileage of the Ioniq, but am leaning a bit more toward the Prius Prime since the Prius has a longer track record of reliability
My car is a 10 year old Volvo with 170k miles, which means it's barely broken in, but once it's past it's prime I will almost definitely buy a plug-in Hybrid. If it were to happen now it would probably be a Prius Prime or a Hyundai Ioniq
These are my top candidates too! I have a Honda Fit which I will probably gift to my parents since their cars are getting up there in age. I've started to see a couple more Ioniqs out there but they are still pretty scarce on the ground. I like the mileage of the Ioniq, but am leaning a bit more toward the Prius Prime since the Prius has a longer track record of reliability
What frustrates me about the Prius Prime is the electric-only range of 25mi. In our own personal circumstances that would have us relying on the ICE generator more than I'd like. That's why we're looking at the Rav4 Prime, though it's a completely different car and $10k more...
My car is a 10 year old Volvo with 170k miles, which means it's barely broken in, but once it's past it's prime I will almost definitely buy a plug-in Hybrid. If it were to happen now it would probably be a Prius Prime or a Hyundai Ioniq
These are my top candidates too! I have a Honda Fit which I will probably gift to my parents since their cars are getting up there in age. I've started to see a couple more Ioniqs out there but they are still pretty scarce on the ground. I like the mileage of the Ioniq, but am leaning a bit more toward the Prius Prime since the Prius has a longer track record of reliability
What frustrates me about the Prius Prime is the electric-only range of 25mi. In our own personal circumstances that would have us relying on the ICE generator more than I'd like. That's why we're looking at the Rav4 Prime, though it's a completely different car and $10k more...
25 miles is pretty low, yes, but it would work pretty well for me since I work from home and either walk around town or take mostly shorter drives. So with this range I would probably only have to fill up once every couple of months...maybe longer -- it would be interesting to see how long I could go between gas fill ups. We have another regular fuel-efficient vehicle that we'd probably take on longer road-trips/weekend drives.
For me, the routine is just to plug the car in every night regardless. It becomes routine, habit. "When I sleep, the car charges". Each overnight on charge on 110v gives 40-50 miles of range (assuming the battery is large enough to accomodate that), which is more than my average daily driving.
The other downside to a small-battery PHEV is that you have to plug it in all the time if you want to actually use the battery, which I personally would find very annoying.
It initially seems like it would be annoying compared to filling it up once a week, but the reality will probably be much more like Nereo said; it just becomes habit/something you do like closing the garage door after parking or charging your phone at nightFor me, the routine is just to plug the car in every night regardless. It becomes routine, habit. "When I sleep, the car charges". Each overnight on charge on 110v gives 40-50 miles of range (assuming the battery is large enough to accomodate that), which is more than my average daily driving.
The other downside to a small-battery PHEV is that you have to plug it in all the time if you want to actually use the battery, which I personally would find very annoying.
Regardless, either approach is a giant leap up from using a standard ICE vehicle.
You left out the part where you could install ~$200 worth of circuit breaker, outlet, cable, and cover and have a 30 or 50 AMP outlet that you can charge from any time the car is not in use.
A Tesla owner showed me the adapter he has for charging from a 220V outlet in a pinch. Not a fast way to charge but overnight it makes a difference.
Is it better for the life of the batteries to trickle charge? I'd guess there would be less heat.I don't think we drive our leaf enough to find out, however that's what we're doing. Bought the 2014 Leaf about 1 year ago, we've gone from 11 bars to 10 in that time. Love the car, and our other car has range for road-trips and whatnot so it meets our needs perfectly. Well our pre-pandemic needs anyway - almost never both need to be anywhere outside our home at the same time since March now.
You left out the part where you could install ~$200 worth of circuit breaker, outlet, cable, and cover and have a 30 or 50 AMP outlet that you can charge from any time the car is not in use.
A Tesla owner showed me the adapter he has for charging from a 220V outlet in a pinch. Not a fast way to charge but overnight it makes a difference.
Is it better for the life of the batteries to trickle charge? I'd guess there would be less heat.
You left out the part where you could install ~$200 worth of circuit breaker, outlet, cable, and cover and have a 30 or 50 AMP outlet that you can charge from any time the car is not in use.
A Tesla owner showed me the adapter he has for charging from a 220V outlet in a pinch. Not a fast way to charge but overnight it makes a difference.
Me? How does that help me take a 350+ mile trip every month or so?
Yes that I understand.
My point is there is only 1 supercharger, which I just Google mapped and it has 6 stalls. So on a holiday weekend what’s the wait time like? What if it’s down? What are the odds I drive three hours to get there and have no choice but to wait an hour for a slot to open before I can even start charging?
That’s my point. If there were ten charging stations to chose from, okay. But there’s one station. I need more possibilities before it’s a good option.
In my neck of the woods (rural, northern NE) I’ve watched as Tesla has put several stations in very remote locations (e.g. in towns with <2,000 people surrounded by farms). I believe they are doing so strategically in order to say something like “you’ll never be more than 100 miles from a supercharger” or other marketing strategy targeted at combating ‘range anxiety’. I’ve passed by two such charging stations and have never seen more than 1 vehicle actively charging (they each have 6 chargers I believe...)
In my neck of the woods (rural, northern NE) I’ve watched as Tesla has put several stations in very remote locations (e.g. in towns with <2,000 people surrounded by farms). I believe they are doing so strategically in order to say something like “you’ll never be more than 100 miles from a supercharger” or other marketing strategy targeted at combating ‘range anxiety’. I’ve passed by two such charging stations and have never seen more than 1 vehicle actively charging (they each have 6 chargers I believe...)
Those towns are along highways I would assume? Locals don't really use Superchargers, it's almost exclusively for people passing through on a road trip. So the size of the town is pretty irrelevant.
My point is there is only 1 supercharger, which I just Google mapped and it has 6 stalls. So on a holiday weekend what’s the wait time like? What if it’s down? What are the odds I drive three hours to get there and have no choice but to wait an hour for a slot to open before I can even start charging?
My point is there is only 1 supercharger, which I just Google mapped and it has 6 stalls. So on a holiday weekend what’s the wait time like? What if it’s down? What are the odds I drive three hours to get there and have no choice but to wait an hour for a slot to open before I can even start charging?
I mean I have no idea if that's a problem or not. I've only heard about full superchargers being a consistent problem in a few places out in California though. You could always stop by and see how busy it is the next time you drive up on a holiday weekend.
As for "what if it's down", well that's very unlikely. But assuming the power isn't out in the entire area the other option would be to stop for lunch somewhere that has an L2 charger and let your car charge for an hour or so.
Yes that I understand.This could be very regionally dependent, but the chargers by me are never full. There's one a mile from my house with 4 chargers and in the > 1 year it's been there I have seen exactly one car charging at it. The Tesla station in my town tends to be a little more crowded, but I don't think I've ever seen it more than half full
My point is there is only 1 supercharger, which I just Google mapped and it has 6 stalls. So on a holiday weekend what’s the wait time like? What if it’s down? What are the odds I drive three hours to get there and have no choice but to wait an hour for a slot to open before I can even start charging?
That’s my point. If there were ten charging stations to chose from, okay. But there’s one station. I need more possibilities before it’s a good option.
Yes that I understand.This could be very regionally dependent, but the chargers by me are never full. There's one a mile from my house with 4 chargers and in the > 1 year it's been there I have seen exactly one car charging at it. The Tesla station in my town tends to be a little more crowded, but I don't think I've ever seen it more than half full
My point is there is only 1 supercharger, which I just Google mapped and it has 6 stalls. So on a holiday weekend what’s the wait time like? What if it’s down? What are the odds I drive three hours to get there and have no choice but to wait an hour for a slot to open before I can even start charging?
That’s my point. If there were ten charging stations to chose from, okay. But there’s one station. I need more possibilities before it’s a good option.
Also, I couldn't help but laugh a bit at the first world problem of "what if I have to wait in line to charge my fancy electric car on my way to my second home?". I get it, it would be frustrating to wait an hour in all the chargers were in use, but very first world problem
For me my reluctance to embrace EVs comes from the comparatively high cost, the extremely heavy weight and the generally lacklustre dynamics (Taycan aside). And also lack of an exhaust note. But I'm a very niche type of car person.
Yes that I understand.
My point is there is only 1 supercharger, which I just Google mapped and it has 6 stalls. So on a holiday weekend what’s the wait time like? What if it’s down? What are the odds I drive three hours to get there and have no choice but to wait an hour for a slot to open before I can even start charging?
That’s my point. If there were ten charging stations to chose from, okay. But there’s one station. I need more possibilities before it’s a good option.
For me my reluctance to embrace EVs comes from the comparatively high cost, the extremely heavy weight and the generally lacklustre dynamics (Taycan aside). And also lack of an exhaust note. But I'm a very niche type of car person.
The BMW i3 is only 2,600 lb (1,200 kg). And it's even RWD! Too bad it's styling is so polarizing and it has those unique expensive skinny tires...
I don't think range anxiety is much of a factor any more if you live in a metropolitan area. Heaps of charging stations.
For me my reluctance to embrace EVs comes from the comparatively high cost, the extremely heavy weight and the generally lacklustre dynamics (Taycan aside). And also lack of an exhaust note. But I'm a very niche type of car person.
In my neck of the woods (rural, northern NE) I’ve watched as Tesla has put several stations in very remote locations (e.g. in towns with <2,000 people surrounded by farms). I believe they are doing so strategically in order to say something like “you’ll never be more than 100 miles from a supercharger” or other marketing strategy targeted at combating ‘range anxiety’. I’ve passed by two such charging stations and have never seen more than 1 vehicle actively charging (they each have 6 chargers I believe...)
Those towns are along highways I would assume? Locals don't really use Superchargers, it's almost exclusively for people passing through on a road trip. So the size of the town is pretty irrelevant.
These are towns along highways, but these aren't "on the way" to anywhere (at least not any larger metropolitan areas). These aren't routes that are between major cities (or even between large towns).
Looking at them on a map their placement strikes me as deliberate to have near 100% coverage within a give driving range, though the locals frequently deride them as "always empty" and "a stupid place for Tesla".
For me my reluctance to embrace EVs comes from the comparatively high cost, the extremely heavy weight and the generally lacklustre dynamics (Taycan aside). And also lack of an exhaust note. But I'm a very niche type of car person.
The BMW i3 is only 2,600 lb (1,200 kg). And it's even RWD! Too bad it's styling is so polarizing and it has those unique expensive skinny tires...
Ok @RWD - what is it that you love so much about RWD?
For me my reluctance to embrace EVs comes from the comparatively high cost, the extremely heavy weight and the generally lacklustre dynamics (Taycan aside). And also lack of an exhaust note. But I'm a very niche type of car person.
The BMW i3 is only 2,600 lb (1,200 kg). And it's even RWD! Too bad it's styling is so polarizing and it has those unique expensive skinny tires...
Ok @RWD - what is it that you love so much about RWD?
I'm not RWD but I can try to explain. It just feels better to drive. Especially on twisty roads.
My point is there is only 1 supercharger, which I just Google mapped and it has 6 stalls. So on a holiday weekend what’s the wait time like? What if it’s down? What are the odds I drive three hours to get there and have no choice but to wait an hour for a slot to open before I can even start charging?
I mean I have no idea if that's a problem or not. I've only heard about full superchargers being a consistent problem in a few places out in California though. You could always stop by and see how busy it is the next time you drive up on a holiday weekend.
Gas stations and fast food places right off the Highway are congested on holiday weekends in these areas, it doesn’t take too much to clog up a 6-slot Supercharger.
As far as the stations being down, I dunno. I read several reviews a few years ago about people having problems with recharging stations being inoperable upon arrival. No idea if that is applicable to Tesla Superchargers or not. But it’s not that hard to imagine; how many times have you gotten to a gas pump and for whatever reason that pump is down. Not the whole station, but a pump. Not a big deal, you pick a different one of the zillion available. But if there are only 6...
As for "what if it's down", well that's very unlikely. But assuming the power isn't out in the entire area the other option would be to stop for lunch somewhere that has an L2 charger and let your car charge for an hour or so.
Yes that I understand.
My point is there is only 1 supercharger, which I just Google mapped and it has 6 stalls. So on a holiday weekend what’s the wait time like? What if it’s down? What are the odds I drive three hours to get there and have no choice but to wait an hour for a slot to open before I can even start charging?
That’s my point. If there were ten charging stations to chose from, okay. But there’s one station. I need more possibilities before it’s a good option.
That's the price you pay for a popular brand and a limited number of branded chargers. ;)
FWIW the Tesla driver that showed me his car has an adapter so he can plug into a CCS port at any fast charger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System
Yes that I understand.This could be very regionally dependent, but the chargers by me are never full. There's one a mile from my house with 4 chargers and in the > 1 year it's been there I have seen exactly one car charging at it. The Tesla station in my town tends to be a little more crowded, but I don't think I've ever seen it more than half full
My point is there is only 1 supercharger, which I just Google mapped and it has 6 stalls. So on a holiday weekend what’s the wait time like? What if it’s down? What are the odds I drive three hours to get there and have no choice but to wait an hour for a slot to open before I can even start charging?
That’s my point. If there were ten charging stations to chose from, okay. But there’s one station. I need more possibilities before it’s a good option.
Also, I couldn't help but laugh a bit at the first world problem of "what if I have to wait in line to charge my fancy electric car on my way to my second home?". I get it, it would be frustrating to wait an hour in all the chargers were in use, but very first world problem
I don't own an electric vehicle not even a hybrid. I bought another vehicle last December and did look at hybrids. I guess one thing hybrids share with the solely electric vehicles are these big orange cables.
In the car i looked at the cable would carry about 200 volts. Jeepers! I thought. I drive through deep snow and puddles. Electricity and water can make for a poor mix. I've had cables chafe in cars and short out due to the vibration they see in driving.
In looking over You Tube videos electric vehicles are getting increased range by raising this voltage to maybe 800 volts. This allows for smaller wiring and the motors can have a smaller size. The lower weight gives less mass to move and so you get a longer range. However, the idea of riding in a conductive metal box with nearly a kilo-volt gives me pause.
I realize that my internal combustion engine depends on a highly flammable material to operate, but there are millions of person hours of operation refining these designs.
Anybody ever hear of shock accidents from electric cars?
Electric motors and technology is not new. Electric motors has been around for more than a 100 years, as long as ICE technology. The science and engineering is well studied and well known.
I am an electrical/electronics engineer by training. I think an electric car is safer than an ICE car.
I’ve got a 2 year old daughter - the other day my father asked if I’d let her get a drivers license when she turned 16 just like I did. My response was: I’m skeptical that we’ll still rely on human operators for passenger vehicles in 14 years.
In the same vein I hope ICE vehicles will be reduced to used be holes plus a speciality niche market in a couple decades. I think a good strategy would be to aim for a near-complete phaseout of ICE vehicles by 2030.
I was wondering - how long does it usually take to charge at a charging station? I'm assuming it takes quite a bit longer than pumping a tank of gas.
Some of those state incentives can be utilized for used cars, but I don't know if they are any cheaper.
I don't want ICE vehicles phased out. The sound and fury of a flat 6, v8, v10 or v12 engine is a glorious thing, especially as it nears 8000 or 9000. I'm happy to pay a gas guzzler tax for the privilege of using one, but until people get taxed on their 3rd and subsequent children (because it's selfish to have that many children), it seems silly to me to ban the use or sale of ICE cars.There was a horrible movie with Vince Vaughn and Kevin James where they were selling a sound-board to solve this exact problem with the way electric cars sound (or fail to sound as it were). The specifics of what their tiny company did were not critical to the plot, but that is what they were selling. Movie must be at least 5 years old now.
I don't want ICE vehicles phased out. The sound and fury of a flat 6, v8, v10 or v12 engine is a glorious thing, especially as it nears 8000 or 9000. I'm happy to pay a gas guzzler tax for the privilege of using one, but until people get taxed on their 3rd and subsequent children (because it's selfish to have that many children), it seems silly to me to ban the use or sale of ICE cars.
^^^ plugging it in all the time isn't a problem for me since I'm home during the day, though. If anyone has a prius prime or vehicle of similar range I'd be interested to hear their experience.
With you on this - quieter is better, particularly for someone else's car. I wonder why the Leaf beeps when backing up but not when going forward at low speeds. Probably even with the camera and mirrors helping out with reversing, the driver can see in front better. But still - near silent when moving slow enough regardless of whether the car is in drive or reverse.I don't want ICE vehicles phased out. The sound and fury of a flat 6, v8, v10 or v12 engine is a glorious thing, especially as it nears 8000 or 9000. I'm happy to pay a gas guzzler tax for the privilege of using one, but until people get taxed on their 3rd and subsequent children (because it's selfish to have that many children), it seems silly to me to ban the use or sale of ICE cars.
I’m off the exact opposite end of the spectrum from you on this - I hate listening to unnecessary engine noise, particularly from other people. It particularly irks me that companies will intentionally enhance this racket to be just within legal limits with no real performance benefit. IIRC BMW and others even “pipe” engine noise into the cabin via their sound system!
I don’t think we should allow cars to be any louder than they need to be. I suppose if you really want to make conversation difficult you could just have your sound system and some vibrating car seats give you the retro feel and sound, as they do with high end cinemas. For everyone around, it’s annoying
My 2020 Leaf makes a noise when going forward at a low speeds, under 30mph I thinkWith you on this - quieter is better, particularly for someone else's car. I wonder why the Leaf beeps when backing up but not when going forward at low speeds. Probably even with the camera and mirrors helping out with reversing, the driver can see in front better. But still - near silent when moving slow enough regardless of whether the car is in drive or reverse.I don't want ICE vehicles phased out. The sound and fury of a flat 6, v8, v10 or v12 engine is a glorious thing, especially as it nears 8000 or 9000. I'm happy to pay a gas guzzler tax for the privilege of using one, but until people get taxed on their 3rd and subsequent children (because it's selfish to have that many children), it seems silly to me to ban the use or sale of ICE cars.
I’m off the exact opposite end of the spectrum from you on this - I hate listening to unnecessary engine noise, particularly from other people. It particularly irks me that companies will intentionally enhance this racket to be just within legal limits with no real performance benefit. IIRC BMW and others even “pipe” engine noise into the cabin via their sound system!
I don’t think we should allow cars to be any louder than they need to be. I suppose if you really want to make conversation difficult you could just have your sound system and some vibrating car seats give you the retro feel and sound, as they do with high end cinemas. For everyone around, it’s annoying
So they've made safety improvements - good deal.
I don't want ICE vehicles phased out. The sound and fury of a flat 6, v8, v10 or v12 engine is a glorious thing, especially as it nears 8000 or 9000. I'm happy to pay a gas guzzler tax for the privilege of using one, but until people get taxed on their 3rd and subsequent children (because it's selfish to have that many children), it seems silly to me to ban the use or sale of ICE cars.
I’m off the exact opposite end of the spectrum from you on this - I hate listening to unnecessary engine noise, particularly from other people. It particularly irks me that companies will intentionally enhance this racket to be just within legal limits with no real performance benefit. IIRC BMW and others even “pipe” engine noise into the cabin via their sound system!
I don’t think we should allow cars to be any louder than they need to be. I suppose if you really want to make conversation difficult you could just have your sound system and some vibrating car seats give you the retro feel and sound, as they do with high end cinemas. For everyone around, it’s annoying
Interesting. I’m certainly not an engine-sound buff (quite the opposite) - but I’ve never heard a loud engine I’ve enjoyed. To me the absolute worst offenders are the Harley Davidson motorcycles... which seem to me to be the adult equivalent of saying “look at me, look at me!” with their engine noise.I don't want ICE vehicles phased out. The sound and fury of a flat 6, v8, v10 or v12 engine is a glorious thing, especially as it nears 8000 or 9000. I'm happy to pay a gas guzzler tax for the privilege of using one, but until people get taxed on their 3rd and subsequent children (because it's selfish to have that many children), it seems silly to me to ban the use or sale of ICE cars.
I’m off the exact opposite end of the spectrum from you on this - I hate listening to unnecessary engine noise, particularly from other people. It particularly irks me that companies will intentionally enhance this racket to be just within legal limits with no real performance benefit. IIRC BMW and others even “pipe” engine noise into the cabin via their sound system!
I don’t think we should allow cars to be any louder than they need to be. I suppose if you really want to make conversation difficult you could just have your sound system and some vibrating car seats give you the retro feel and sound, as they do with high end cinemas. For everyone around, it’s annoying
Any company that intentionally enhances the racket (including BMW which does it because it uses wimpy turbocharged engines) is not one that I'd support. Most BMWs and Mercedes these days sound like absolute shit The cars you hear that sound like very loud lawnmowers with pops and farts are all anathema to me. However that engine sound shouldn't be confused with the glorious ring of a big, atmospheric engine. The only manufacturers that still use the large atmo engines are Lamborghini, Lexus (to a small extent), Porsche (to a small extent) and Aston Martin (to an extent). Ferrari has gone all turbo these days, as have BMW, Mercedes and Audi.
- Big SNIP -
Interesting. I’m certainly not an engine-sound buff (quite the opposite) - but I’ve never heard a loud engine I’ve enjoyed. To me the absolute worst offenders are the Harley Davidson motorcycles... which seem to me to be the adult equivalent of saying “look at me, look at me!” with their engine noise.
The desire, though, to have ICE engines completely phased out in a decade or two is not due to the noise pollution, but their emissions. It’s strictly an environmental standpoint. I’d take a bunch of noisy BEV vehicles (if they existed) in place of completely silent ICE models (whic also don’t seem to exist). As a global society we can’t keep burning a few hundred thousand barrels of oil ever hour.
Yes, there are also issues which need to be addressed with electrical production and battery production.
My 2020 Leaf makes a noise when going forward at a low speeds, under 30mph I thinkWith you on this - quieter is better, particularly for someone else's car. I wonder why the Leaf beeps when backing up but not when going forward at low speeds. Probably even with the camera and mirrors helping out with reversing, the driver can see in front better. But still - near silent when moving slow enough regardless of whether the car is in drive or reverse.I don't want ICE vehicles phased out. The sound and fury of a flat 6, v8, v10 or v12 engine is a glorious thing, especially as it nears 8000 or 9000. I'm happy to pay a gas guzzler tax for the privilege of using one, but until people get taxed on their 3rd and subsequent children (because it's selfish to have that many children), it seems silly to me to ban the use or sale of ICE cars.
I’m off the exact opposite end of the spectrum from you on this - I hate listening to unnecessary engine noise, particularly from other people. It particularly irks me that companies will intentionally enhance this racket to be just within legal limits with no real performance benefit. IIRC BMW and others even “pipe” engine noise into the cabin via their sound system!
I don’t think we should allow cars to be any louder than they need to be. I suppose if you really want to make conversation difficult you could just have your sound system and some vibrating car seats give you the retro feel and sound, as they do with high end cinemas. For everyone around, it’s annoying
So - I heard a snippet of news about a coup in Bolivia arranged to ensure there would be Lithium for batteries. It sounded pretty fantastic. Any truth to any of it?
This past spring when covid lock down silenced our city and all I could hear was birdsong. Imagine what an improvement urban living would be if a majority of the transportation was electric.
We have an older leaf but two new drivers so we have not disabled the back up warning noise. But we don't have the forward noise turned on.
This past spring when covid lock down silenced our city and all I could hear was birdsong. Imagine what an improvement urban living would be if a majority of the transportation was electric.
We have an older leaf but two new drivers so we have not disabled the back up warning noise. But we don't have the forward noise turned on.
The quiet during the lockdowns did not come from a lack of ICEs on the road, it came from a lack of vehicles of any type on the road. Most modern ICE vehicles are pretty quiet from the outside (unless modified). There are of course exceptions, but there's a ton of time and money spent on controlling the noise from an ICE. Everything from exhaust volume to insulating the engine bay, to dampening vibration, to fuel injection timing comes into play. It's a big deal for car companies to get the sound and volume of ICE noise correct for the intended market. There are cases where they want a louder more sonorous exhaust, but in most cases they really want it to be as quiet as possible to give the occupants a more luxurious feel.
If you stand next to a freeway full of ICEs and a freeway full of EVs, most of the noise that you'll hear in either case will be from tires. EVs are definitely quieter for the occupants, but for those outside there's not a huge difference between a Leaf driving by at 60mph and a Camry doing the same thing. At low speeds, there's less tire noise created, so the EVs have an advantage, but even that's mitigated a bit when the EVs have to make noises for pedestrians. Point being that if general traffic noise bothers you, it's more driven by the number of vehicles in said traffic than what's powering that traffic.
A lot of the cars in our 'hood are older pick up trucks. And a couple has his and her harleys. We live at the crest of a hill. Just about every car switches gear at some point in time on the hill, except the three EV's and they sneak up into driveways on the hill.This past spring when covid lock down silenced our city and all I could hear was birdsong. Imagine what an improvement urban living would be if a majority of the transportation was electric.
We have an older leaf but two new drivers so we have not disabled the back up warning noise. But we don't have the forward noise turned on.
The quiet during the lockdowns did not come from a lack of ICEs on the road, it came from a lack of vehicles of any type on the road. Most modern ICE vehicles are pretty quiet from the outside (unless modified). There are of course exceptions, but there's a ton of time and money spent on controlling the noise from an ICE. Everything from exhaust volume to insulating the engine bay, to dampening vibration, to fuel injection timing comes into play. It's a big deal for car companies to get the sound and volume of ICE noise correct for the intended market. There are cases where they want a louder more sonorous exhaust, but in most cases they really want it to be as quiet as possible to give the occupants a more luxurious feel.
If you stand next to a freeway full of ICEs and a freeway full of EVs, most of the noise that you'll hear in either case will be from tires. EVs are definitely quieter for the occupants, but for those outside there's not a huge difference between a Leaf driving by at 60mph and a Camry doing the same thing. At low speeds, there's less tire noise created, so the EVs have an advantage, but even that's mitigated a bit when the EVs have to make noises for pedestrians. Point being that if general traffic noise bothers you, it's more driven by the number of vehicles in said traffic than what's powering that traffic.
Around here there’s a constant stream of ICE vehicles on the highway with substantial engine noise. Some of it may be vehicles modified by their owners. More - i suspect - are cars with exhaust/muffler issues. And of course there are the parade of Harleys and trucks and sports cars where the noise is absolutely their loud engines.
If every ICE vehicle was as quiet as a modern (and maintained) Camery or Civic it wouldn’t be an issue. But over half of the traffic aren’t these vehicles.
The quiet during the lockdowns did not come from a lack of ICEs on the road, it came from a lack of vehicles of any type on the road. Most modern ICE vehicles are pretty quiet from the outside (unless modified). There are of course exceptions, but there's a ton of time and money spent on controlling the noise from an ICE. Everything from exhaust volume to insulating the engine bay, to dampening vibration, to fuel injection timing comes into play. It's a big deal for car companies to get the sound and volume of ICE noise correct for the intended market. There are cases where they want a louder more sonorous exhaust, but in most cases they really want it to be as quiet as possible to give the occupants a more luxurious feel.
If you stand next to a freeway full of ICEs and a freeway full of EVs, most of the noise that you'll hear in either case will be from tires. EVs are definitely quieter for the occupants, but for those outside there's not a huge difference between a Leaf driving by at 60mph and a Camry doing the same thing. At low speeds, there's less tire noise created, so the EVs have an advantage, but even that's mitigated a bit when the EVs have to make noises for pedestrians. Point being that if general traffic noise bothers you, it's more driven by the number of vehicles in said traffic than what's powering that traffic.
Around here there’s a constant stream of ICE vehicles on the highway with substantial engine noise. Some of it may be vehicles modified by their owners. More - i suspect - are cars with exhaust/muffler issues. And of course there are the parade of Harleys and trucks and sports cars where the noise is absolutely their loud engines.
If every ICE vehicle was as quiet as a modern (and maintained) Camery or Civic it wouldn’t be an issue. But over half of the traffic aren’t these vehicles.
In some areas (like mine) Tesla Model 3s are seen more frequently than Toyota/Honda/Lexus/etc sedans. Add in a lot of Model S too. Plus many Nissan Leafs. Electric cars are past the stage of early adoption. They are mainstream. At least in urban areas.
In some areas (like mine) Tesla Model 3s are seen more frequently than Toyota/Honda/Lexus/etc sedans. Add in a lot of Model S too. Plus many Nissan Leafs. Electric cars are past the stage of early adoption. They are mainstream. At least in urban areas.
I live in a city full of techies, money, hipsters and liberals. My neighborhood is gentrifying. But I have yet to see a Tesla parked at any house in my neighborhood, let alone the apartments.
I'd agree with mainstream "in some neighborhoods", but "urban areas" seems too broad.
They definitely aren't the most common cars on the roads, but where I'm at it's hard to drive for longer than ~5 minutes without seeing at least one BEV. I used to live in a condo complex with a neighbor that parked on the street and strung an extension cord out of their window to charge it, but most people seem to keep theirs in garages with more direct access to power.Man . . . I coulda saved 600 bucks getting a new outlet within 20 feet of where the car charges. On the other hand, I use that outlet for other things - can reach every place I need to with the (still working and came with the house) corded electric mower and a single 100 foot cord. Needed 150 feet of extension cord before to get to the corners.
In some areas (like mine) Tesla Model 3s are seen more frequently than Toyota/Honda/Lexus/etc sedans. Add in a lot of Model S too. Plus many Nissan Leafs. Electric cars are past the stage of early adoption. They are mainstream. At least in urban areas.
I live in a city full of techies, money, hipsters and liberals. My neighborhood is gentrifying. But I have yet to see a Tesla parked at any house in my neighborhood, let alone the apartments.
I'd agree with mainstream "in some neighborhoods", but "urban areas" seems too broad.
The anecdotes are interesting, but that's why I began this thread with some national statistics. The U.S. and Canada are really big countries and the population density varies throughout. My high cost of living area has very few Tesla (none within several streets of my home) but I see them a good bit on the commuter corridors. Tesla is obviously increasing sales over time, especially on a global basis, and those sales are exceeding smaller players in the automotive industry, but also dwarfed by many ICE models from the biggest makes (GM, Toyota, Ford, VW).I'm saying mainstream in the sense electric cars are seen as just another car and no longer a novelty. Acceptance. My brother's area, about 20-30% of the homes have a Tesla, anecdata perhaps, but no one bats an eyelid or gets googly eyes.
I guess what I'm saying is that they are "mainstream" the way comparable makes like BMW or Subaru are, but not at all the way Toyota is.
The anecdotes are interesting, but that's why I began this thread with some national statistics. The U.S. and Canada are really big countries and the population density varies throughout. My high cost of living area has very few Tesla (none within several streets of my home) but I see them a good bit on the commuter corridors. Tesla is obviously increasing sales over time, especially on a global basis, and those sales are exceeding smaller players in the automotive industry, but also dwarfed by many ICE models from the biggest makes (GM, Toyota, Ford, VW).I'm saying mainstream in the sense electric cars are seen as just another car and no longer a novelty. Acceptance. My brother's area, about 20-30% of the homes have a Tesla, anecdata perhaps, but no one bats an eyelid or gets googly eyes.
I guess what I'm saying is that they are "mainstream" the way comparable makes like BMW or Subaru are, but not at all the way Toyota is.
In some areas (like mine) Tesla Model 3s are seen more frequently than Toyota/Honda/Lexus/etc sedans. Add in a lot of Model S too. Plus many Nissan Leafs. Electric cars are past the stage of early adoption. They are mainstream. At least in urban areas.
I live in a city full of techies, money, hipsters and liberals. My neighborhood is gentrifying. But I have yet to see a Tesla parked at any house in my neighborhood, let alone the apartments.
I'd agree with mainstream "in some neighborhoods", but "urban areas" seems too broad.
Maybe they're parked in garages with access to power? ...
I see Subarus all the time. I rarely see a Tesla. I don't really notice BMWs.
Subaru is supposed to begin selling electric cars in 2021. I believe I will see more Subaru electric vehicles than Tesla because there are more Subaru dealerships.
Li-ion batteries prefer to be kept between 80% and 20%. I think an EV would be very easy to live even without home charging with if a person could get by on a single for the week. If they had a gasoline car for those sudden emergency trips across the continent.
The cost to charge even at a commercial charger is about 1/3-1/2 the cost of refueling with gasoline. Its just a question of convenience.
The folks that keep their EV plugged up all the time may experience expensive battery issues eventually b/c the high charge condition wears the battery out too.
I know some brands are configured so that they can't be charged or discharged beyond the 80-20 cycle but I don't know which ones are those.
Li-ion batteries prefer to be kept between 80% and 20%. I think an EV would be very easy to live even without home charging with if a person could get by on a single for the week. If they had a gasoline car for those sudden emergency trips across the continent.
The cost to charge even at a commercial charger is about 1/3-1/2 the cost of refueling with gasoline. Its just a question of convenience.
The folks that keep their EV plugged up all the time may experience expensive battery issues eventually b/c the high charge condition wears the battery out too.
I know some brands are configured so that they can't be charged or discharged beyond the 80-20 cycle but I don't know which ones are those.
Li-ion batteries prefer to be kept between 80% and 20%. I think an EV would be very easy to live even without home charging with if a person could get by on a single for the week. If they had a gasoline car for those sudden emergency trips across the continent.
The cost to charge even at a commercial charger is about 1/3-1/2 the cost of refueling with gasoline. Its just a question of convenience.
The folks that keep their EV plugged up all the time may experience expensive battery issues eventually b/c the high charge condition wears the battery out too.
I know some brands are configured so that they can't be charged or discharged beyond the 80-20 cycle but I don't know which ones are those.
Yeah, most EVs, especially the ones coming to market now won't let the battery charge get to an unhealthy level outside of special circumstances (For example Tesla has been known to remotely lift those restrictions and extend vehicle range for a short time to people fleeing hurricanes, etc).
As for comparing cost of public charging to gasoline, the answer is a whole lot of "it depends". It depends on the cost to charge at that public charger. It depends on local fuel costs. It depends on fuel type and fuel economy of the comparable ICE vehicle. Here's some rough math to use as an example in my location:
Charging costs at public chargers fluctuate just like fuel costs do (which is another negative that home charging avoids), but Tesla's literature estimates costs for Supercharger use @ $0.26/kwh so we'll use that for our estimate. If you get 4 miles of travel per kwh (fairly standard for a current EV), that works out to a cost per mile of $0.065/mile.
And Superchargers in many places are over their estimated cost, which obviously alters the math and makes cost/mile increase:
https://electrek.co/2019/01/18/tesla-increases-supercharger-prices/
For total transparency we can compare that to home charging at $0.10/kwh in my location for a cost per mile of $0.025/mile
AAA says that the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded is currently $2.03 in my state (I paid $1.84/gal a few days ago but we'll go with the official estimate). If I drive a gas car that gets 35mpg and takes regular unleaded, it's going to cost $0.058/mile, making it cheaper than a Tesla Supercharger. And I can get the maximum range in just a few minutes. I know high voltage chargers are getting faster all the time, but they're in a constant state of change. If you have to rely only on public charging you have to avoid the older, slower chargers or just accept lots of time at the charger that you'd totally skip with at-home charging. It's obviously not a deal breaker for people that really want an EV, but having to carve out time specifically to charge is a legitimate deterrent for those without home charging who might be agnostic about EVs.
Li-ion batteries prefer to be kept between 80% and 20%. I think an EV would be very easy to live even without home charging with if a person could get by on a single for the week. If they had a gasoline car for those sudden emergency trips across the continent.
The cost to charge even at a commercial charger is about 1/3-1/2 the cost of refueling with gasoline. Its just a question of convenience.
The folks that keep their EV plugged up all the time may experience expensive battery issues eventually b/c the high charge condition wears the battery out too.
I know some brands are configured so that they can't be charged or discharged beyond the 80-20 cycle but I don't know which ones are those.
Yeah, most EVs, especially the ones coming to market now won't let the battery charge get to an unhealthy level outside of special circumstances (For example Tesla has been known to remotely lift those restrictions and extend vehicle range for a short time to people fleeing hurricanes, etc).
As for comparing cost of public charging to gasoline, the answer is a whole lot of "it depends". It depends on the cost to charge at that public charger. It depends on local fuel costs. It depends on fuel type and fuel economy of the comparable ICE vehicle. Here's some rough math to use as an example in my location:
Charging costs at public chargers fluctuate just like fuel costs do (which is another negative that home charging avoids), but Tesla's literature estimates costs for Supercharger use @ $0.26/kwh so we'll use that for our estimate. If you get 4 miles of travel per kwh (fairly standard for a current EV), that works out to a cost per mile of $0.065/mile.
And Superchargers in many places are over their estimated cost, which obviously alters the math and makes cost/mile increase:
https://electrek.co/2019/01/18/tesla-increases-supercharger-prices/
For total transparency we can compare that to home charging at $0.10/kwh in my location for a cost per mile of $0.025/mile
AAA says that the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded is currently $2.03 in my state (I paid $1.84/gal a few days ago but we'll go with the official estimate). If I drive a gas car that gets 35mpg and takes regular unleaded, it's going to cost $0.058/mile, making it cheaper than a Tesla Supercharger. And I can get the maximum range in just a few minutes. I know high voltage chargers are getting faster all the time, but they're in a constant state of change. If you have to rely only on public charging you have to avoid the older, slower chargers or just accept lots of time at the charger that you'd totally skip with at-home charging. It's obviously not a deal breaker for people that really want an EV, but having to carve out time specifically to charge is a legitimate deterrent for those without home charging who might be agnostic about EVs.
As for comparing cost of public charging to gasoline, the answer is a whole lot of "it depends". It depends on the cost to charge at that public charger. It depends on local fuel costs. It depends on fuel type and fuel economy of the comparable ICE vehicle. Here's some rough math to use as an example in my location:
Charging costs at public chargers fluctuate just like fuel costs do (which is another negative that home charging avoids), but Tesla's literature estimates costs for Supercharger use @ $0.26/kwh so we'll use that for our estimate. If you get 4 miles of travel per kwh (fairly standard for a current EV), that works out to a cost per mile of $0.065/mile.
And Superchargers in many places are over their estimated cost, which obviously alters the math and makes cost/mile increase:
https://electrek.co/2019/01/18/tesla-increases-supercharger-prices/
For total transparency we can compare that to home charging at $0.10/kwh in my location for a cost per mile of $0.025/mile
AAA says that the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded is currently $2.03 in my state (I paid $1.84/gal a few days ago but we'll go with the official estimate). If I drive a gas car that gets 35mpg and takes regular unleaded, it's going to cost $0.058/mile, making it cheaper than a Tesla Supercharger. And I can get the maximum range in just a few minutes. I know high voltage chargers are getting faster all the time, but they're in a constant state of change. If you have to rely only on public charging you have to avoid the older, slower chargers or just accept lots of time at the charger that you'd totally skip with at-home charging. It's obviously not a deal breaker for people that really want an EV, but having to carve out time specifically to charge is a legitimate deterrent for those without home charging who might be agnostic about EVs.
Thanks for doing the math there, those are good figures to have. It certainly does depend on a lot of factors, if one is just asking the question “is the cost of electricity per km less than that for gasoline?”
I still think you are getting a bit hung up on the time it takes to charge here. Going to a gas station and recharging an EV aren’t really comparable under normal use. As you indicated EVs work best when you have a dedicated parking space, but I wouldn’t assume that they only work in that direction (getting charged overnight). Plenty of work places offer EV charging now (including my last three employers) as do most malls, Walmarts, and other Big-box stores. For most people charging daily isn’t necessary - your ‘average’ driver can easily get by with recharging once/week.
As for comparing cost of public charging to gasoline, the answer is a whole lot of "it depends". It depends on the cost to charge at that public charger. It depends on local fuel costs. It depends on fuel type and fuel economy of the comparable ICE vehicle. Here's some rough math to use as an example in my location:
Charging costs at public chargers fluctuate just like fuel costs do (which is another negative that home charging avoids), but Tesla's literature estimates costs for Supercharger use @ $0.26/kwh so we'll use that for our estimate. If you get 4 miles of travel per kwh (fairly standard for a current EV), that works out to a cost per mile of $0.065/mile.
And Superchargers in many places are over their estimated cost, which obviously alters the math and makes cost/mile increase:
https://electrek.co/2019/01/18/tesla-increases-supercharger-prices/
For total transparency we can compare that to home charging at $0.10/kwh in my location for a cost per mile of $0.025/mile
AAA says that the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded is currently $2.03 in my state (I paid $1.84/gal a few days ago but we'll go with the official estimate). If I drive a gas car that gets 35mpg and takes regular unleaded, it's going to cost $0.058/mile, making it cheaper than a Tesla Supercharger. And I can get the maximum range in just a few minutes. I know high voltage chargers are getting faster all the time, but they're in a constant state of change. If you have to rely only on public charging you have to avoid the older, slower chargers or just accept lots of time at the charger that you'd totally skip with at-home charging. It's obviously not a deal breaker for people that really want an EV, but having to carve out time specifically to charge is a legitimate deterrent for those without home charging who might be agnostic about EVs.
Crazy cheap gasoline has definitely changed the math -- I remember $4+/gal back in 2008. If we ever end up back there again, things will change.
Oddly enough I have expensive power (offset significantly by a 13kw solar array) and cheap gas, but still prefer an EV -- even if the costs were equal, the lack of maintenance requirements, the driving experience, it's all a lot better than a typical fuel efficient car.
That said, there's no way I'd do it without home charging capability.
Well looping back to the topic of this thread, I think one of the ways that EVs can finally become popular in the US is when more places of business have chargers available. Perhaps the driver would be new regulations (e.g. “all commercial parking-lots larger than 20 spaces must have at least X spaces equipped to charge EVs”), or maybe employers will just offer them as responsible entities as mine has.... I don’t know.
As you pointed out, even a ‘standard’ 120v outlet will give an employee 30+ miles over the course of a work day, plenty for most commutes. For parking lots with street-lights its an easy change-over.
What frustrates me about the discussion over charging is that people’s mind-set is so conditioned to going to the gas station to get fuel that we’re stuck in that mode — most of the discussion continues to be around a network of fast-chargers located and laid out like traditional service stations. Gasoline pumps were installed in special service stations because they are hazardous and explosive substances which needed special properties to house them. EVs have no such constraints, and virtually every property already has the infrastructure in place to be its own mini-charging point. Which is why some bigger, national chains are simply including charging in all their stores to some degree.
So IMO the real questions we ought to be focusing on isn’t how many charging stations we can place right off the freeway and designed like a traditional gas station, but how we can put chargers in places where cars are typically parked for an hour or more.... basically in our pre-existing parking lots.
I don't own an electric car. I was parked next to a Chevy Bolt at the local grocery store. He had one of the store's chargers plugged in. I was very surprised when he told me there was no cost. It was a Meijer's store. How prevalent is that becoming? It's like free gas.
don't forget capital cost of installing the charging station. not cheap.
don't forget capital cost of installing the charging station. not cheap.
I was very surprised when he told me there was no cost. It was a Meijer's store. How prevalent is that becoming? It's like free gas.
It actually makes a lot of business sense for a lot of places. Commercial electricity here is high at around 12¢. An L2 charger might put out 7.3kw, so that’s 87¢ to get someone to come to your establishment and stay for one hour. If you were a bar owner or shopping mall or grocery store, would you pay someone 83¢ to ensure they spent an hour there? I would.
don't forget capital cost of installing the charging station. not cheap.
@Syonyk, what a cool case! Thanks for explaining the economics there.
I love that it's actually cheaper not to charge.
@Syonyk, what a cool case! Thanks for explaining the economics there.
No problem. I like to sit down with the math on stuff when I can.QuoteI love that it's actually cheaper not to charge.
At some point, cost recovery may start to look reasonable, but I'd rather not go that route. Unfortunately, companies like ChargePoint (who are the flagship "high cost, cost recovery L2 charging stations" company) are trying to ensure that people are so scared of "paying for other people's power" that, why, of course you should spend more money on RFID/App based charging stations and accounts and management fees and the works. Even if it costs you more. They make nice hardware, and they do a properly solid job of testing it, but it's trying to solve a problem that I simply don't think needs solving.
But to give you an idea...
I've got a Gen 1 Volt, which charges at 3.3kW. It's a slower charging EV, certainly, but it charges the pack in 3 hours at full tilt, which is perfectly sane (PHEV, I've got 30-35 miles on battery then unlimited range on gas).
The nearest charging station to the one I put in town charges $2/hr + $0.20/kWh. This means, for me, an hour of charging is $2.67 - for 3.3kWh of power, or an eye-watering $0.80/kWh. Local power cost is $0.10/kWh... In more useful terms, for an hour of charging, which gets me about 10 miles of range, I could also just go buy a gallon of gas, which gets me 30-40 miles of range. Pass.
I'm excited to see that some of the newer charging stations listed are free in the area, and I may have go to frequent a few of the places, for the sole purpose of telling them I appreciate it. :)
Does this mean it could make sense to buy a subsidized PHEV and literally never charge it?
Does this mean it could make sense to buy a subsidized PHEV and literally never charge it?
I think the town is getting its money's worth even while making the charging free. However, in general free is a terrible price because it distorts behavior. I certainly could charge more at home and still be saving significantly compared to buying gas, but this extra savings, plus the nice walk, plus enjoying getting something for free, makes it worthwhile to me.
...but currently it probably makes sense to keep it free since the demand is still fairly low and the capital cost of a "dumb" plug is much lower than a unit that can deal with billing.
Interestingly, just before COVID hit, the free chargers were occupied more and more often so it was getting hard to score one. That's a sign that it's time to start charging.
When you have to pay to charge, the system that's installed makes a big difference. There's a mall nearby that used to have six EV charging spots with ChargePoint stations. They were still free but the infrastructure was in place for them to start charging for the service any time. For some reason the mall switched to another model that nobody seems to be able to make work (crappy mobile app, etc.) and now those same spots are pretty much always empty even though it's still free to charge, assuming you can make the app work.
The ideal is that any charging station "handshakes" with your car when you plug it in and makes the billing process seamless, but so far that seems limited to Tesla's superchargers. Perhaps others like BCHydro's fast chargers or Electrify America/Canada do that, but I've never tried either of those.
Incidentally, I've never seen the need to use anything beyond 120V at home, so no expensive electrical work needed. If I were to plug in as soon as I got home I could add over 80km range for the next day but my round-trip commute is only 50km. If I ever need to charge faster there are multiple options within a few km of me.
QuoteInterestingly, just before COVID hit, the free chargers were occupied more and more often so it was getting hard to score one. That's a sign that it's time to start charging.
Or just add more. I really don't think "Putting in expensive units, then paying the monthly management fee, before anyone passes a single expensive kWh" is the right path. You'll drop use, certainly, but it will end up costing more in the end, for radically less utilization. People like me (3.3kW charging) simply do not charge at any of those stations in public. I'll burn gas instead at a third the cost, and with the longer range BEVs, they don't charge either. The market for those is roughly "Leafs that got caught short and have to charge." That's a far smaller market than "Anyone with an EV who happens to be shopping."
QuoteWhen you have to pay to charge, the system that's installed makes a big difference. There's a mall nearby that used to have six EV charging spots with ChargePoint stations. They were still free but the infrastructure was in place for them to start charging for the service any time. For some reason the mall switched to another model that nobody seems to be able to make work (crappy mobile app, etc.) and now those same spots are pretty much always empty even though it's still free to charge, assuming you can make the app work.
So they've spent a ton of money (twice!) compared to dumb charging points, and they still don't work or get used. Seems dumb to me.
QuoteIncidentally, I've never seen the need to use anything beyond 120V at home, so no expensive electrical work needed. If I were to plug in as soon as I got home I could add over 80km range for the next day but my round-trip commute is only 50km. If I ever need to charge faster there are multiple options within a few km of me.
The main advantage of 240V at home (and it's easy to swap a 120V circuit over to 240V, if you disconnect the other outlets or switch them for 240V outlets) is that on most EVs, the charging efficiency is higher. The converters are a bit more efficient, and you don't spend nearly as much of the transmitted energy heating the pack (percentage-wise). On a 1440W charging budget, in the cold, 500+W of that can go to just pack heating to maintain charging temperatures. On 240V, the same power going to heat the pack is a far lower percentage. It's not a big deal, and 120V charging works well for a lot of people, but going from 120V/12A to 240V/16A (or even 240V/12A, as some included chargers let you do) is a nice jump.
It will be interesting to see what level of penetration will make paying to charge absolutely necessary, but we're probably many years from that point.
We're also considering building a garage so I've been holding off on adding an outlet that would soon be made redundant by building the garage with charging in mind. My main point was was that it's been easy and without inconvenience to use 120V only at home, despite the efficiency hit.
Are they that different than a dryer outlet?
Are they that different than a dryer outlet?
Not at all. The 14-50 is the standard 240V/split phase plug for dryer hookups, big air compressors, power splitter boxes for workshops, etc. It's a 50A plug (so rated for 40A continuous, which EV charging is) that brings both lines, a neutral, and a ground. You can get 120V or 240V off it, vs some 240V-only plugs out there.
It's the largest "standard plug" you'll find in the US for things, so it's commonly used for EV chargers and the like.
Does this mean it could make sense to buy a subsidized PHEV and literally never charge it?
You could, plenty of people do (based on used Volt lifetime fuel economy values), but it's still pretty stupid. I think they're mostly "company cars" that have a gas card. It still gets the tax credit, but I've no idea why you'd do that sort of thing on purpose.
My point was to observe that public paid charging is obscene. If I charge at home, that 10kWh/35 miles is $1, vs $2.[whatever gas is right now]. It's less than half the energy cost, before getting into extended oil change intervals and such.
If you're never going to charge it, you're better off with a pure hybrid (Prius or such), over a PHEV. The pure hybrids tend to get better fuel economy on the gas engine. They're lighter than a PHEV, and typically have somewhat fancier engines. The Gen 1 Volt gets about 35mpg on gas, the Priuses are up in the mid-50s in the same conditions. However, since we plug in regularly, our actual fuel burn is about 25% what a Prius would burn for our driving (miles per gallon gas used since we got the car is up around 200 - it's not a straight up mpg comparison because it uses electricity).
GM has introduced a new version of the Bolt. They call it an "EUV." I looked through their literature and might have missed it but couldn't find what the acronym meant. Is it just advertising BS?
On a positive note I convinced my spouse to get rid of her Prius V in favor of a 2017 Volt. She was hesitant to go full on electric as we still take long road trips for my daughter's gymnastics competitions. This was a great compromise. She actually sold her Prius V for a bit more than she paid for it 1.5 years ago. And the Volt was cheaper so she came out ahead just on swapping cars. I can't believe how cheap some of the used EV and PHEVs are these days.That sounds like a huge downgrade to me (other than the minor fuel savings). The Volt has less than a third of the cargo space and very cramped rear seats. Doesn't seem worth the switch unless you are doing a ton of city driving and don't need practicality.
McLaren Artura has just been unveiled and it looks drop-dead GORGEOUS; easily the nicest looking hybrid I've ever seen. Tmeh... agree to disagree. My first reaction is: Fish Bowl. There's something very spherical about the shape, that makes it seem like it's being squished from all sides.
McLaren Artura has just been unveiled and it looks drop-dead GORGEOUS; easily the nicest looking hybrid I've ever seen. Tmeh... agree to disagree. My first reaction is: Fish Bowl. There's something very spherical about the shape, that makes it seem like it's being squished from all sides.
This strikes me as an odd response. The overwhelming majority of my spouse's commute is on city streets to and from work (roughly 28 miles round trip commute). I would guess roughly 95% of her driving to put a number on it. And again, we have a van now that is great on cargo space. So practically speaking, cargo space is a non-issue for our second car.On a positive note I convinced my spouse to get rid of her Prius V in favor of a 2017 Volt. She was hesitant to go full on electric as we still take long road trips for my daughter's gymnastics competitions. This was a great compromise. She actually sold her Prius V for a bit more than she paid for it 1.5 years ago. And the Volt was cheaper so she came out ahead just on swapping cars. I can't believe how cheap some of the used EV and PHEVs are these days.That sounds like a huge downgrade to me (other than the minor fuel savings). The Volt has less than a third of the cargo space and very cramped rear seats. Doesn't seem worth the switch unless you are doing a ton of city driving and don't need practicality.
This strikes me as an odd response. The overwhelming majority of my spouse's commute is on city streets to and from work (roughly 28 miles round trip commute). I would guess roughly 95% of her driving to put a number on it. And again, we have a van now that is great on cargo space. So practically speaking, cargo space is a non-issue for our second car.On a positive note I convinced my spouse to get rid of her Prius V in favor of a 2017 Volt. She was hesitant to go full on electric as we still take long road trips for my daughter's gymnastics competitions. This was a great compromise. She actually sold her Prius V for a bit more than she paid for it 1.5 years ago. And the Volt was cheaper so she came out ahead just on swapping cars. I can't believe how cheap some of the used EV and PHEVs are these days.That sounds like a huge downgrade to me (other than the minor fuel savings). The Volt has less than a third of the cargo space and very cramped rear seats. Doesn't seem worth the switch unless you are doing a ton of city driving and don't need practicality.
Fuel savings being "minor" is subjective. The Prius V only averaged 41 mpg for us. That's a gallon of gas saved every 1.5 days of commuting. Seems more practical for everyone to weigh their own lifestyle wants and needs when it comes to vehicles. If you desire 2 cars with massive cargo space, then that's your choice. It just doesn't make practical sense for us.
Ah, I missed the mention of the minivan in your first post. Apologies. That eliminates the majority of practicality concerns. I also don't desire two large vehicles. Our larger vehicle is a Golf hatchback and smaller vehicle a 2-door sports car. Somehow both have significantly more cargo space than your Volt though...This strikes me as an odd response. The overwhelming majority of my spouse's commute is on city streets to and from work (roughly 28 miles round trip commute). I would guess roughly 95% of her driving to put a number on it. And again, we have a van now that is great on cargo space. So practically speaking, cargo space is a non-issue for our second car.On a positive note I convinced my spouse to get rid of her Prius V in favor of a 2017 Volt. She was hesitant to go full on electric as we still take long road trips for my daughter's gymnastics competitions. This was a great compromise. She actually sold her Prius V for a bit more than she paid for it 1.5 years ago. And the Volt was cheaper so she came out ahead just on swapping cars. I can't believe how cheap some of the used EV and PHEVs are these days.That sounds like a huge downgrade to me (other than the minor fuel savings). The Volt has less than a third of the cargo space and very cramped rear seats. Doesn't seem worth the switch unless you are doing a ton of city driving and don't need practicality.
Fuel savings being "minor" is subjective. The Prius V only averaged 41 mpg for us. That's a gallon of gas saved every 1.5 days of commuting. Seems more practical for everyone to weigh their own lifestyle wants and needs when it comes to vehicles. If you desire 2 cars with massive cargo space, then that's your choice. It just doesn't make practical sense for us.
McLaren Artura has just been unveiled and it looks drop-dead GORGEOUS; easily the nicest looking hybrid I've ever seen. Tmeh... agree to disagree. My first reaction is: Fish Bowl. There's something very spherical about the shape, that makes it seem like it's being squished from all sides.
To my eye it looks like every other super-exotic-hyper car. But I am not the target buyer.
Yes, I do think the fuel savings are minor. Only 41 mpg? That's already really good. At current gas prices it sounds like ~$440/year for your commuting. There's a good chance you paid more than that in sales tax just for swapping cars (depends on the state). Really pretty minor as far as vehicle expenses go. My non-gas vehicle expenses have been nearly an order of magnitude more than that (per car) averaged over the last nine years. Doesn't make a ton of sense to chase $$$ in fuel savings if that ends up costing $$$$ in depreciation, maintenance, etc.. In your case I think because the Volt was cheaper than the vehicle you replaced and you're driving a decent amount of miles it should be worth it financially.
Yes, I do think the fuel savings are minor. Only 41 mpg? That's already really good. At current gas prices it sounds like ~$440/year for your commuting. There's a good chance you paid more than that in sales tax just for swapping cars (depends on the state). Really pretty minor as far as vehicle expenses go. My non-gas vehicle expenses have been nearly an order of magnitude more than that (per car) averaged over the last nine years. Doesn't make a ton of sense to chase $$$ in fuel savings if that ends up costing $$$$ in depreciation, maintenance, etc.. In your case I think because the Volt was cheaper than the vehicle you replaced and you're driving a decent amount of miles it should be worth it financially.
Maybe @nereo values the reduced impact on climate change?
Personally intrigued bc my next car is tentatively likely to be PHEV for eco reasons; scouting ahead by reading threads like this. 95%+ short city trips, rare cargo carry; utility company assures me I'm getting 100% renewable electricity. No state subsidies, so hoping for a nice cheap used PHEV probably around '23 or '24.
Yes, I do think the fuel savings are minor. Only 41 mpg? That's already really good. At current gas prices it sounds like ~$440/year for your commuting. There's a good chance you paid more than that in sales tax just for swapping cars (depends on the state). Really pretty minor as far as vehicle expenses go. My non-gas vehicle expenses have been nearly an order of magnitude more than that (per car) averaged over the last nine years. Doesn't make a ton of sense to chase $$$ in fuel savings if that ends up costing $$$$ in depreciation, maintenance, etc.. In your case I think because the Volt was cheaper than the vehicle you replaced and you're driving a decent amount of miles it should be worth it financially.
Maybe @nereo values the reduced impact on climate change?
Personally intrigued bc my next car is tentatively likely to be PHEV for eco reasons; scouting ahead by reading threads like this. 95%+ short city trips, rare cargo carry; utility company assures me I'm getting 100% renewable electricity. No state subsidies, so hoping for a nice cheap used PHEV probably around '23 or '24.
It's MasterStache, not nereo, that got the Volt. For environmental impact that would be around ~175 gal/year fuel saved. The average American in the average car is using ~540 gal/year. So a good bit lower than average impact. Whether that is "minor" I guess does depend on the person's view.
I definitely want our next car to be electric, primarily for environmental reasons. But I'm in no rush because we're hardly driving. Over the last five years (since I stopped commuting) we've averaged ~70 gallons per year per person with traditional ICE vehicles.
are there any concerns with low annual mileage and electric cars?I imagine there are less issues with infrequent driving/low mileage on an electric car than a traditional ICE. You don't have to worry about gas going bad or oil absorbing moisture, for example. Less rubber hoses that can degrade as well.
i know with my prius, which we drive about 4k/yr, our 12v battery is suffering from premature failure presumably b/c of lack of use. is this the same on these other vehicle types?
McLaren Artura has just been unveiled and it looks drop-dead GORGEOUS; easily the nicest looking hybrid I've ever seen. Tmeh... agree to disagree. My first reaction is: Fish Bowl. There's something very spherical about the shape, that makes it seem like it's being squished from all sides.
To my eye it looks like every other super-exotic-hyper car. But I am not the target buyer.
All the recent McLarens look about the same. The Artura looks like a cross between the McLaren 570S and the McLaren GT. Two cars that are already a little difficult to tell apart for the non-enthusiast. Personally I think only the McLaren P1 is truly striking.
Care to elaborate why... you know, to help further discussion?
I can't see giving up a gas engine anytime soon, but I would consider a hybrid if I was looking now.... but I'm not.
No problem. We did in fact consider cargo space. And yes the Volt has greatly reduced cargo space compared to the Prius V. But again, a non issue with the van. One thing my spouse really enjoys about fueling every once in a while is time. We accumulate fuel points but the grocery store isn't exactly on her way home. Every couple of weeks sheAh, I missed the mention of the minivan in your first post. Apologies. That eliminates the majority of practicality concerns. I also don't desire two large vehicles. Our larger vehicle is a Golf hatchback and smaller vehicle a 2-door sports car. Somehow both have significantly more cargo space than your Volt though...This strikes me as an odd response. The overwhelming majority of my spouse's commute is on city streets to and from work (roughly 28 miles round trip commute). I would guess roughly 95% of her driving to put a number on it. And again, we have a van now that is great on cargo space. So practically speaking, cargo space is a non-issue for our second car.On a positive note I convinced my spouse to get rid of her Prius V in favor of a 2017 Volt. She was hesitant to go full on electric as we still take long road trips for my daughter's gymnastics competitions. This was a great compromise. She actually sold her Prius V for a bit more than she paid for it 1.5 years ago. And the Volt was cheaper so she came out ahead just on swapping cars. I can't believe how cheap some of the used EV and PHEVs are these days.That sounds like a huge downgrade to me (other than the minor fuel savings). The Volt has less than a third of the cargo space and very cramped rear seats. Doesn't seem worth the switch unless you are doing a ton of city driving and don't need practicality.
Fuel savings being "minor" is subjective. The Prius V only averaged 41 mpg for us. That's a gallon of gas saved every 1.5 days of commuting. Seems more practical for everyone to weigh their own lifestyle wants and needs when it comes to vehicles. If you desire 2 cars with massive cargo space, then that's your choice. It just doesn't make practical sense for us.
Yes, I do think the fuel savings are minor. Only 41 mpg? That's already really good. At current gas prices it sounds like ~$440/year for your commuting. There's a good chance you paid more than that in sales tax just for swapping cars (depends on the state). Really pretty minor as far as vehicle expenses go. My non-gas vehicle expenses have been nearly an order of magnitude more than that (per car) averaged over the last nine years. Doesn't make a ton of sense to chase $$$ in fuel savings if that ends up costing $$$$ in depreciation, maintenance, etc.. In your case I think because the Volt was cheaper than the vehicle you replaced and you're driving a decent amount of miles it should be worth it financially.
I'd like a Prius Prime (plug in hybrid) for my next car, but I'm in no hurry right now either because I go weeks at a time without moving my car now due to the pandemic.
I do think 41 mpg (Prius V) is kind of low if you're going with a hybrid because there are non-hybrids that can match that. My next car I want in the 50+ range.
I'd like a Prius Prime (plug in hybrid) for my next car, but I'm in no hurry right now either because I go weeks at a time without moving my car now due to the pandemic.
I do think 41 mpg (Prius V) is kind of low if you're going with a hybrid because there are non-hybrids that can match that. My next car I want in the 50+ range.
I figured within my next 2-3 car purchases I'll have an EV. Automakers are pouring $$ into R&D for EV (Ford, and now GM is starting to crank it up) so it's only a matter of time.
The only downside I can think of is I might miss the roar of a good sounding ICE, and shifting a manual. But I can get over that. Range and charging time will only improve.
I'd like a Prius Prime (plug in hybrid) for my next car, but I'm in no hurry right now either because I go weeks at a time without moving my car now due to the pandemic.
I do think 41 mpg (Prius V) is kind of low if you're going with a hybrid because there are non-hybrids that can match that. My next car I want in the 50+ range.
Because of the way the scale works there are diminishing returns the higher you go. Improving fuel economy from 14 mpg to 15 mpg is a better improvement (by gallons/dollars saved) than going from 41 mpg to 50 mpg. For comparing fuel economy numbers it is much more useful to look at gallons per 100 miles as that is a linear improvement scale. For example, going from 3 to 2 gal/100 mi (33.3 to 50 mpg) and going from 7 to 6 gal/100 mi (14.3 to 16.7 mpg) both save 1 gallon per 100 miles.
So if you replace a 2.44 gal/100 mi (41 mpg) vehicle with a 2.00 gal/100 mi (50 mpg) that's 0.44 gallons saved per 100 miles (nice easy math). Or 44 gallons per 10k miles.
I figured within my next 2-3 car purchases I'll have an EV. Automakers are pouring $$ into R&D for EV (Ford, and now GM is starting to crank it up) so it's only a matter of time.
The only downside I can think of is I might miss the roar of a good sounding ICE, and shifting a manual. But I can get over that. Range and charging time will only improve.
Funny, lack of engine noise is a big pro in my book for BEVs,... especially when my neighbors but them :-)
What kind of range are you looking for?
I'd like a Prius Prime (plug in hybrid) for my next car, but I'm in no hurry right now either because I go weeks at a time without moving my car now due to the pandemic.
I do think 41 mpg (Prius V) is kind of low if you're going with a hybrid because there are non-hybrids that can match that. My next car I want in the 50+ range.
Because of the way the scale works there are diminishing returns the higher you go. Improving fuel economy from 14 mpg to 15 mpg is a better improvement (by gallons/dollars saved) than going from 41 mpg to 50 mpg. For comparing fuel economy numbers it is much more useful to look at gallons per 100 miles as that is a linear improvement scale. For example, going from 3 to 2 gal/100 mi (33.3 to 50 mpg) and going from 7 to 6 gal/100 mi (14.3 to 16.7 mpg) both save 1 gallon per 100 miles.
So if you replace a 2.44 gal/100 mi (41 mpg) vehicle with a 2.00 gal/100 mi (50 mpg) that's 0.44 gallons saved per 100 miles (nice easy math). Or 44 gallons per 10k miles.
I just hate going to the gas station :-)
I'd like a Prius Prime (plug in hybrid) for my next car, but I'm in no hurry right now either because I go weeks at a time without moving my car now due to the pandemic.
I do think 41 mpg (Prius V) is kind of low if you're going with a hybrid because there are non-hybrids that can match that. My next car I want in the 50+ range.
Because of the way the scale works there are diminishing returns the higher you go. Improving fuel economy from 14 mpg to 15 mpg is a better improvement (by gallons/dollars saved) than going from 41 mpg to 50 mpg. For comparing fuel economy numbers it is much more useful to look at gallons per 100 miles as that is a linear improvement scale. For example, going from 3 to 2 gal/100 mi (33.3 to 50 mpg) and going from 7 to 6 gal/100 mi (14.3 to 16.7 mpg) both save 1 gallon per 100 miles.
So if you replace a 2.44 gal/100 mi (41 mpg) vehicle with a 2.00 gal/100 mi (50 mpg) that's 0.44 gallons saved per 100 miles (nice easy math). Or 44 gallons per 10k miles.
I just hate going to the gas station :-)
Buy a car with a big gas tank. ;) Aside from pure electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles the gas tank size can overcome all for minimizing gas station visits. The 31 gallon (!!) fuel tank in a Chevy Suburban will out-range many hybrids.
I just hate going to the gas station :-)
Buy a car with a big gas tank. ;) Aside from pure electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles the gas tank size can overcome all for minimizing gas station visits. The 31 gallon (!!) fuel tank in a Chevy Suburban will out-range many hybrids.
It'll also trip a lot of filling stations whenever the cost of gasoline goes above $3.25/gallon... Our work truck had a 42 gallon fuel tank and pumps constantly shut off at the $100 mark - we'd have to either go inside to request a re-set or visit two stations the same day to get a full tank.
I'd like a Prius Prime (plug in hybrid) for my next car, but I'm in no hurry right now either because I go weeks at a time without moving my car now due to the pandemic.
I do think 41 mpg (Prius V) is kind of low if you're going with a hybrid because there are non-hybrids that can match that. My next car I want in the 50+ range.
Because of the way the scale works there are diminishing returns the higher you go. Improving fuel economy from 14 mpg to 15 mpg is a better improvement (by gallons/dollars saved) than going from 41 mpg to 50 mpg. For comparing fuel economy numbers it is much more useful to look at gallons per 100 miles as that is a linear improvement scale. For example, going from 3 to 2 gal/100 mi (33.3 to 50 mpg) and going from 7 to 6 gal/100 mi (14.3 to 16.7 mpg) both save 1 gallon per 100 miles.
So if you replace a 2.44 gal/100 mi (41 mpg) vehicle with a 2.00 gal/100 mi (50 mpg) that's 0.44 gallons saved per 100 miles (nice easy math). Or 44 gallons per 10k miles.
I just hate going to the gas station :-)
Buy a car with a big gas tank. ;) Aside from pure electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles the gas tank size can overcome all for minimizing gas station visits. The 31 gallon (!!) fuel tank in a Chevy Suburban will out-range many hybrids.
We have had two Leafs. The second replaced the first which was totaled.
I figure the cost break down like this :
Jan. 2020 we bought a 2016 Leaf with 51,000 miles for $8800.
We have been driving about 6500 miles per year on the old leaf (2013) and electricity is $0.10 per KWh and the car averages about 3.8 miles per KWh so it costs around $170/yr to drive.
An equivalent used car at the time was a 2013 Kia Soul with 49,000 miles for $8800. Combined fuel economy on the Soul was 26 mpg so 6500 miles costs about $625 at $2.50 a galon. Throw in one synthetic oil change a year at $45.
I figure I will drive the Leaf until the range is no longer useful to us and sell it for about $1500- estimated in 5 years. Over that 5 years I would estimate the Soul probably need $500 in maintenance over what the Leaf will take i.e. brakes, fluids, probably something unforeseen and a little expensive...
So over 5 years the Leaf saves around $2275 in gas, $500 in maintenance, and $225 in oil changes over the soul, but in 2025 the soul should be worth $3.5k while the leaf is only worth $1500. So in the end the Leaf is maybe a little cheaper ~$1000, but overall it's not a huge difference. Yearly cost on the Leaf - $1635
Yearly cost on the Soul - $1830
I would like to see the breakdown on how a Prius compares. When we were looking a ~$8800 Prius was a 2010 or 2011 with ~120k miles. I was a little suspect because I thought there was a good change there was a $2500 - $3000 battery replacement in store before 2025 for a 9 to 10 year old prius.
I figured within my next 2-3 car purchases I'll have an EV. Automakers are pouring $$ into R&D for EV (Ford, and now GM is starting to crank it up) so it's only a matter of time.
The only downside I can think of is I might miss the roar of a good sounding ICE, and shifting a manual. But I can get over that. Range and charging time will only improve.
Funny, lack of engine noise is a big pro in my book for BEVs,... especially when my neighbors but them :-)
What kind of range are you looking for?
To clarify: noisy engines do not necessarily mean good sounding engines. Most people who mod cars make them sound awful. But when done right it can be music to the ears.
For range I think I would need over 300, but 350 to be safe. I take several trips per year to NW Wisconsin where it is sparsely populated compared to southern half of the state.
I figured within my next 2-3 car purchases I'll have an EV. Automakers are pouring $$ into R&D for EV (Ford, and now GM is starting to crank it up) so it's only a matter of time.
The only downside I can think of is I might miss the roar of a good sounding ICE, and shifting a manual. But I can get over that. Range and charging time will only improve.
Funny, lack of engine noise is a big pro in my book for BEVs,... especially when my neighbors but them :-)
What kind of range are you looking for?
To clarify: noisy engines do not necessarily mean good sounding engines. Most people who mod cars make them sound awful. But when done right it can be music to the ears.
For range I think I would need over 300, but 350 to be safe. I take several trips per year to NW Wisconsin where it is sparsely populated compared to southern half of the state.
Yes, most noisy engines are awful, but a good v10 or v12 sounds amazing.
I figured within my next 2-3 car purchases I'll have an EV. Automakers are pouring $$ into R&D for EV (Ford, and now GM is starting to crank it up) so it's only a matter of time.
The only downside I can think of is I might miss the roar of a good sounding ICE, and shifting a manual. But I can get over that. Range and charging time will only improve.
Funny, lack of engine noise is a big pro in my book for BEVs,... especially when my neighbors but them :-)
What kind of range are you looking for?
To clarify: noisy engines do not necessarily mean good sounding engines. Most people who mod cars make them sound awful. But when done right it can be music to the ears.
For range I think I would need over 300, but 350 to be safe. I take several trips per year to NW Wisconsin where it is sparsely populated compared to southern half of the state.
Incidentally, they now offer a plug-in hybrid Wrangler, which I would absolutely love; it has ~25 miles of plug in range and then a regular gas engine for long trips (I drive ~350 miles one way to our cabin monthly or more). I would be all-electric all the time except those cabin trips. Unfortunately, it’s about $10k more than a gas version, and leases out about $200/mo more. Plus it would probably cost me at least a grand to run a 220 outlet to my detached garage, even as a DIY (materials/renting equipment to dig the trench, permits, etc). Part of the reason for the cost increase is they only offer the PHEV in the top trim levels versus the lower one I will otherwise get. I bet in 3-5 years a PHEV will make more sense in terms of packaging/economics and I will probably get one.
Incidentally, they now offer a plug-in hybrid Wrangler, which I would absolutely love; it has ~25 miles of plug in range and then a regular gas engine for long trips (I drive ~350 miles one way to our cabin monthly or more). I would be all-electric all the time except those cabin trips. Unfortunately, it’s about $10k more than a gas version, and leases out about $200/mo more. Plus it would probably cost me at least a grand to run a 220 outlet to my detached garage, even as a DIY (materials/renting equipment to dig the trench, permits, etc). Part of the reason for the cost increase is they only offer the PHEV in the top trim levels versus the lower one I will otherwise get. I bet in 3-5 years a PHEV will make more sense in terms of packaging/economics and I will probably get one.
You really don't need a level 2 charger with a PHEV unless you want it to charge quickly. In most cases, a standard 110 outlet can add about 4 miles of range per hour of charging. A PHEV with 25 miles of range would charge fully in about 6 hours. 220 will cut that time down significantly, but that's really only beneficial if you're making frequent trips where you'll want as much EV range as possible. The faster charging will increase heat in the battery too which can have negative effects on long term battery health. Most PHEV owners can get by just fine with 110.
I may have asked this before. If you own a plug in hybrid and only do short trips so that you do not burn any gasoline, can it go bad in the similar way the gas can go bad sitting in your lawn mower over a Winter season?The Cars computer will activate the engine periodically to prevent this. On mine i believe it will start using the gasoline engine a lot more if you haven’t refueled in 6 months, and the engine kicks on for a couple minutes every week. My parents, who drive less than i do and almost never take their Volt on long trips, simply buy only a few gallons at a time a couple times each year.
I see Subarus all the time. I rarely see a Tesla. I don't really notice BMWs.
Subaru is supposed to begin selling electric cars in 2021. I believe I will see more Subaru electric vehicles than Tesla because there are more Subaru dealerships.
The new Ioniq 5 was just revealed. Looks really compelling.I love all the space between the front seats - no grotty foot wells - and a place for my hand bag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rnvzLmT4-w
This has more rear legroom than a Lexus LS despite being two feet shorter. Also, the rear seats are power operated and can slide forward to give more cargo space if you don't need all that legroom. I've never seen anything like this.The new Ioniq 5 was just revealed. Looks really compelling.I love all the space between the front seats - no grotty foot wells - and a place for my hand bag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rnvzLmT4-w
This has more rear legroom than a Lexus LS despite being two feet shorter. Also, the rear seats are power operated and can slide forward to give more cargo space if you don't need all that legroom. I've never seen anything like this.The new Ioniq 5 was just revealed. Looks really compelling.I love all the space between the front seats - no grotty foot wells - and a place for my hand bag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rnvzLmT4-w
I’m intriguedI guess this is similar to what they did with Genesis. First it was a sedan. Then there was a coupe version. And finally they turned it into a brand with several vehicles.
We came very close to getting the Ioniq Phev.
Wonder why Hyundai is choosing to use the ioniq moniker across its platform. I think it was a mistake for Toyota to do the same with the Prius (there what, like five models of Prius and about ten different drive trains?)
Porsche says they are developing clean synthetic fuels. Could this be true or just advertising BS?
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/02/23/porsche-synthetic-fuel/ (https://www.autoblog.com/2021/02/23/porsche-synthetic-fuel/)
If synthetic fuels could be developed that are fully non polluting, I would think it would be developed and marketed by one of the big oil companies. Liquid fuels have a higher energy density than batteries.
Porsche says they are developing clean synthetic fuels. Could this be true or just advertising BS?
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/02/23/porsche-synthetic-fuel/ (https://www.autoblog.com/2021/02/23/porsche-synthetic-fuel/)
If synthetic fuels could be developed that are fully non polluting, I would think it would be developed and marketed by one of the big oil companies. Liquid fuels have a higher energy density than batteries.
I wouldn't sit around hoping for a magic bullet. The challenges to developing biofuels have been discussed ad nauseam, but ultimately it boils down to the simple fact that petroleum is about 4-6x cheaper than the most economical biofuel. In comparison, BEVs and PHEVs cost less per mile than similar ICE vehicles under most circumstances.
If you're willing to pay $8/gallon and can get economies of scale going, sure... but then there's no economic reason to not use a BEV in the first place.
Porsche says they are developing clean synthetic fuels. Could this be true or just advertising BS?
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/02/23/porsche-synthetic-fuel/ (https://www.autoblog.com/2021/02/23/porsche-synthetic-fuel/)
If synthetic fuels could be developed that are fully non polluting, I would think it would be developed and marketed by one of the big oil companies. Liquid fuels have a higher energy density than batteries.
I wouldn't sit around hoping for a magic bullet. The challenges to developing biofuels have been discussed ad nauseam, but ultimately it boils down to the simple fact that petroleum is about 4-6x cheaper than the most economical biofuel. In comparison, BEVs and PHEVs cost less per mile than similar ICE vehicles under most circumstances.
If you're willing to pay $8/gallon and can get economies of scale going, sure... but then there's no economic reason to not use a BEV in the first place.
hence the "magic bullet" comment.Porsche says they are developing clean synthetic fuels. Could this be true or just advertising BS?
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/02/23/porsche-synthetic-fuel/ (https://www.autoblog.com/2021/02/23/porsche-synthetic-fuel/)
If synthetic fuels could be developed that are fully non polluting, I would think it would be developed and marketed by one of the big oil companies. Liquid fuels have a higher energy density than batteries.
I wouldn't sit around hoping for a magic bullet. The challenges to developing biofuels have been discussed ad nauseam, but ultimately it boils down to the simple fact that petroleum is about 4-6x cheaper than the most economical biofuel. In comparison, BEVs and PHEVs cost less per mile than similar ICE vehicles under most circumstances.
If you're willing to pay $8/gallon and can get economies of scale going, sure... but then there's no economic reason to not use a BEV in the first place.
Well yeah there’s a few huge reasons to use biofuel over BEVs...
1. Can continue using current vehicles (possibly with modifications) as opposed to replacing the fleet
2. Can continue using current infrastructure (gas stations etc) as opposed to replacing/building out EV charging stations
3. Refueling speed advantage of ICE vs BEV
4. No need to accommodate people who live in apartments or other places where charging is difficult (street parking)
5. Etc.
hence the "magic bullet" comment.Porsche says they are developing clean synthetic fuels. Could this be true or just advertising BS?
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/02/23/porsche-synthetic-fuel/ (https://www.autoblog.com/2021/02/23/porsche-synthetic-fuel/)
If synthetic fuels could be developed that are fully non polluting, I would think it would be developed and marketed by one of the big oil companies. Liquid fuels have a higher energy density than batteries.
I wouldn't sit around hoping for a magic bullet. The challenges to developing biofuels have been discussed ad nauseam, but ultimately it boils down to the simple fact that petroleum is about 4-6x cheaper than the most economical biofuel. In comparison, BEVs and PHEVs cost less per mile than similar ICE vehicles under most circumstances.
If you're willing to pay $8/gallon and can get economies of scale going, sure... but then there's no economic reason to not use a BEV in the first place.
Well yeah there’s a few huge reasons to use biofuel over BEVs...
1. Can continue using current vehicles (possibly with modifications) as opposed to replacing the fleet
2. Can continue using current infrastructure (gas stations etc) as opposed to replacing/building out EV charging stations
3. Refueling speed advantage of ICE vs BEV
4. No need to accommodate people who live in apartments or other places where charging is difficult (street parking)
5. Etc.
It's far cheaper to use petroleum-based fuels, and I see little appetite for most drivers to pay north of $8/gallon (before taxes) when the infrastructure and distribution for gasoline and diesel is already well established and costing sub-$4 (and now sub $3 equivalent). Those who might pay that much for transportation on an environmental standpoint are already doing so via BEV/PHEVs (and doing so for far less).
Various biofuels have been available for decades, including veggie oil, algae-derived lipids and ethanol. None have come anywhere close to competing with petroleum on price.
For the record I;m not against synthetic liquid fuels, but short of massive carbon taxes I don't see them as economically viable.
Premium fuel in Australia already costs $6/gallon so I wouldn't mind biofuel as an alternative particularly if it keeps ICE cars alive.
Mankind has done miraculous things using technology and the economy of scale. If there hadn't been a refining industry for over a hundred years constantly refining (get the pun) the process to make diesel fuel and gasoline, I could envision it costing over $30 gallon. To stifle an industry will cause the price of the product to rise. I used to work in the nuclear power industry. I believe there has been some heavy stifling for that business which once was a promising source of energy.
The point being not to give up on alternate fuels without even giving them a chance. It has not been mentioned, but they can also be blended with fossil fuels while not eliminating greenhouse gases, they would be reduced.
Mankind has done miraculous things using technology and the economy of scale. If there hadn't been a refining industry for over a hundred years constantly refining (get the pun) the process to make diesel fuel and gasoline, I could envision it costing over $30 gallon. To stifle an industry will cause the price of the product to rise. I used to work in the nuclear power industry. I believe there has been some heavy stifling for that business which once was a promising source of energy.
The point being not to give up on alternate fuels without even giving them a chance. It has not been mentioned, but they can also be blended with fossil fuels while not eliminating greenhouse gases, they would be reduced.
I'm not sure where posters are getting this idea that we are "giving up" on alternative fuels, or that we haven't "given them a chance". We've been mixing plant-derived ethanol into our gasoline supply en masse since WWII, and 30+ billion gallons/year since 2007's 'Renewable Fuels Standards". Companies and research institutions have been extensively investigating other bio-fuels for the last three decades, to the tune of billion$ annually. There's at least a dozen companies currently exploring conversion of algae into fuel. We've had credits of $1/gallon to support biodiesel.
Virtually everyone would love to develop a carbon-neutral fuel source that was price-competitive with petroleum. Almost all the literature concludes this can't happen with oil trading in the double-digits.
I am personally very excited by the thought of being able to power my house during outages (definitely a relevant topic right now) with bi-directional charging from an electric car. Helps justify a bigger battery in a car if it can have a dual purpose.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/wallbox-quasar-bi-directional-ev-charger-america/
I am personally very excited by the thought of being able to power my house during outages (definitely a relevant topic right now) with bi-directional charging from an electric car. Helps justify a bigger battery in a car if it can have a dual purpose.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/wallbox-quasar-bi-directional-ev-charger-america/
This is cool and could easily be done. The power company will have some concerns about safety (like they do with personal generators). If they have a power outage and shut down the normal power source so a utility worker can repair the line safely they aren't going to want you plugging your car in and putting voltage on the transmission lines. The fix is to interlock your home being disconnected from the power lines before you use your car to power your home.
I am personally very excited by the thought of being able to power my house during outages (definitely a relevant topic right now) with bi-directional charging from an electric car. Helps justify a bigger battery in a car if it can have a dual purpose.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/wallbox-quasar-bi-directional-ev-charger-america/
This is cool and could easily be done. The power company will have some concerns about safety (like they do with personal generators). If they have a power outage and shut down the normal power source so a utility worker can repair the line safely they aren't going to want you plugging your car in and putting voltage on the transmission lines. The fix is to interlock your home being disconnected from the power lines before you use your car to power your home.
I keep meaning to add something like this to my panel. I have a 6500w standalone generator in the garage, you install this, and then when you have an outage, wheel your generator out, power it up, plug it into the outlet that feeds this and flip some switches. Voila, power.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Reliance-Controls-10-Circuit-30-Amp-Manual-Transfer-Switch-Kit-310CRK/205793178
I am personally very excited by the thought of being able to power my house during outages (definitely a relevant topic right now) with bi-directional charging from an electric car. Helps justify a bigger battery in a car if it can have a dual purpose.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/wallbox-quasar-bi-directional-ev-charger-america/
This is cool and could easily be done. The power company will have some concerns about safety (like they do with personal generators). If they have a power outage and shut down the normal power source so a utility worker can repair the line safely they aren't going to want you plugging your car in and putting voltage on the transmission lines. The fix is to interlock your home being disconnected from the power lines before you use your car to power your home.
I keep meaning to add something like this to my panel. I have a 6500w standalone generator in the garage, you install this, and then when you have an outage, wheel your generator out, power it up, plug it into the outlet that feeds this and flip some switches. Voila, power.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Reliance-Controls-10-Circuit-30-Amp-Manual-Transfer-Switch-Kit-310CRK/205793178
Yep, easily done but not free - I have a standby generator with an automatic switch. Fortunately it came with the house :D
I am personally very excited by the thought of being able to power my house during outages (definitely a relevant topic right now) with bi-directional charging from an electric car. Helps justify a bigger battery in a car if it can have a dual purpose.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/wallbox-quasar-bi-directional-ev-charger-america/
This is cool and could easily be done. The power company will have some concerns about safety (like they do with personal generators). If they have a power outage and shut down the normal power source so a utility worker can repair the line safely they aren't going to want you plugging your car in and putting voltage on the transmission lines. The fix is to interlock your home being disconnected from the power lines before you use your car to power your home.
I keep meaning to add something like this to my panel. I have a 6500w standalone generator in the garage, you install this, and then when you have an outage, wheel your generator out, power it up, plug it into the outlet that feeds this and flip some switches. Voila, power.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Reliance-Controls-10-Circuit-30-Amp-Manual-Transfer-Switch-Kit-310CRK/205793178
Yep, easily done but not free - I have a standby generator with an automatic switch. Fortunately it came with the house :D
I looked into a whole house standby generator and you’re looking at probably $10k all in. Too rich for my blood, especially given how often we lose power (almost never). A panel at 5% (DIY) to 10% (professional install)* is much more reasonable IMO. Biggest downside is that it doesn’t work if I’m not home to set it up. Fortunately I have good neighbors who would be happy to help in return for access to a warm/cooled house.
*not including the generator I already own
I could easily see that if you "backfed" from your generator into the power line that a safety incident is likely. I'm looking out the window right now and the distribution transformer would step up my 220 volts to 13.8 kV. Would a person be liable for killing a lineman if this happened? The only disconnect between my house and that transformer is the meter which can be pulled. It doesn't take a lot of current to stop a heart.
FWIW a Generac 12KW house generator consumes 2 gallons of $2-$5 per gallon propane an hour. That "old style" generator must spin at 3600 to create the right AC frequency.
A newer inverter design generator uses much less fuel per hour. They are more expensive though. A 2000W inverter generator (enough to power a room, internet and maybe a fridge) can stretch a couple of gallons for 10+ hours.
I could easily see that if you "backfed" from your generator into the power line that a safety incident is likely. I'm looking out the window right now and the distribution transformer would step up my 220 volts to 13.8 kV. Would a person be liable for killing a lineman if this happened? The only disconnect between my house and that transformer is the meter which can be pulled. It doesn't take a lot of current to stop a heart.
FWIW a Generac 12KW house generator consumes 2 gallons of $2-$5 per gallon propane an hour. That "old style" generator must spin at 3600 to create the right AC frequency.
A newer inverter design generator uses much less fuel per hour. They are more expensive though. A 2000W inverter generator (enough to power a room, internet and maybe a fridge) can stretch a couple of gallons for 10+ hours.
All that I'll add to this discussion of generators is that they are a major source of house fires around us, so muchso that there are routine PSAs.
Wire them properly. Keep them outside, and at least 20' from your home or other structures (this includes a garage or woodshed!).
All that I'll add to this discussion of generators is that they are a major source of house fires around us, so muchso that there are routine PSAs.
Wire them properly. Keep them outside, and at least 20' from your home or other structures (this includes a garage or woodshed!).
All that I'll add to this discussion of generators is that they are a major source of house fires around us, so muchso that there are routine PSAs.
Wire them properly. Keep them outside, and at least 20' from your home or other structures (this includes a garage or woodshed!).
Except permanent house generators which always seem to be 3ft from the foundation. Yeah, for safety and noise reasons, I'd prefer our's to be elsewhere in the backyard.
Premium fuel in Australia already costs $6/gallon so I wouldn't mind biofuel as an alternative particularly if it keeps ICE cars alive.
Huh??!! ICE vehicles still make up >95% of all cars sold, and access to fuel isn’t a constraint. Alternative combustion fuels already exist. You are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist with a solution that does...
Premium fuel in Australia already costs $6/gallon so I wouldn't mind biofuel as an alternative particularly if it keeps ICE cars alive.
Premium fuel in Australia already costs $6/gallon so I wouldn't mind biofuel as an alternative particularly if it keeps ICE cars alive.
You can already get E85 at a handful of United servos. Could be fun with the modern turbo cars if they were able to run the stuff.
IMO one big challenge of EVs is the time they are charged. If one gets home at 6pm and plugs their car in, that's already the time of peak grid demand. Maybe smart chargers would be able to charge outside of peak, but at the risk of not enough charge overnight. Easier here with our 230V grid at least.
Premium fuel in Australia already costs $6/gallon so I wouldn't mind biofuel as an alternative particularly if it keeps ICE cars alive.
You can already get E85 at a handful of United servos. Could be fun with the modern turbo cars if they were able to run the stuff.
IMO one big challenge of EVs is the time they are charged. If one gets home at 6pm and plugs their car in, that's already the time of peak grid demand. Maybe smart chargers would be able to charge outside of peak, but at the risk of not enough charge overnight. Easier here with our 230V grid at least.
Premium fuel in Australia already costs $6/gallon so I wouldn't mind biofuel as an alternative particularly if it keeps ICE cars alive.
You can already get E85 at a handful of United servos. Could be fun with the modern turbo cars if they were able to run the stuff.
IMO one big challenge of EVs is the time they are charged. If one gets home at 6pm and plugs their car in, that's already the time of peak grid demand. Maybe smart chargers would be able to charge outside of peak, but at the risk of not enough charge overnight. Easier here with our 230V grid at least.
Pretty much all EVs allow you to schedule charging. I can plug mine in but program it to only charge from 9pm thru 7am, which avoids peak charging and still gives me an additional 40 miles of battery range.
It is a shame that in the US we went with 110v for residential plugs instead of the 230/208/240 available elsewhere.
Premium fuel in Australia already costs $6/gallon so I wouldn't mind biofuel as an alternative particularly if it keeps ICE cars alive.
You can already get E85 at a handful of United servos. Could be fun with the modern turbo cars if they were able to run the stuff.
IMO one big challenge of EVs is the time they are charged. If one gets home at 6pm and plugs their car in, that's already the time of peak grid demand. Maybe smart chargers would be able to charge outside of peak, but at the risk of not enough charge overnight. Easier here with our 230V grid at least.
Pretty much all EVs allow you to schedule charging. I can plug mine in but program it to only charge from 9pm thru 7am, which avoids peak charging and still gives me an additional 40 miles of battery range.
It is a shame that in the US we went with 110v for residential plugs instead of the 230/208/240 available elsewhere.
Don't forget that Europeans are 50 cycles too. So is Australia.
I'd like to put a Nissan Leaf battery at my house for backup power.
Can't justify the cost though. 62 KWH would last us for a couple of days if we were careful.
Much cheaper to recharge than to buy propane to power a generator.
I'd like to put a Nissan Leaf battery at my house for backup power.
Can't justify the cost though. 62 KWH would last us for a couple of days if we were careful.
Much cheaper to recharge than to buy propane to power a generator.
I was doing some calculations a week or so ago and found that buying a Leaf plus a compatible bi-directional charger (Wallbox Quasar is supposed to be $4k, assuming they have started selling them) was comparable in price to a Tesla Powerwall per kilowatt-hour (with the added bonus that you can drive it). On the cheaper end I believe the Kia Soul EV (previous gen, not current model year) was also compatible (CHAdeMO) and those can be found for around $10k, give or take and comes out noticeably cheaper per kilowatt-hour, though the total capacity is about half of the current Leaf.
I'd like to put a Nissan Leaf battery at my house for backup power.
Can't justify the cost though. 62 KWH would last us for a couple of days if we were careful.
Much cheaper to recharge than to buy propane to power a generator.
Interesting. Also, that's the same community featured in the movie Nomadland.I'd like to put a Nissan Leaf battery at my house for backup power.
Can't justify the cost though. 62 KWH would last us for a couple of days if we were careful.
Much cheaper to recharge than to buy propane to power a generator.
saw this the other day. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/interactive/2021/climate-solutions-electric-batteries/?itid=hp_national-0109
F-150 Lightning is a slam dunk for Ford. I’m impressed with the price to features, and I think they’ll sell a lot of them.
This is going to be great. Ford firing the first shot. GM, Chrysler (whatever they're called now), Toyota, Nissan will respond. Competition is great.GMC already announced the Hummer (https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev). I hope Toyota enters the game one of these days.
An electric small truck (like a Ford e-Ranger) would be my pick. It will happen, just needs time.
This is going to be great. Ford firing the first shot. GM, Chrysler (whatever they're called now), Toyota, Nissan will respond. Competition is great.
An electric small truck (like a Ford e-Ranger) would be my pick. It will happen, just needs time.
True, but I was talking mainstream work trucks like the Sierra/Silverado. Nissan could leverage tech developed for the Leaf into a Titan. Similarly e-Prius tech into a Tundra. Does Honda have a true electric vehicle? I know they have hybrids. They haven't been gung-ho on full electric.This is going to be great. Ford firing the first shot. GM, Chrysler (whatever they're called now), Toyota, Nissan will respond. Competition is great.GMC already announced the Hummer (https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev). I hope Toyota enters the game one of these days.
An electric small truck (like a Ford e-Ranger) would be my pick. It will happen, just needs time.
The Leaf's future is short. The aircooled battery's moment is over.
It is a shame that in the US we went with 110v for residential plugs instead of the 230/208/240 available elsewhere.
Is it really any worse than installing an electric dryer circuit? I've done that.Nope. Same thing.
Is it really any worse than installing an electric dryer circuit? I've done that.Nope. Same thing.
Just adding to stachingaway’s excellent post, virtually every hole in the US also has higher voltage circuits. On electric water heaters, heat pumps, dryers...
As soynyk wrote on another post, it’s both simple and cheap to install “dumb chargers” - 208v/240v on a standard 20A circuit which will give you 3.8kw on a cheap 16A charger and 12 gauge wire.
The routing of your circuit will depend on the geometry of your home. I will note that if the circuit is routed a long distance that voltage drop need be considered and conductor size be de-rated and resized accordingly. If I recall correctly the code allowed 3 percent voltage drop to the device.
Not sure. They quote 8-12 weeks to build it, but they’re coming out much faster than that in general. I ordered my last Jeep (that this one is replacing) and it was 3 weeks to the day from order to delivery.
I think you'll have a lot of fun with that Jeep. I think the folks in Toledo have worked hard on getting the thing right. If I wasn't so cheap, I'd buy one myself.
I have a 2018 model that I leased, that lease is ending hence the new one.
I have a 2018 model that I leased, that lease is ending hence the new one.
*checks which forum he's on*
Enjoy, I wouldn't mind a review of it, but... man, that's an expensive set of ways to have a Jeep. Get a 90s one that's already been modded for most of what you want to do, and get an efficient daily driver (Volt or something).
Where did they hide the battery on the new Jeep?
I saw on "Transport Evolved" last night that with discounts, people can buy a new Chevy Bolt for $25K at Costco.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlYB3KReoYc
FWIW Tesla does/did give away destination chargers to businesses. So that's a couple of hundred dollars they dont have to spend to deliver slow charging.
Those chargers are also non proprietary, so can charge most EV models.
FWIW Tesla does/did give away destination chargers to businesses. So that's a couple of hundred dollars they dont have to spend to deliver slow charging.
Those chargers are also non proprietary, so can charge most EV models.
I don't believe Tesla Destination Chargers are J1772. I was fairly certain they were still the proprietary Tesla connector.
The host has the option to get a destination charger with a Tesla only receptacle or a Tesla + J1772.
ev's as great as they are will not replace ice vehicles unless - battery tech / charging tech changes. Solid state batteries and graphene tech seem to be the only way (that i know of) that is going to happen.
I still think toyota is right in developing hydrogen. I think this is the way to go (with current battery tech at least)
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36341305/hydrogen-might-still-make-sense/
ev's as great as they are will not replace ice vehicles unless - battery tech / charging tech changes. Solid state batteries and graphene tech seem to be the only way (that i know of) that is going to happen.
I still think toyota is right in developing hydrogen. I think this is the way to go (with current battery tech at least)
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36341305/hydrogen-might-still-make-sense/
ev's as great as they are will not replace ice vehicles unless - battery tech / charging tech changes. Solid state batteries and graphene tech seem to be the only way (that i know of) that is going to happen.
I still think toyota is right in developing hydrogen. I think this is the way to go (with current battery tech at least)
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36341305/hydrogen-might-still-make-sense/
What's the current timeline and progression for energy density in batteries?Solid state batteries might become a thing in 2024.
Solid state batteries might become a thing in 2024.
Solid state batteries might become a thing in 2024.
Which is about the same "3-5 years away from production" they were 5-7 years ago, for reference.
For me the PHEV is the perfect solution. 99% of my driving is in a 5-10 mile radius from my house, so I’ll be on battery full time. The other 1% is long distance on gas. And on battery when I get there.
For me the PHEV is the perfect solution. 99% of my driving is in a 5-10 mile radius from my house, so I’ll be on battery full time. The other 1% is long distance on gas. And on battery when I get there.
I see what you're saying, and it makes a certain sense. But if you stated this situation another way: my car needs a separate second ICE engine for 1% of my driving needs; then I think you can see why some of us might also reasonably disagree. I mean you're not wrong given the reality of the world and what types of vehicles are currently available, but it's just maddening that a PHEV would make sense at all except during a very narrow historical time period as we transition over...but that transition is taking way too long!
For me the PHEV is the perfect solution. 99% of my driving is in a 5-10 mile radius from my house, so I’ll be on battery full time. The other 1% is long distance on gas. And on battery when I get there.
I see what you're saying, and it makes a certain sense. But if you stated this situation another way: my car needs a separate second ICE engine for 1% of my driving needs; then I think you can see why some of us might also reasonably disagree. I mean you're not wrong given the reality of the world and what types of vehicles are currently available, but it's just maddening that a PHEV would make sense at all except during a very narrow historical time period as we transition over...but that transition is taking way too long!
...but it's just maddening that a PHEV would make sense at all except during a very narrow historical time period as we transition over...but that transition is taking way too long!
Are PEHV's able to drive with one of the power system inoperative? ie if you are 100% out of gas or lost a fan belt can you still move on electric power or if the electric drive system is disabled (not just a fully drained battery) can the gas system still move the vehicle. I could see there maybe needing to be safety disconnects but that would also seem really dumb.
Are PEHV's able to drive with one of the power system inoperative? ie if you are 100% out of gas or lost a fan belt can you still move on electric power or if the electric drive system is disabled (not just a fully drained battery) can the gas system still move the vehicle. I could see there maybe needing to be safety disconnects but that would also seem really dumb.
For me the PHEV is the perfect solution. 99% of my driving is in a 5-10 mile radius from my house, so I’ll be on battery full time. The other 1% is long distance on gas. And on battery when I get there.
I see what you're saying, and it makes a certain sense. But if you stated this situation another way: my car needs a separate second ICE engine for 1% of my driving needs; then I think you can see why some of us might also reasonably disagree. I mean you're not wrong given the reality of the world and what types of vehicles are currently available, but it's just maddening that a PHEV would make sense at all except during a very narrow historical time period as we transition over...but that transition is taking way too long!
For me the PHEV is the perfect solution. 99% of my driving is in a 5-10 mile radius from my house, so I’ll be on battery full time. The other 1% is long distance on gas. And on battery when I get there.
I see what you're saying, and it makes a certain sense. But if you stated this situation another way: my car needs a separate second ICE engine for 1% of my driving needs; then I think you can see why some of us might also reasonably disagree. I mean you're not wrong given the reality of the world and what types of vehicles are currently available, but it's just maddening that a PHEV would make sense at all except during a very narrow historical time period as we transition over...but that transition is taking way too long!
I’m an edge case; I travel to vacation property ~350 miles one way on average about every month or two, and won’t buy a vehicle that won’t make that trip. Wrangler PHEV is perfect for that usage. Especially when you consider that a big reason why I go is to hunt, and a near-silent EV as a hunting/off road vehicle is perfect.
For me the PHEV is the perfect solution. 99% of my driving is in a 5-10 mile radius from my house, so I’ll be on battery full time. The other 1% is long distance on gas. And on battery when I get there.
I see what you're saying, and it makes a certain sense. But if you stated this situation another way: my car needs a separate second ICE engine for 1% of my driving needs; then I think you can see why some of us might also reasonably disagree. I mean you're not wrong given the reality of the world and what types of vehicles are currently available, but it's just maddening that a PHEV would make sense at all except during a very narrow historical time period as we transition over...but that transition is taking way too long!
I’m an edge case; I travel to vacation property ~350 miles one way on average about every month or two, and won’t buy a vehicle that won’t make that trip. Wrangler PHEV is perfect for that usage. Especially when you consider that a big reason why I go is to hunt, and a near-silent EV as a hunting/off road vehicle is perfect.
The charging infrastructure is yet to be determined AFAIK, but the F150 Lightning is rumored to have a 400+mi range unloaded.
I expect the usual hate from the "BEV Only!" people who don't seem to want to consider the reality that batteries don't come from the battery fairy, so... *shrug* Bring math if you're going to do that.
I was looking at the Toyota Venza (hybrid) for my wife's next car, but then I saw a few reviews of the Hyundai Ioniq 5, and that looks amazing! Based on what I've seen, I'm more impressed with the Ioniq 5 than any other EVs in this price range.
Apparently Hyundai is considering a three-month rental/lease so that consumers can try the car out before buying it (or not). If the price is right, I'll go for it.
I was looking at the Toyota Venza (hybrid) for my wife's next car, but then I saw a few reviews of the Hyundai Ioniq 5, and that looks amazing! Based on what I've seen, I'm more impressed with the Ioniq 5 than any other EVs in this price range.
Apparently Hyundai is considering a three-month rental/lease so that consumers can try the car out before buying it (or not). If the price is right, I'll go for it.
I am very impressed with this as well. First affordable EV (along with its sibling the Kia EV6) to have an 800V charging system. Which is finally a match for Tesla in charging speed (10% to 80% in 18 minutes). They are also throwing in two free years of rapid charging at Electrify America charging stations (https://www.hyundainews.com/en-us/releases/3324).
I was looking at the Toyota Venza (hybrid) for my wife's next car, but then I saw a few reviews of the Hyundai Ioniq 5, and that looks amazing! Based on what I've seen, I'm more impressed with the Ioniq 5 than any other EVs in this price range.
Apparently Hyundai is considering a three-month rental/lease so that consumers can try the car out before buying it (or not). If the price is right, I'll go for it.
I am very impressed with this as well. First affordable EV (along with its sibling the Kia EV6) to have an 800V charging system. Which is finally a match for Tesla in charging speed (10% to 80% in 18 minutes). They are also throwing in two free years of rapid charging at Electrify America charging stations (https://www.hyundainews.com/en-us/releases/3324).
"Now... how long til this production bottleneck get solved? Seems now is the absolute worst time to be in the market for a car, new or used."
Inflation is coming. Prices will be rising. Today's prices will soon look cheap.
Also alot of talk about the dead weight of batteries but no talk of the dead weight of the gas system in a phev and cost of resources for that to just sit in the car most of the time.
Batteries will be the supply chain constraint for Bev but that pressure will lead to production scale faster.
??? I've read my post a few times, I can only guess you're responding to someone else and not me with this... *shrug*
For me the PHEV is the perfect solution. 99% of my driving is in a 5-10 mile radius from my house, so I’ll be on battery full time. The other 1% is long distance on gas. And on battery when I get there.
I see what you're saying, and it makes a certain sense. But if you stated this situation another way: my car needs a separate second ICE engine for 1% of my driving needs; then I think you can see why some of us might also reasonably disagree. I mean you're not wrong given the reality of the world and what types of vehicles are currently available, but it's just maddening that a PHEV would make sense at all except during a very narrow historical time period as we transition over...but that transition is taking way too long!
I’m an edge case; I travel to vacation property ~350 miles one way on average about every month or two, and won’t buy a vehicle that won’t make that trip. Wrangler PHEV is perfect for that usage. Especially when you consider that a big reason why I go is to hunt, and a near-silent EV as a hunting/off road vehicle is perfect.
The charging infrastructure is yet to be determined AFAIK, but the F150 Lightning is rumored to have a 400+mi range unloaded.
Yep early reports are closer to 460 miles with the demo truck they've been sending to bloggers.
"Now... how long til this production bottleneck get solved? Seems now is the absolute worst time to be in the market for a car, new or used."
Inflation is coming. Prices will be rising. Today's prices will soon look cheap.
"Now... how long til this production bottleneck get solved? Seems now is the absolute worst time to be in the market for a car, new or used."
Inflation is coming. Prices will be rising. Today's prices will soon look cheap.
Can I grab that crystal ball when you're done with it?
For me the PHEV is the perfect solution. 99% of my driving is in a 5-10 mile radius from my house, so I’ll be on battery full time. The other 1% is long distance on gas. And on battery when I get there.
I see what you're saying, and it makes a certain sense. But if you stated this situation another way: my car needs a separate second ICE engine for 1% of my driving needs; then I think you can see why some of us might also reasonably disagree. I mean you're not wrong given the reality of the world and what types of vehicles are currently available, but it's just maddening that a PHEV would make sense at all except during a very narrow historical time period as we transition over...but that transition is taking way too long!
I’m an edge case; I travel to vacation property ~350 miles one way on average about every month or two, and won’t buy a vehicle that won’t make that trip. Wrangler PHEV is perfect for that usage. Especially when you consider that a big reason why I go is to hunt, and a near-silent EV as a hunting/off road vehicle is perfect.
The charging infrastructure is yet to be determined AFAIK, but the F150 Lightning is rumored to have a 400+mi range unloaded.
Yep early reports are closer to 460 miles with the demo truck they've been sending to bloggers. Also most people do not drive 350 miles straight without stopping for food or to use facilities. Current chargers may add 20 minutes to a trip if your battery won't get you there in one shot. Also alot of talk about the dead weight of batteries but no talk of the dead weight of the gas system in a phev and cost of resources for that to just sit in the car most of the time. Batteries will be the supply chain constraint for Bev but that pressure will lead to production scale faster.
That’s if the chargers work at advertised speeds, if chargers work at all, and if there aren’t 5 other cars ahead of you in line.
The reviews I’ve seen of charging networks that aren’t Tesla are FAR from confidence inspiring. Considering my usual trip (leave after work, arrive at midnight or later) any extra time is a real drag, and given the fact I’m out in the middle of nowhere northern WI, any breakdown in the meager infrastructure is “catastrophic”.
"Now... how long til this production bottleneck get solved? Seems now is the absolute worst time to be in the market for a car, new or used."
Inflation is coming. Prices will be rising. Today's prices will soon look cheap.
Can I grab that crystal ball when you're done with it?
I don't think you need a Crystal ball for that one. All you need is a history book.
That’s if the chargers work at advertised speeds, if chargers work at all, and if there aren’t 5 other cars ahead of you in line.
The reviews I’ve seen of charging networks that aren’t Tesla are FAR from confidence inspiring. Considering my usual trip (leave after work, arrive at midnight or later) any extra time is a real drag, and given the fact I’m out in the middle of nowhere northern WI, any breakdown in the meager infrastructure is “catastrophic”.
Tesla has a huge advantage in this respect. I really want a Lightning but until there's evidence of a competitive / equivalent charging network, it'll be a tough switch.
That’s if the chargers work at advertised speeds, if chargers work at all, and if there aren’t 5 other cars ahead of you in line.
The reviews I’ve seen of charging networks that aren’t Tesla are FAR from confidence inspiring. Considering my usual trip (leave after work, arrive at midnight or later) any extra time is a real drag, and given the fact I’m out in the middle of nowhere northern WI, any breakdown in the meager infrastructure is “catastrophic”.
Tesla has a huge advantage in this respect. I really want a Lightning but until there's evidence of a competitive / equivalent charging network, it'll be a tough switch.
How much are you actually using super chargers. Most range and charging fear is massively over blown in people's minds
That’s if the chargers work at advertised speeds, if chargers work at all, and if there aren’t 5 other cars ahead of you in line.
The reviews I’ve seen of charging networks that aren’t Tesla are FAR from confidence inspiring. Considering my usual trip (leave after work, arrive at midnight or later) any extra time is a real drag, and given the fact I’m out in the middle of nowhere northern WI, any breakdown in the meager infrastructure is “catastrophic”.
Tesla has a huge advantage in this respect. I really want a Lightning but until there's evidence of a competitive / equivalent charging network, it'll be a tough switch.
How much are you actually using super chargers. Most range and charging fear is massively over blown in people's minds
...
I’m talking about a specific trip I take 8-10+ times a year. Note I often make this trip when lots of other people are also making the same trip (holiday weekends, hunting opening day, etc) and half the time I do it in pretty significant cold (snowmobiling). This will require a stop, and last I checked, there were few good convenient stops to recharge and when it’s a holiday those will get congested.
Again, edge case I realize.
(Showing less than the correct distance because I mapped from city center to city center, not address to address)
...
I’m talking about a specific trip I take 8-10+ times a year. Note I often make this trip when lots of other people are also making the same trip (holiday weekends, hunting opening day, etc) and half the time I do it in pretty significant cold (snowmobiling). This will require a stop, and last I checked, there were few good convenient stops to recharge and when it’s a holiday those will get congested.
Again, edge case I realize.
(Showing less than the correct distance because I mapped from city center to city center, not address to address)
Do whatever you want and feel free to justify it however you want to yourself but at least make the effort to post a relevant map.
...
I’m talking about a specific trip I take 8-10+ times a year. Note I often make this trip when lots of other people are also making the same trip (holiday weekends, hunting opening day, etc) and half the time I do it in pretty significant cold (snowmobiling). This will require a stop, and last I checked, there were few good convenient stops to recharge and when it’s a holiday those will get congested.
Again, edge case I realize.
(Showing less than the correct distance because I mapped from city center to city center, not address to address)
Do whatever you want and feel free to justify it however you want to yourself but at least make the effort to post a relevant map.
I’m squinting here, but it looks like Chris22 is showing the same map that you are, only his limits to charging stations along his chosen route, while yours shows everything in the state...?
I mean, both show 3 chargers along a ~300-some mile route. Ultimately it only matters how many are along your route, as you one must chose only one way to go even when multiple are available. That said, it certainly looks feasible to make the trip on a BEV with a 30-45 minute stop somewhere in the middle-ish. As Chris22 said, there might be a significant wait, which is a definite consideration.
::shrug::
Facebook started showing me Toyota hybrid ads and their tagline is "40 MPG. Goodbye range anxiety!"
I'd guess range anxiety (or whatever that'd be called) is a major obstacle in fully electric adoption at this point if companies are able/willing to advertise this.
Facebook started showing me Toyota hybrid ads and their tagline is "40 MPG. Goodbye range anxiety!"
When they start selling lots of electric cars (and they will) and sell less gas, how are they going to tax folks to fix the roads?
In addition to the registration fees, the Secretary shall assess an additional $100 per year in lieu of the payment of motor fuel taxes.
When they start selling lots of electric cars (and they will) and sell less gas, how are they going to tax folks to fix the roads?
When they start selling lots of electric cars (and they will) and sell less gas, how are they going to tax folks to fix the roads?
My chart doesn’t show chargers, I think it shows speed traps.
When they start selling lots of electric cars (and they will) and sell less gas, how are they going to tax folks to fix the roads?
The new "compromise" infrastructure bill being pushed by the group of 10 senators has a provision which would add a tax on BEVs.
I don't mind paying an additional fee, but I think we also need to increase the federal gas tax (which has remained static since 1993, even as fuel standards have more than doubled during this timeframe). While there is some validity that BEV drivers "get a free ride" by not paying the (meager) gas tax, they also don't contribute as heavily to ground-level air pollution (which is itself a substantial cost).
Here's what I think is fair:
Flat tax BEVs $60/year (roughly equivalent of 12,000 miles for a fuel efficient 45mpg car and a gas tax at 25¢/mile)
Flat tax PHEVs around $30/year (as they will use some fuel, depending on usage)
Raise federal gas tax to 25¢ immediately, then by 5¢ each year through 2031 (ending at 68.3¢/gallon in ten years).
Ultimately a gas-tax is an imperfect way of funding road infrastructure, as there can be an ENORMOUS difference in road usage and taxes paid (consider a BEV driver with a 60mi commute each way to a F350 construction who tows heavy equipment; regardless of where you set the gas tax or subsequent annual fees the two drivers will pay no where near the same in tax based on miles driven).
Biden already said no to a gas tax increase and i highly doubt he wants to have a BEV tax as he wants to subsidize that more heavily. i think the infrastructure bill doesnt get done til the end of the year in budget reconciliattion along with whatever other tax credits and ACA credits they can get manchin to agree to.
Biden already said no to a gas tax increase and i highly doubt he wants to have a BEV tax as he wants to subsidize that more heavily. i think the infrastructure bill doesnt get done til the end of the year in budget reconciliattion along with whatever other tax credits and ACA credits they can get manchin to agree to.
That's a shame... though there's what I'd like to happen and what's politically feasible.
Raising the gasoline tax could be an efficient way of both increasing revenue for transportation infrastructure and accelerating the changeover to electric vehicles. TBH I'd favor a much more extreme increase in the gasoline tax, but realize that's a non-starter with just about everyone.
Biden already said no to a gas tax increase and i highly doubt he wants to have a BEV tax as he wants to subsidize that more heavily. i think the infrastructure bill doesnt get done til the end of the year in budget reconciliattion along with whatever other tax credits and ACA credits they can get manchin to agree to.
That's a shame... though there's what I'd like to happen and what's politically feasible.
Raising the gasoline tax could be an efficient way of both increasing revenue for transportation infrastructure and accelerating the changeover to electric vehicles. TBH I'd favor a much more extreme increase in the gasoline tax, but realize that's a non-starter with just about everyone.
Carbon tax would be better, that way we'd equally effect all markets so that the most economical overall system works itself out.
Obviously this is a personal and very local problem. But it's also a more general issue, given that similar high-density housing is generally concentrated in the same urban(ish) areas where EVs would otherwise make the most sense --shorter in-city commutes being an ideal use-case. But if you can't charge at home, then EVs are a non-starter.
But for modern EVs with 4x the range, and 5x faster charging a city dweller could easily get by with a 15 minute DC fast charge once week, or level 2 charging twice a week while going to the gym or getting groceries, restaurant.They could. But it's a much bigger leap into the great uncertain. Much harder to expand into the mainstream and out of the enthusiast niche like that. Plus, DC fast charge rates that I see around are kind of expensive, and negate the $ advantage over ICE.
But for modern EVs with 4x the range, and 5x faster charging a city dweller could easily get by with a 15 minute DC fast charge once week, or level 2 charging twice a week while going to the gym or getting groceries, restaurant.They could. But it's a much bigger leap into the great uncertain. Much harder to expand into the mainstream and out of the enthusiast niche like that. Plus, DC fast charge rates that I see around are kind of expensive, and negate the $ advantage over ICE.
Granted, "stealing" a couple of kWh here and there for free can bring the average down.
With 40mpg+ ICE vehicles and $3 gasoline, the majority of the savings with a BEV isn’t on fuel, but on reduced maintenance costs (which over the life of the vehicle is substantial).
With 40mpg+ ICE vehicles and $3 gasoline, the majority of the savings with a BEV isn’t on fuel, but on reduced maintenance costs (which over the life of the vehicle is substantial).
Maybe "negate" was a wrong word to use - let's say, reduce the $ advantage. And the fuel cost advantage exists, even with $3 gas and 40 mpg, as long as you charge at the retail electricity rate:
$3 gas and 40 mpg = 7.5 cents per mile
$0.11/kWh and 4 miles per kWh = 2.75 cents per mile
But for modern EVs with 4x the range, and 5x faster charging a city dweller could easily get by with a 15 minute DC fast charge once week, or level 2 charging twice a week while going to the gym or getting groceries, restaurant.They could. But it's a much bigger leap into the great uncertain. Much harder to expand into the mainstream and out of the enthusiast niche like that. Plus, DC fast charge rates that I see around are kind of expensive, and negate the $ advantage over ICE.
Granted, "stealing" a couple of kWh here and there for free can bring the average down.
With 40mpg+ ICE vehicles and $3 gasoline, the majority of the savings with a BEV isn’t on fuel, but on reduced maintenance costs (which over the life of the vehicle is substantial).
But for modern EVs with 4x the range, and 5x faster charging a city dweller could easily get by with a 15 minute DC fast charge once week, or level 2 charging twice a week while going to the gym or getting groceries, restaurant.They could. But it's a much bigger leap into the great uncertain. Much harder to expand into the mainstream and out of the enthusiast niche like that. Plus, DC fast charge rates that I see around are kind of expensive, and negate the $ advantage over ICE.
Granted, "stealing" a couple of kWh here and there for free can bring the average down.
With 40mpg+ ICE vehicles and $3 gasoline, the majority of the savings with a BEV isn’t on fuel, but on reduced maintenance costs (which over the life of the vehicle is substantial).
Meh, I just did the math on our CUV, and I estimate it will cost about $1667 to do all the required maintenance for 100k miles. That’s excluding things that are not unique to ICE cars (tire rotations, brake fluid flush, cabin air filter, tires, etc). I did include brake pads since EVs go through brakes more slowly than ICE cars. Figuring 100k miles is somewhere between 8-10 years on average, saving $167-200 per year doesn’t seem that significant to me but YMMV. Also because of the high torque, EVs tend to go through tires more quickly than ICE cars, so if an ICE car uses 2 sets of tires in 100k miles, an EV might use 3, for an additional cost of ~$600 or so. That brings the ICE maintenance down to only $1k over 100k miles.
Not to argue against EVs, I just think the whole “no (low) maintenance” thing is overstated in terms of cost savings.
timing belts, drive belts, transmission fluid, differential oil, coolant flush, water pump / starter / AC compressor / alternator failure
On my older cars, I've done most of these things:Quotetiming belts, drive belts, transmission fluid, differential oil, coolant flush, water pump / starter / AC compressor / alternator failure
More recently, I did ignition coils (about $200), and I replaced an alternator ($235). Both in the 90-100k range. I could see the others going out, but they are kind of like a 6-sided dice over 150,000 miles. They might fail. They might not.
So in EVs, how does the climate control work? Is that still an AC compressor? (Yes, jus4t one of the items on that list :)!)
But for modern EVs with 4x the range, and 5x faster charging a city dweller could easily get by with a 15 minute DC fast charge once week, or level 2 charging twice a week while going to the gym or getting groceries, restaurant.They could. But it's a much bigger leap into the great uncertain. Much harder to expand into the mainstream and out of the enthusiast niche like that. Plus, DC fast charge rates that I see around are kind of expensive, and negate the $ advantage over ICE.
Granted, "stealing" a couple of kWh here and there for free can bring the average down.
With 40mpg+ ICE vehicles and $3 gasoline, the majority of the savings with a BEV isn’t on fuel, but on reduced maintenance costs (which over the life of the vehicle is substantial).
Meh, I just did the math on our CUV, and I estimate it will cost about $1667 to do all the required maintenance for 100k miles. That’s excluding things that are not unique to ICE cars (tire rotations, brake fluid flush, cabin air filter, tires, etc). I did include brake pads since EVs go through brakes more slowly than ICE cars. Figuring 100k miles is somewhere between 8-10 years on average, saving $167-200 per year doesn’t seem that significant to me but YMMV. Also because of the high torque, EVs tend to go through tires more quickly than ICE cars, so if an ICE car uses 2 sets of tires in 100k miles, an EV might use 3, for an additional cost of ~$600 or so. That brings the ICE maintenance down to only $1k over 100k miles.
Not to argue against EVs, I just think the whole “no (low) maintenance” thing is overstated in terms of cost savings.
I'd be astonished if you ended up with that little maintenance in 10 years unless you don't do / need / have anything like timing belts, drive belts, transmission fluid, differential oil, coolant flush, water pump / starter / AC compressor / alternator failure, etc. 100k+ is when you often start seeing failures like that (and other maintenance items like spark plugs, potential coil pack replacement, fuel pump failure, etc).
I also only drive fast or off-road ICE vehicles (and often 200k+ miles with maintenance catchup required) so my perspective is skewed. :)
But for modern EVs with 4x the range, and 5x faster charging a city dweller could easily get by with a 15 minute DC fast charge once week, or level 2 charging twice a week while going to the gym or getting groceries, restaurant.They could. But it's a much bigger leap into the great uncertain. Much harder to expand into the mainstream and out of the enthusiast niche like that. Plus, DC fast charge rates that I see around are kind of expensive, and negate the $ advantage over ICE.
Granted, "stealing" a couple of kWh here and there for free can bring the average down.
With 40mpg+ ICE vehicles and $3 gasoline, the majority of the savings with a BEV isn’t on fuel, but on reduced maintenance costs (which over the life of the vehicle is substantial).
Meh, I just did the math on our CUV, and I estimate it will cost about $1667 to do all the required maintenance for 100k miles. That’s excluding things that are not unique to ICE cars (tire rotations, brake fluid flush, cabin air filter, tires, etc). I did include brake pads since EVs go through brakes more slowly than ICE cars. Figuring 100k miles is somewhere between 8-10 years on average, saving $167-200 per year doesn’t seem that significant to me but YMMV. Also because of the high torque, EVs tend to go through tires more quickly than ICE cars, so if an ICE car uses 2 sets of tires in 100k miles, an EV might use 3, for an additional cost of ~$600 or so. That brings the ICE maintenance down to only $1k over 100k miles.
Not to argue against EVs, I just think the whole “no (low) maintenance” thing is overstated in terms of cost savings.
I'd be astonished if you ended up with that little maintenance in 10 years unless you don't do / need / have anything like timing belts, drive belts, transmission fluid, differential oil, coolant flush, water pump / starter / AC compressor / alternator failure, etc. 100k+ is when you often start seeing failures like that (and other maintenance items like spark plugs, potential coil pack replacement, fuel pump failure, etc).
I also only drive fast or off-road ICE vehicles (and often 200k+ miles with maintenance catchup required) so my perspective is skewed. :)
Most of that stuff I accounted for. Failures I did not account for (they’re not “maintenance” and most of that shouldn’t fail in <100k miles). Timing belt is a little bit of a cheat because that’s usually at 105k miles so I guess you should amortize. My wife’s car is at 84k miles and I used what I’ve already done per the book + the maintenance schedule out to 100k.
*cries in NJ electricity prices*Well, our gas prices are usually lower, too.
*cries in NJ electricity prices*Well, our gas prices are usually lower, too.
But if you get SOLAR... Ownership of which, apparently, correlates with EV ownership pretty well.
How carefully do most people maintain their cars, though? There's a pretty big cohort that get a new car every 3 years, if they do an oil change twice a year that's only $100/year.
How carefully do most people maintain their cars, though? There's a pretty big cohort that get a new car every 3 years, if they do an oil change twice a year that's only $100/year.
At 42mpg and an annual median driving distance is 12,000 miles an ICE vehicle will burn $285 gallons per year. That’s $857 if fuel is $3/gallon. It’s also the ceiling for “fuel savings” IF a BEV owner gets free charging (like I did through work). Most have to pay for their charging though. Currently we pay $0.11 per kw residential, which gives us a total of $534 if we pay for all the charging ourselves. More if we use DC fast. chargers. Slightly less for us in reality because we do some free Charging. But to compare ours about a $320/savings on fuel.If my math is right (which it very well may not be), that's 2.5 miles/kWh. Is this what you are getting? What kind of car is it?
I had a good discussion yesterday with the owner of a 2012 Chevy Volt. He said the thing had given him absolutely no trouble and most of his trips were pure electric. It got me to wondering.
I'm old enough to remember when Detroit had little competition and planned obsolescence had cars falling apart in 3 years.
My next one will probably be electric, but I've got a lot of wear and tear to go on my current vehicle. If electric cars have the simplicity and longevity as the owners I've talked with have told me, the manufacturers will probably be selling less cars. Fewer replacement vehicles will be needed. Businesses like steady cash flows. Unlike the construction business, they are not working themselves out of a job.
Is there a chance car manufacturers will build cars with planned obsolescence again?
If electric cars have the simplicity and longevity as the owners I've talked with have told me, the manufacturers will probably be selling less cars. Fewer replacement vehicles will be needed. Businesses like steady cash flows. Unlike the construction business, they are not working themselves out of a job.
the "rent your vehicle from us!" bean counter crew will start also putting ads on the massive in-vehicle infotainment screens. At least until some software engineering intern flubs an update, an ad runs while driving, a driver with an ad running causes a massive/expensive wreck, and then lawyers and nhsta get involved.
I had a good discussion yesterday with the owner of a 2012 Chevy Volt. He said the thing had given him absolutely no trouble and most of his trips were pure electric. It got me to wondering.
I'm old enough to remember when Detroit had little competition and planned obsolescence had cars falling apart in 3 years.
My next one will probably be electric, but I've got a lot of wear and tear to go on my current vehicle. If electric cars have the simplicity and longevity as the owners I've talked with have told me, the manufacturers will probably be selling less cars. Fewer replacement vehicles will be needed. Businesses like steady cash flows. Unlike the construction business, they are not working themselves out of a job.
Is there a chance car manufacturers will build cars with planned obsolescence again?
I had a good discussion yesterday with the owner of a 2012 Chevy Volt. He said the thing had given him absolutely no trouble and most of his trips were pure electric. It got me to wondering.
I'm old enough to remember when Detroit had little competition and planned obsolescence had cars falling apart in 3 years.
My next one will probably be electric, but I've got a lot of wear and tear to go on my current vehicle. If electric cars have the simplicity and longevity as the owners I've talked with have told me, the manufacturers will probably be selling less cars. Fewer replacement vehicles will be needed. Businesses like steady cash flows. Unlike the construction business, they are not working themselves out of a job.
Is there a chance car manufacturers will build cars with planned obsolescence again?
I'd guess that in the future it's far more likely to be software that bricks an EV than hardware. Think of cell phone makers no longer supporting certain older phones, or the transition to 5G allowing them to stop 3G service, etc. Pretty much all of the new EVs are internet connected and can be updated wirelessly like a cell phone. Tesla has already remotely removed features on a vehicle when the original owner sold it to a used buyer. They can also remotely change how the battery is managed which alters it's life and vehicle range, just like Apple did to old Iphones.
...but long term this will become a non issue as none off us will own personal vehicles.
I'm fine with software updates that add and or remove features provided the owner has the option to roll back updates.
The exception being software recalls must not be able to be rolled back.
Makes a bit of a maintenance headache, but long term this will become a non issue as none off us will own personal vehicles.
...but long term this will become a non issue as none off us will own personal vehicles.
What's the timeline on your proclamation?
There are way too many instances where someone would want to have control over their own vehicle for only using them in a ride sharing capacity will be anything but a fringe case.
QuoteThere are way too many instances where someone would want to have control over their own vehicle for only using them in a ride sharing capacity will be anything but a fringe case.
I'd love you hear your reasons if you're open to understanding how they could be solved.
"Solving" make this sound as if it's a current bug. Many people treat private car ownership as a feature that does not need solving. So many vehicles are already acknowledged as luxuries, toys, or a hobby beyond those who purchase vehicles to get them from A to B.QuoteThere are way too many instances where someone would want to have control over their own vehicle for only using them in a ride sharing capacity will be anything but a fringe case.
I'd love you hear your reasons if you're open to understanding how they could be solved.
Widespread (20%) adoption a decade from now. 90% adoption in metropolitan areas within two decades.
I always wonder if people who think autonomous cars are 5 years away have driven a current semi-autonomous car. Anyone with a car with radar cruise control or lane keep assist, and has driven in any kind of inclement weather, knows those systems absolutely shut down almost immediately when faced with rain or a little bit of snow, or even just a bunch of splattered bugs. We can’t have a transportation system that absolutely shits the bed every time we get an inch of snow. People in Silicon Valley might not realize that. People with 4 seasons know it intuitively.
It’s estimated that around 95% of American households own a car, and 85% of Americans commute to work by car.
Growing up in rural areas and living in semi-suburban areas, almost everyone has things in their car at any given time, from supplies for their babies/kids to dog crates to tools.
When you plan a weekend away, you pack your car over the course of an hour or more, not minutes. (Yes a rental could be made to arrive a day early and leave a day late if you don't mind the extra cost.) When you're camping, your car stays with you. (This is just fresh in my mind from a camping trip.)
When you want to drive the 10-15 minutes to the grocery store, you do not wish to wait 15-20 minutes for your car to arrive. I had an Uber come to my house once, with a human driver. It took at least 25 minutes for them to arrive.
While cars are a mix of utilitarian/purpose-driven sedans and trucks, most people feel some sort of ownership over their vehicles. Most of these people will still be alive 10 years from now, and many of them are unlikely to change.
Still, your goalposts shifted a lot from "none of us owning a car" to 20% of people not owning a car a decade from now. What's the current car ownership in high density cities?
https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-automobiles/u-s-cities-with-the-highest-and-lowest-vehicle-ownership/
Newark, NJ has just 59.7% of citizens owning cars. It's also host to a large train hub with a direct line into NYC. Scroll down a bit, though...QuoteIt’s estimated that around 95% of American households own a car, and 85% of Americans commute to work by car.
I always wonder if people who think autonomous cars are 5 years away have driven a current semi-autonomous car. Anyone with a car with radar cruise control or lane keep assist, and has driven in any kind of inclement weather, knows those systems absolutely shut down almost immediately when faced with rain or a little bit of snow, or even just a bunch of splattered bugs. We can’t have a transportation system that absolutely shits the bed every time we get an inch of snow. People in Silicon Valley might not realize that. People with 4 seasons know it intuitively.
There seems to be this notion that autonomous cars and car-sharing are an intertwined idea. Maybe there is some credence to that (easy to envision ordering a car and it drives itself to your abode) but it's hard to be sure about the future. I can also see car-sharing becoming ubiquitous in some areas but rarely used elsewhere and that to me is independent of the autonomous nature. Or I could see car-sharing of autonomous vehicles being the norm but each idea garnered critical mass at dates many years apart. Who knows?
I love the idea of OWNING an autonomous vehicle someday. If for whatever reason(s) at some point in the future I decide it is silly to own when I could rent for such a low fraction, then I'll have no problem doing that. But for a one-car household, it's just hard to envision for the time being that we won't have at least one vehicle to keep our own sunglasses, reusable grocery bags, golf clubs, etc. in there without having to transfer any of our shit to another vehicle. Yup, we pay for the privilege and convenience of doing that in our own non-autonomous vehicle now and I would think we would do the same in the future whenever we acquire an autonomous one. If we're talking about using multiple vehicles one day and we have one we own and then a different one we rent from time to time, that seems more realistic. Who the hell knows, though, what people will find more convenient in the future? Maybe we won't care that 1000 other people have farted and fucked in the same seat that we're renting and the reasons gradually subside. We shall see!
Change is coming? Yup.
Autonomous cars that are a better experience, better financials and the greater preference of the masses to private ownership en masse?
I'll sit and watch and wait.
I keep seeing this horse/car analogy. Presumably early cars replaced the muscles of horses with ICE power?
People stopped owning horses for transportation when they... started owning cars. Now cars have new features. People won't want to own them?
I keep seeing this horse/car analogy. Presumably early cars replaced the muscles of horses with ICE power?
People stopped owning horses for transportation when they... started owning cars. Now cars have new features. People won't want to own them?
I keep seeing this horse/car analogy. Presumably early cars replaced the muscles of horses with ICE power?
People stopped owning horses for transportation when they... started owning cars. Now cars have new features. People won't want to own them?
The RAV4 Prime will probably become the best-selling Toyota before long, and we'll be left to wonder when Toyota, Honda and Nissan will go all-electric with their SUVs.
Correct, only about 20x a year when I fly to DC for work in a non-pandemic year. I do not miss using public transport everyday. I work from home when not in DC. Now most things are walkable or bikable and then there's the vehicle I own to run errands (or to drive my wife to work) or to drive to the in-laws lakehouse or my family's rural property. If our vehicle was electric and/or autonomous, I'd be fine with that but I'd still want to own until I can be assured (if ever) of unfettered access when I want it.There seems to be this notion that autonomous cars and car-sharing are an intertwined idea. Maybe there is some credence to that (easy to envision ordering a car and it drives itself to your abode) but it's hard to be sure about the future. I can also see car-sharing becoming ubiquitous in some areas but rarely used elsewhere and that to me is independent of the autonomous nature. Or I could see car-sharing of autonomous vehicles being the norm but each idea garnered critical mass at dates many years apart. Who knows?
I love the idea of OWNING an autonomous vehicle someday. If for whatever reason(s) at some point in the future I decide it is silly to own when I could rent for such a low fraction, then I'll have no problem doing that. But for a one-car household, it's just hard to envision for the time being that we won't have at least one vehicle to keep our own sunglasses, reusable grocery bags, golf clubs, etc. in there without having to transfer any of our shit to another vehicle. Yup, we pay for the privilege and convenience of doing that in our own non-autonomous vehicle now and I would think we would do the same in the future whenever we acquire an autonomous one. If we're talking about using multiple vehicles one day and we have one we own and then a different one we rent from time to time, that seems more realistic. Who the hell knows, though, what people will find more convenient in the future? Maybe we won't care that 1000 other people have farted and fucked in the same seat that we're renting and the reasons gradually subside. We shall see!
You don't use public transport buses trains and planes that often, by the sounds…
Short term: it's so we can zone out in the cesspool that is traffic and imagine what it's like not being in an existential hell.
Long term: automated DDs for drunkards to reduce traffic deaths.
There's a small technological revolution going on that could accelerate the shift from cars.
I see more and more of these electric bicycles. They tempt me. They are not out of bounds for purchase price. With a set of panniers, they can be excellent for trips to the grocery store or general transportation. They are a labor saving convenience. You don't need to haul 2 tons of metal and plastic with you. They are cheap to operate and maintain and do not require a large shed to store them, i.e. a garage.
As the climate changes Winters seem less severe. The bike can be used on most days.
They can give one some of the off road freedom of a 1948 Willys Jeep.
I see these pictures of Denmark with all the bikes. The roads seem to be able to move many many more people than if they are filled with cars. It must be a boon to the taxpayers of Denmark to not have to build all these roads.
I'm not sure what problem autonomy actually solves?
Still, your goalposts shifted a lot from "none of us owning a car" to 20% of people not owning a car a decade from now. What's the current car ownership in high density cities?
Genuinely curious - what makes you think we'll solve the 10% problem that quickly? i.e. the problem that there are too many edge cases for ML alone to be able to consistently drive as well as a human without some sort of major step up that we don't seem able to figure out?
Sure, here’s a couple:
-car seats for kids
-not getting into a car someone else has been using as a dumpster/sex dungeon
-the opportunity to leave anything in the car and not haul it around with me
I'm not sure what problem autonomy actually solves?
QuoteI'm not sure what problem autonomy actually solves?
One million road deaths per year.
10 million serious accidents per year.
The hassle of car ownership. Garaging, parking, insurance, cleaning, maintenance, fueling.
Cost of car ownership.
High cost of transport for those that can't drive.
Congestion.
Poor utilization of limited resources.
Excess CO2 emissions.
Unproductive time driving oneself.
Wasted time driving others.
Parking spaces wasting precious inner city space.
Autonomy isn't needed to avoid the hassle of vehicle ownership. Plenty of people on this forum are already living car free. Taxis, and public transit have been around for a hundred years now. Autonomous vehicles don't solve this problem any better than what we have already.
Quote from: gooki on Today at 03:52:29 AM
Cost of car ownership.
High cost of transport for those that can't drive.
Do you honestly think that it will be cheaper to hail a vehicle every time one is needed than to own? Renting something on a very regular basis is almost always more expensive than owning it outright. In the few dense cities where it's prohibitively expensive to own a personal vehicle, they've got really strong public transit as a more cost effective alternative that robo taxis would have to compete against.
Maybe. If we get to a point where all vehicles are autonomous and can communicate with each other and the infrastructure (like traffic lights, etc) around them too. But if you've got human driven vehicles, or large slow moving trucks, etc there will always be some level of congestion. You're still going to have a morning rush hour and an evening rush hour where lots of people will need transportation to similar places at the same basic times.
Quote from: gooki on Today at 03:52:29 AM
Poor utilization of limited resources.
I don't think autonomy really does much in this area for the reasons above. You need enough vehicles to handle the heaviest transportation demands (daily rush hours, holidays with increased travel, etc). The rest of the time you'll have vehicles sitting idle.
Without a decrease in overall vehicles needed, the only way emissions go down is via less congestion which is a long way off. You'd have to have infrastructure changes, regulatory changes, and market changes all take place to get to a point where pretty much all vehicles are autonomous.
I doubt the people that are paid to drive feel like they're wasting their time. They're earning a living.
Not if you've got a bunch of autonomous EVs charging while they're on standby between the morning and evening commutes
With the exception of a handful of metropolitan cities, public transit doesn't meet the needs of the people. Hong Kong is the only place I've been where I felt public transit could get me any where I wanted to go quickly, and cost effectively.
The costs of robotaxi rides will determine the level of adoption. It'll start high(just below Uber prices) and then competition, economies of scale, and different ownership models will drive the price down to the point it's cheaper than public transit.
Infrastructure and vehicle to vehicle communication isn't required to drastically reduce congestion. What will do it is the transition from single occupant vehicles to multi occupant vehicles. Autonomous electric vehicles makes that transition possible. The system knows who needs to go where at what time and will group passengers into optimal rides. For those that don't like to share, can pay a premium to ride alone.
See my comments above. Driving the price down will get more people into electrified vehicles. Transportation as a service will reduce the vehicle fleet size. Sharing rides will reduce the total distance driven.
It's not those that are paid to drive, it's the ones that are not paid. The number one rant I hear from my coworkers who are parents is the amount of time they spend shuttling theirs kids around for sports. Autonomous electric vehicles will enable greater independence for the young and the elderly.
See my comment above about reduced fleet size. You also have the benefit that they can charge in locations out of the inner city. The cost per mile is so low that charging locations don't need to be in prime locations.
Taxis are the other option that currently exists in these places, and autonomous taxis would have to offer something more than human driven taxis currently do.
Agreed that the cost will have a huge impact. But expecting costs below Uber, when Uber is already kept artificially low by venture capital funds seems like a bit of a reach to me.
Transitioning from single occupant vehicles to multi occupant vehicles would be impactful. It could also have happened at any time in the last 50+ years with human drivers. Mass transit, car pooling, etc are pretty much plateued. An autonomous driver doesn't change much of anything in that regard. A person that doesn't want to carpool now isn't going to be likely to want to carpool in an autonomous future because it's not about what's piloting the vehicle that matters for most people in these cases.
Regular taxis can be called for this purpose right now. Perhaps people would feel safer without a human, but there may be other safety concerns with sending your vulnerable kid or elderly parent off in an unmanned "soft target" too.
This also seems like it could also lead to more miles traveled and less efficient overall transportation system (like Ender mentioned above) if people don't have to travel together as much. Above, you pointed out the importance of traveling together rather than individually, and here you seem to be pointing out a potential advantage of autonomous vehicles is that they'd allow more traveling alone?
If you're a for-profit corporation, why would you waste money and increase wear/tear on your vehicles by driving long distances without passengers? They only make money when paying passengers are on board, so maximizing those times seems critical to becoming financially viable. It would also eliminate time spent in travel, so you could service your customers more quickly. Unless charging the cars in dense locations is wildly more expensive, I think it makes more sense to charge them near the most potential customers and minimize time spent driving around empty without a paying customer.
QuoteTaxis are the other option that currently exists in these places, and autonomous taxis would have to offer something more than human driven taxis currently do.
Greatly reduced cost, reduced pickup times, wider service
QuoteAgreed that the cost will have a huge impact. But expecting costs below Uber, when Uber is already kept artificially low by venture capital funds seems like a bit of a reach to me.
Drivers are the single highest cost
Then gas
Then vehicle expenses (maintenance, depreciation)
And finally the platform (tech, advertising etc)
If you compare Uber costs between a country with a high labor cost and a low labor costs, there's an order of magnitude difference in price the customer pays. Removing the labor means any country can experience this order of magnitude difference.
Then you have lower fueling costs because they're electric. Lower maintenance costs because their electric, better utilization because they are not limited by driver shifts and lower advertising costs because your service is cheaper and naturally attracts more demand.
QuoteTransitioning from single occupant vehicles to multi occupant vehicles would be impactful. It could also have happened at any time in the last 50+ years with human drivers. Mass transit, car pooling, etc are pretty much plateued. An autonomous driver doesn't change much of anything in that regard. A person that doesn't want to carpool now isn't going to be likely to want to carpool in an autonomous future because it's not about what's piloting the vehicle that matters for most people in these cases.
Correct, it's about convince, cost and reliability. And that's what's different about autonomous transportation vs the existing modes. The inconvenience of car pooling is removed. When you are ready a car will be ready for you.
QuoteRegular taxis can be called for this purpose right now. Perhaps people would feel safer without a human, but there may be other safety concerns with sending your vulnerable kid or elderly parent off in an unmanned "soft target" too.
For low value events current Taxi pricing doesn't make sense. It's an easy decision today when it's $50 for a return trip to soccer practice vs drive my son and myself. At sub $5 for a return trip driving both of us becomes a whole lot less appealing.
QuoteThis also seems like it could also lead to more miles traveled and less efficient overall transportation system (like Ender mentioned above) if people don't have to travel together as much. Above, you pointed out the importance of traveling together rather than individually, and here you seem to be pointing out a potential advantage of autonomous vehicles is that they'd allow more traveling alone?
Now taking my example above about soccer practice. 15 kids per team today means 15 parents and 15 children travelling to practice in 15 cars.
Where autonomous transport as a service is ubiquitous, we have 15 children requesting a ride. Car 1 picks up my son and on the way it see child 2 is ready and close by, does a minor detour, picks them up continues on its way, the child 3 is ready and on the route so stops and picks them up then delivers 3 kids to practice using one vehicle.
So now instead of 15 cars we have 5 cars to fulfill this transportation need.
That's 66% less traffic. Now the ease of transport will create more travel (I hope it does especially for the elderly), but the savings from shared transport means there is room for massive growth before we get anywhere near the capacity of the alternative we have today.
Change is coming? Yup.
Autonomous cars that are a better experience, better financials and the greater preference of the masses to private ownership en masse?
I'll sit and watch and wait.
Change is coming? Yup.
Autonomous cars that are a better experience, better financials and the greater preference of the masses to private ownership en masse?
I'll sit and watch and wait.
If most any other sector had so chronically over promised and under delivered, they'd long ago have been unable to get further funding and been sued by investors. Somehow autonomous vehicles seem to be a sector where people only fail up.
Sometimes I wonder whether these VC pitches are actually earnest, or whether everyone in the room knows it's a bunch of wishful thinking that will likely lead to nothing (full autonomy by 2010!) but just may have enormous payoff.
If most any other sector had so chronically over promised and under delivered, they'd long ago have been unable to get further funding and been sued by investors. Somehow autonomous vehicles seem to be a sector where people only fail up.
Sometimes I wonder whether these VC pitches are actually earnest, or whether everyone in the room knows it's a bunch of wishful thinking that will likely lead to nothing (full autonomy by 2010!) but just may have enormous payoff.
If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work. Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog. Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks. There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are. There would not be people clamoring to hire them. Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks. The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.
Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion. I'm not sure how. Training could be offered. Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties. These folks are more difficult to train. Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.
In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized. This certainly wasn't always the case. Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.
If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work. Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog. Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks. There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are. There would not be people clamoring to hire them. Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks. The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.
Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion. I'm not sure how. Training could be offered. Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties. These folks are more difficult to train. Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.
In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized. This certainly wasn't always the case. Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.
Keeping jobs for the sake of jobs is beyond dumb.
If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work. Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog. Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks. There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are. There would not be people clamoring to hire them. Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks. The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.
Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion. I'm not sure how. Training could be offered. Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties. These folks are more difficult to train. Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.
In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized. This certainly wasn't always the case. Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.
Keeping jobs for the sake of jobs is beyond dumb.
If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work. Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog. Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks. There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are. There would not be people clamoring to hire them. Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks. The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.
Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion. I'm not sure how. Training could be offered. Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties. These folks are more difficult to train. Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.
In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized. This certainly wasn't always the case. Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.
For an old Nissan Leaf I kinda buy the argument that an EV is a non starter if you can't charge at home or work.
FWIW the previous owner of my leaf managed to make it work, by DC fast charging ever day for 15 minutes on their way home.
But for modern EVs with 4x the range, and 5x faster charging a city dweller could easily get by with a 15 minute DC fast charge once week, or level 2 charging twice a week while going to the gym or getting groceries, restaurant.
Commuting to work is now shown to be absurd for most of the white collar work force even if management doesn't currently agree and you have to rethink life. What a waste to constantly drive 0-15 mins to a grocery store your food will be scheduled and delivered.
For people who believe we'll have autonomous/on-demand vehicles with no private ownership, how do you anticipate natural disasters/emergencies going? With fleet capacity significantly reduced to what is needed to handle normal daily use, wouldn't that fleet be massively undersized to deal with an evacuation? Waiting for cars from neighboring cities/states to make up the difference would significantly slow the effort to get people to safety.Private car ownership impedes mass evacuation. It's near impossible to build roads with enough capacity to handle all people moving at once in space-inefficient personal vehicles. Granted, you have to have a functioning government to handle it otherwise, which a large part of the US population opposes.
I remember how awful it was waiting for my mom to evacuate ahead of hurricane Irma, and adding extra concern about her ability to get a vehicle if she waited too long to request one would have been a new level of hell. I expect it would be even worse for wildfires, when there's less warning that it's coming.
For people who believe we'll have autonomous/on-demand vehicles with no private ownership, how do you anticipate natural disasters/emergencies going? With fleet capacity significantly reduced to what is needed to handle normal daily use, wouldn't that fleet be massively undersized to deal with an evacuation? Waiting for cars from neighboring cities/states to make up the difference would significantly slow the effort to get people to safety.Private car ownership impedes mass evacuation. It's near impossible to build roads with enough capacity to handle all people moving at once in space-inefficient personal vehicles. Granted, you have to have a functioning government to handle it otherwise, which a large part of the US population opposes.
I remember how awful it was waiting for my mom to evacuate ahead of hurricane Irma, and adding extra concern about her ability to get a vehicle if she waited too long to request one would have been a new level of hell. I expect it would be even worse for wildfires, when there's less warning that it's coming.
One exception is people living in very low-density areas. This lifestyle requires so much taxpayer and ratepayer support that in a sane environment it wouldn't be nearly as affordable - as thus prevalent - as it is now, at least for people not directly or indirectly involved in agriculture. But since it is here to stay, private car ownership there remains a must for a foreseeable future.
Is it better to leave half those people in their homes to weather the disaster, while the lucky half get to ride on uncongested roads?
Electric cars won't solve the problem of road congestion. (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.201808)
Electric cars will increase dangerous, inhumane mining practices. The additional mines needed for raw materials would destroy our federal lands, or lands in other countries. (https://dispatches.business-humanrights.org/human-rights-in-the-mineral-supply-chains-of-electric-vehicles/index.html; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mining-insight/to-go-electric-america-needs-more-mines-can-it-build-them-idUSKCN2AT39Z)
Electric cars won't solve the problem of tire particle pollution. (https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-worse-exhaust-emissions)
Electric cars won't solve the problem of brake dust pollution. (https://airqualitynews.com/2020/04/16/air-pollution-from-brake-dust-may-be-as-harmful-as-diesel-exhaust-on-immune-cells/)
Electric cars won't solve the crisis of traffic violence, which kills 40,000 people in the US every year. (https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-06-04/traffic-deaths-increased-in-2020-despite-fewer-people-on-roads-during-pandemic)
Electric cars won't solve the problem of suburban sprawl. Suburban/exurban homes consume vastly more energy and water than urban households. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00343404.2015.1079310?journalCode=cres20; https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170504093219.htm)
Electric cars won't solve the problem of transportation affordability for lower income people. EVs are even more expensive than combustion vehicles, which will only worsen the problem.
Instead, the only long-term solution is to invest in public transit, walking, biking, and build more housing in urban areas. Redesign cities back to how they were built for thousands of years before the (failed) suburban experiment.
I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.
I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now. Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new. Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.
I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.
I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now. Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new. Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.
EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).
I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.
I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now. Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new. Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.
EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).
its kinda crazy to me an alt culture forum such as this has such a hard time grasping the reality of EVs and autonomous driving. I can retire at 35 but EVs will never be affordable just like solar isnt cost effective - oh wait its the cheapest current way to produce energy. EVs are already at the current level of price competition with ICEs just a matter of building up battery supply chains and efficiency is just icing on the cake for the future EVsEVs are cost-competitive now, looking at total cost of ownership. They are MUCH better for the environment, and for human rights - oil extraction isn't any more benign than mining.
I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.
I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now. Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new. Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.
EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).
I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.
I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now. Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new. Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.
EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).
Based on what facts?
I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.
I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now. Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new. Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.
EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).
i think your name says it all "windy" full of alot of hot air.
its kinda crazy to me an alt culture forum such as this has such a hard time grasping the reality of EVs and autonomous driving. I can retire at 35 but EVs will never be affordable just like solar isnt cost effective - oh wait its the cheapest current way to produce energy. EVs are already at the current level of price competition with ICEs just a matter of building up battery supply chains and efficiency is just icing on the cake for the future EVs =
I'm all for better mass-transit infrastructure, increased vehicle occupancy, an redesigning our cities and towns to be more conducive for living a pedestrian lifestyle. That's been our life for much of of the last 20 year (though, not without irony, not presently). But ignoring ways of improving vehicles entirely is - IMO - a very dangerous path to follow, as they are and will continue to be one of the largest sources of pollution for quite some time..There is nothing dangerous about pointing out the flaws to the idea of electric vehicles as a panacea to our climate problems. We don't need more advocates for electric cars. The car companies in this country already have their powerful lobbyists. Where are the powerful voices for transit, walking, and biking?
In my reality people don't own cars like they do today. It will be cheaper to Uber everywhere and have things delivered vs going to a store. Not everyone is buying an f150. The bolt is about 25k and if bidens tax credit passes it's 12500. And battery tech is getting cheaper.Requiring taxpayers to subsidize the purchase of an electric vehicles doesn't count. The costs are still there and someone has to pay for it. Also, the price of an Uber ride has gone up by 40% since December (https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-fares-price-driver-shortage-travel-ride-hailing-app-2021-6). Sorry to burst your bubble, but getting everything delivered will cost even more than picking it up from the store.
You live in a dense urban environment the bulk of Americans live inland where cars are necessary for transportation. We are not densely populated in the Midwest like the coasts or Europe.
Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here
In my reality people don't own cars like they do today. It will be cheaper to Uber everywhere and have things delivered vs going to a store. Not everyone is buying an f150. The bolt is about 25k and if bidens tax credit passes it's 12500. And battery tech is getting cheaper.
You live in a dense urban environment the bulk of Americans live inland where cars are necessary for transportation. We are not densely populated in the Midwest like the coasts or Europe.
Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here
Requiring taxpayers to subsidize the purchase of an electric vehicles doesn't count. The costs are still there and someone has to pay for it. Also, the price of an Uber ride has gone up by 40% since December (https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-fares-price-driver-shortage-travel-ride-hailing-app-2021-6). Sorry to burst your bubble, but getting everything delivered will cost even more than picking it up from the store.
Don't know what you mean by "inland", but the idea that most Americans live in rural areas is false. 83% of Americans live in urban areas (http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-cities-factsheet). Coastal counties account for 40% of the population and only 10% of the land area, so that's a good place to start, right? (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html).
I'm not a public transit designer, but I will continue to advocate for it. As I have said repeatedly, a good way to design a city is to legalize building all types of housing in urban areas.
I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.
I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now. Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new. Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.
EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).
Based on what facts?
Based on the fact that a multi-ton hunk of metal and fiberglass requires an absurd amount of energy and complexity to produce, maintain, and move around for the 1-hour per day that most people use their vehicles.
The burden is on you to demonstrate otherwise; "technology" is not a persuasive answer.
52 percent of U.S. households describe their neighborhood as suburban, 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent describe their neighborhood as rural.
we went from two to one cars, thinking that we'd use Lyft when needed, and haven't used it once. Deliveries are working just fine, too.
Electric cars will increase dangerous, inhumane mining practices. The additional mines needed for raw materials would destroy our federal lands, or lands in other countries.Or new methods will be developed that don't involve lots of land, danger, or inhumane practices.
52 percent of U.S. households describe their neighborhood as suburban, 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent describe their neighborhood as rural.
Not sure why you bundle suburban with rural. Sure, car-free living is nearly impossible in most suburbs now, but a drastic reduction in car ownership is absolutely possible. With a modest investment in transit and bike infrastructure, and some modernization of zoning, it will be only easier. Just one datapoint - we went from two to one cars, thinking that we'd use Lyft when needed, and haven't used it once. Deliveries are working just fine, too.
Granted, a lot of families do need a car per adult in suburbia - but a decent number don't, and only keep them out of inertia and social pressure.
Deliveries are OK here for really non-perishable goods, but even things like granola bars and cereal boxes get absolutely wrecked when we try to have them delivered. But I'm sure when all the delivery drivers are robots, they'll care a lot more about the precious cargo?
I'm all for better mass-transit infrastructure, increased vehicle occupancy, an redesigning our cities and towns to be more conducive for living a pedestrian lifestyle. That's been our life for much of of the last 20 year (though, not without irony, not presently). But ignoring ways of improving vehicles entirely is - IMO - a very dangerous path to follow, as they are and will continue to be one of the largest sources of pollution for quite some time..There is nothing dangerous about pointing out the flaws to the idea of electric vehicles as a panacea to our climate problems. We don't need more advocates for electric cars. The car companies in this country already have their powerful lobbyists. Where are the powerful voices for transit, walking, and biking?
There's far more danger in ignoring that our patterns of suburban sprawl development are simply incompatible with remaining below 2 degrees warming. That's why I am here to tell you all the reasons why electric vehicles cannot be a solution.
In our neighborhood, 20 minutes or more can easily pass with no cars going by.
It's definitely not a strawman to cite the best selling US vehicle for three decades as an example of a typical future EV in America. If EVs cost less to own than combustion vehicles, then why do we need to subsidize them at all? We should be directing all subsidies to alternative transportation options that benefit those who cannot afford vehicles.I'm all for better mass-transit infrastructure, increased vehicle occupancy, an redesigning our cities and towns to be more conducive for living a pedestrian lifestyle. That's been our life for much of of the last 20 year (though, not without irony, not presently). But ignoring ways of improving vehicles entirely is - IMO - a very dangerous path to follow, as they are and will continue to be one of the largest sources of pollution for quite some time..There is nothing dangerous about pointing out the flaws to the idea of electric vehicles as a panacea to our climate problems. We don't need more advocates for electric cars. The car companies in this country already have their powerful lobbyists. Where are the powerful voices for transit, walking, and biking?
There's far more danger in ignoring that our patterns of suburban sprawl development are simply incompatible with remaining below 2 degrees warming. That's why I am here to tell you all the reasons why electric vehicles cannot be a solution.
You seem to be making arguments that outside of this thread, and supposing a great deal about what the participates think with regard to broader issues like how our cities "should" be designed. I don't believe anyone here even feigns support for the idea that EVs might be a panacea to our climate change and social problems. m
I don't believe anyone here thinks EVs are a solution, but at a minimum an honest accounting of the current technology shows them to be "less bad" than current ICE vehicles, and by a large margin. I'd also disagree strongly disagree that BEV and PHEVs are not readily affordable, and suspect you plopped the F150 Lighting there as an obvious straw man. Realize the F150 is the most popular car in the US, and that the BEV version will cost roughly the same as the current median ICE version. As we've discussed, BEVs cost LESS to own than ICE vehicles, even if you remove the subsidies. Sure, not everyone can own a car, but the vast majority of households can. Cost of ownership is no longer a barrier (though other factors are).
If EVs cost less to own than combustion vehicles, then why do we need to subsidize them at all? We should be directing all subsidies to alternative transportation options that benefit those who cannot afford vehicles.
If EVs cost less to own than combustion vehicles, then why do we need to subsidize them at all?
I really think you may be underestimating how self driving cars increase demand overall.I was not trying to show demand for driven miles, I was trying to show need for a personal car in two scenarios as a function of density.
The assumption you are making is that driving usage stays constant.
Personally, if you could work on a computer, or read a book, or nap, or exercise, etc, whatever you can do in a car when you aren't needed to drive - I'd expect people would drive considerably more unless it was exceptionally cost prohibitive.
It's definitely not a strawman to cite the best selling US vehicle for three decades as an example of a typical future EV in America. If EVs cost less to own than combustion vehicles, then why do we need to subsidize them at all? We should be directing all subsidies to alternative transportation options that benefit those who cannot afford vehicles.
I was not trying to show demand for driven miles, I was trying to show need for a personal car in two scenarios as a function of density.
Nope - not at all the claim you made or that I was responding to.Which economic-climate models are you talking about? Everything I've read suggests that widespread adoption of EVs alone comes terribly short of solving catastrophic climate change. (https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/112490-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-23/electric-vehicles-alone-won-t-stop-climate-change; https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/electric-vehicles-emissions/; https://conorbronsdon.com/blog/why-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/climate/electric-vehicles-environment.html; https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2021/04/13/dont-count-on-evs-to-solve-climate-change/). And there can be no reduction in vehicle miles traveled without addressing our patterns of city development. Far from being a "diversion," housing policy and transportation emissions are inextricably linked.
Look, I agree with what seems to be your underlying belief that we need to fundamentally redesign the way we live and the frequency with which we use cars to get around. But whether it's a lack of focus or an intentional strategy to divert the conversation, your inputs are having the exact opposite of their intended effect.
It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we must either put policy and subsidies behind EVs or improving mass-transit/pedestrian infrastructure, and I firmly believe that we ought to be doing both. Substantially reducing total miles driven and car dependence is a wonderful, important, and ultimately top-tier priority. But it's also one that's a generational shift under the most favorable of assumptions. Widespread EV adaptation is something that can be achieved in substantially shorter timeframe, and for all the reasons already listed it can have an immediate and substantial impact. Recent economic-climate models even highlight how we can reach our climate transportation goals with a rather aggresive switch alone. I for one hope we can push both measures at the same time, and the data indicate this will have the greatest impact.
Nope - not at all the claim you made or that I was responding to.Which economic-climate models are you talking about? Everything I've read suggests that widespread adoption of EVs alone comes terribly short of solving catastrophic climate change. (https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/112490-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-23/electric-vehicles-alone-won-t-stop-climate-change; https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/electric-vehicles-emissions/; https://conorbronsdon.com/blog/why-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/climate/electric-vehicles-environment.html; https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2021/04/13/dont-count-on-evs-to-solve-climate-change/). And there can be no reduction in vehicle miles traveled without addressing our patterns of city development. Far from being a "diversion," housing policy and transportation emissions are inextricably linked.
Look, I agree with what seems to be your underlying belief that we need to fundamentally redesign the way we live and the frequency with which we use cars to get around. But whether it's a lack of focus or an intentional strategy to divert the conversation, your inputs are having the exact opposite of their intended effect.
It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we must either put policy and subsidies behind EVs or improving mass-transit/pedestrian infrastructure, and I firmly believe that we ought to be doing both. Substantially reducing total miles driven and car dependence is a wonderful, important, and ultimately top-tier priority. But it's also one that's a generational shift under the most favorable of assumptions. Widespread EV adaptation is something that can be achieved in substantially shorter timeframe, and for all the reasons already listed it can have an immediate and substantial impact. Recent economic-climate models even highlight how we can reach our climate transportation goals with a rather aggresive switch alone. I for one hope we can push both measures at the same time, and the data indicate this will have the greatest impact.
I also disagree that replacing the entire fleet of combustion vehicles with electric vehicles is faster, easier or less expensive than changing land use patterns, zoning laws, and road design to be more environmentally friendly.
Nope - not at all the claim you made or that I was responding to.Which economic-climate models are you talking about? Everything I've read suggests that widespread adoption of EVs alone comes terribly short of solving catastrophic climate change. (https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/112490-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-23/electric-vehicles-alone-won-t-stop-climate-change; https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/electric-vehicles-emissions/; https://conorbronsdon.com/blog/why-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/climate/electric-vehicles-environment.html; https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2021/04/13/dont-count-on-evs-to-solve-climate-change/). And there can be no reduction in vehicle miles traveled without addressing our patterns of city development. Far from being a "diversion," housing policy and transportation emissions are inextricably linked.
Look, I agree with what seems to be your underlying belief that we need to fundamentally redesign the way we live and the frequency with which we use cars to get around. But whether it's a lack of focus or an intentional strategy to divert the conversation, your inputs are having the exact opposite of their intended effect.
It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we must either put policy and subsidies behind EVs or improving mass-transit/pedestrian infrastructure, and I firmly believe that we ought to be doing both. Substantially reducing total miles driven and car dependence is a wonderful, important, and ultimately top-tier priority. But it's also one that's a generational shift under the most favorable of assumptions. Widespread EV adaptation is something that can be achieved in substantially shorter timeframe, and for all the reasons already listed it can have an immediate and substantial impact. Recent economic-climate models even highlight how we can reach our climate transportation goals with a rather aggresive switch alone. I for one hope we can push both measures at the same time, and the data indicate this will have the greatest impact.
I also disagree that replacing the entire fleet of combustion vehicles with electric vehicles is faster, easier or less expensive than changing land use patterns, zoning laws, and road design to be more environmentally friendly.
More to the point, replacing many ICE vehicles with EVs is possible in the immediate future and is an improvement over where we are today.
Changing land use patterns, zoning laws, road design, and building all of the new housing required to achieve your goals? Not possible in the immediate future.
Can someone please explain what "People in this forum can't even wrap their head around autonomous cars." implies? I'm too stupid to understand.
For people who believe we'll have autonomous/on-demand vehicles with no private ownership, how do you anticipate natural disasters/emergencies going?
If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work. Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog. Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks. There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are. There would not be people clamoring to hire them. Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks. The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.
Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion. I'm not sure how. Training could be offered. Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties. These folks are more difficult to train. Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.
In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized. This certainly wasn't always the case. Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.
All extremely speculative at this point. I live in a semi rural place on the fringes of a city of 2 million people. Taxi/Uber service is extremely limited to my home. It's going to take a long time and require lots of planning for either one to get to my house. The only way an autonomous taxi is better is if it's sitting idly nearby but that seems wasteful. And that's if any of them can even find my house. It's 2021 and there's not even a google street view of my house. Even though my street number is pretty clearly marked on my home, it's typical for delivery drivers and various food delivery app workers to mistakenly leave things at my house that are meant to be left several houses down because the GPS or app that they're using isn't perfect. There are no lane markings or street lights on my road, and it's relatively low priority for snow removal. Autonomous taxis can't function properly in this type of situation, and it's a fairly common scenario even in a prosperous country that's essentially been built around the automobile like the US has. A lot has to change for autonomy to become widespread just in the US, let alone on the global level where infrastructure may be even spottier.
They also seem far less convenient to me in this situation than just owning a personal vehicle. If I could send my own private autonomous vehicle with my kid to practice, that might be convenient for me, but it's still the same single passenger issue that doesn't really benefit anything environmentally and likely leads to more miles being driven.
But right now Uber doesn't pay for most of those things. They pay for the app, and they pay their drivers minimally. The human driver currently shoulders the cost of vehicle purchase, maintenance, insurance, charging/fueling, and cleaning in between fares. If Uber or some other app-based taxi company wants to eliminate the drivers they'll need to pay a lot of money to buy, insure, and fuel/charge a massive fleet of vehicles that can be ready at a moment's notice. And they're still going to have to pay a human to plug them in/unplug them for charging, clean them in between each fare, and maintain them whenever that's needed. They may even need to buy real estate so their fleet has guaranteed parking/charging locations near busy hubs so they may meet customer demand at a moment's notice, or so they may be cleaned quickly between fares.
How is the inconvenience of carpooling any different if a robot is driving vs a human? If you're still sharing a vehicle with others that you'd rather not share with, or waiting around for the ride to show up that's the inconvenient part.
If there has to be a car available at a moment's notice for pretty much every person out there, then we're really not changing much are we? The vehicle fleet stays the same size. There's little incentive for ride sharing or mass transit. We'd rent a vehicle when needed vs just walking out to our own personal vehicle with no wait time or planning.
Speculating on future pricing for tech that doesn't currently exist seems like a fool's errand to me.
It seems like you're claiming that autonomous taxis will be both more convenient for people and more environmentally friendly than the current ownership model but those two objectives seem diametrically opposed to me. You either prioritize the environment and force your customers to deal with some inconveniences by limiting trips or grouping passengers, or you prioritize the convenience to your customers and have excess vehicles on standby to service anybody's immediate needs anytime and anywhere with private pods that carry individual families or people.
QuoteIf all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work. Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog. Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks. There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are. There would not be people clamoring to hire them. Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks. The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.
Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion. I'm not sure how. Training could be offered. Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties. These folks are more difficult to train. Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.
In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized. This certainly wasn't always the case. Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.
Correct, millions truck drivers will be out of jobs. But it won't happen overnight. It'll take time for the fleet to be replaced. For those that are wilfully ignorant of the impeding change it will appear as if it happened overnight. So what do we do, start sending out the warning signs. Give them time and resources too retrain on their terms. Give them time to plan for the future, pursue FIRE, because in 10 years time there's a high chance well only need 10% of the truck drivers, petrol station owners, taxi drivers, we have today.
The future is already here - it's just not evenly distributed.
Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here
The brilliant thing about autonomy is it only needs to get to your house successfully once, and then every other autonomous vehicles knows how to do it.
With your private car ownership you may even provide the autonomous system the training it needs to get to your house without you ever knowing or doing anything special.
QuoteBut right now Uber doesn't pay for most of those things. They pay for the app, and they pay their drivers minimally. The human driver currently shoulders the cost of vehicle purchase, maintenance, insurance, charging/fueling, and cleaning in between fares. If Uber or some other app-based taxi company wants to eliminate the drivers they'll need to pay a lot of money to buy, insure, and fuel/charge a massive fleet of vehicles that can be ready at a moment's notice. And they're still going to have to pay a human to plug them in/unplug them for charging, clean them in between each fare, and maintain them whenever that's needed. They may even need to buy real estate so their fleet has guaranteed parking/charging locations near busy hubs so they may meet customer demand at a moment's notice, or so they may be cleaned quickly between fares.
If the rate UBER compensate drivers isn't sufficient to cover the costs then they will quickly have 0 drivers.
QuoteHow is the inconvenience of carpooling any different if a robot is driving vs a human? If you're still sharing a vehicle with others that you'd rather not share with, or waiting around for the ride to show up that's the inconvenient part.
The inconveniences are, the effort required to make the arrangements, and humans aren't reliable. The person doing picking up is often not on time, the person getting picked up is often not ready.
QuoteIf there has to be a car available at a moment's notice for pretty much every person out there, then we're really not changing much are we? The vehicle fleet stays the same size. There's little incentive for ride sharing or mass transit. We'd rent a vehicle when needed vs just walking out to our own personal vehicle with no wait time or planning.
Not everyone has to go places at the same time, combined with ride sharing for those that are happy to pay less makes for a lower total fleet size. I'd expect a reduction of 3:1 or 5:1.
QuoteSpeculating on future pricing for tech that doesn't currently exist seems like a fool's errand to me.
That works both ways. Your assumption that prices will remain static would then to be a fool's errand.
QuoteIt seems like you're claiming that autonomous taxis will be both more convenient for people and more environmentally friendly than the current ownership model but those two objectives seem diametrically opposed to me. You either prioritize the environment and force your customers to deal with some inconveniences by limiting trips or grouping passengers, or you prioritize the convenience to your customers and have excess vehicles on standby to service anybody's immediate needs anytime and anywhere with private pods that carry individual families or people.
Yes, I agree that's were we differ. Yes I believe they will be more convenient, lower cost and more environmentally friendly. And that combination will drive explosive growth in electric autonomous vehicles which is how electric cars will finally become popular in the United States.
Fascinating thread - thanks to the OP for starting it in an open-ended way that led to an interesting discussion, including some interesting tangents like autonomy.No one is saying to entirely reject electric cars. At any rate, from an individual perspective "rejecting" something does not change it. The question is whether to continue subsiding the automobile way of life at the federal, state, or local governmental level, or to stop subsidizing it and start increasing subsidies for more sustainable ways of life. No, this does not mean demolishing the suburbs, but it does mean legalizing housing in urban areas and building up transit in places where it makes sense.
My take on the original question (can EVs finally become popular in the US) is that "finally" implies that it's both overdue and something that's binary - popular or not. The best description I've seen of how technical revolutions take place is Adoption Curves:
(https://i.imgur.com/MDT2tm2.png)
EVs will probably follow an adoption curve of some sort, rather than switching from not-popular to popular at a distinct moment. That's another way of saying that they will become popular (or normal, or dominant) gradually and at different times for different people it will suddenly seem like they're everywhere, just as we saw with each major technological change.
This thread also reminds me of William Gibson's most famous quote:QuoteThe future is already here - it's just not evenly distributed.
Some places have high EV adoption, like Norway. In North America, British Columbia has the highest uptake of EVs. Not that it's relevant, but William Gibson happens to be a BC resident, I think.
I live in BC and have driven my EV 51,000km and have followed EVs out of interest for many years. That doesn't make me an expert but perhaps it gives me some experience and perspective. BC is a pretty ideal place for EVs. Someone seeking to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and reduce their overall energy consumption has many options, but two big ones are EVs and/or solar power. It would be nice to do both, but in BC we have low electricity prices (and our electricity is hydroelectric - and yes, there are issues with that too) and relatively low solar potential, especially in the winter, so EVs are the better of the two options. In other places, perhaps in the US south, there's great solar potential, higher electricity cost and higher carbon electricity, so solar power makes more sense.
I have a few observations of this thread that I think are worth pointing out:
1. "Absolutism" and "whataboutism" do not reflect well on their purveyors. Climate change and other major challenges are complex problems that won't have simple solutions - they will require many, many contributing improvements and steps forward. Absolutist positions like "EVs won't fix this particular issue so they should be entirely rejected" neglects that they can be a step in right direction. And "whataboutism" in the form of "this edge case that applies to me and 10% of the population means that the entire thing is stupid" while ignoring that it might move 90% of the population in a better direction is evidence of overly parochial thinking. These are big problems that require thinking on a society-wide level.
2. There are many legitimate concerns to be raised with the electrification of transport. Unfortunately, that opens the door to legitimate-sounding concerns distracting from truly legitimate concerns and questions of relative harm. These legitimate-sounding concerns are exploited for all they are worth by the industries and people that have vested interests in avoiding a shift away from fossil fuels. Seeing some of the arguments used by these Merchants of Doubt repeated here speaks to the effectiveness of their campaigns.Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here
Hey @boarder42, I saw on another thread that you were going to save your energy for important fights - I'm glad to see you taking this one on. Your point illustrates something very important. Retrofitting a transit system onto a city that wasn't designed for transit is either impossible or next-to-impossible. While we should want to design cities from the ground-up to include better transportation options, we need to work with what we've got, while also looking at what we want the future to look like. Some cities, given how they are right now, can be made a bit better by adding autonomous taxis, others might be made better by change X, others by change Y, but ultimately we need to see that cities and transportation systems aren't separate things - they are integrated systems and decisions about the city shape the transit, and decisions about the transit shape the city. I can't recommend the YouTube channel "Not Just Bikes" enough. It really explains this in a wonderful way. This one is a good starting point (even though the narrator says to watch some others first), but I recommend binging the entire channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
No one is saying to entirely reject electric cars. At any rate, from an individual perspective "rejecting" something does not change it. The question is whether to continue subsiding the automobile way of life at the federal, state, or local governmental level, or to stop subsidizing it and start increasing subsidies for more sustainable ways of life.
You accuse me of "whataboutism" and "absolutism" but your problem seems to be a lack of imagination that anything other than the personal automobile can be a serious form of transportation in the US.
But the hype surrounding electric vehicles is not simply because of their awesome technology; it's also the perception that their adoption will solve many of our societal problems, which I've shown is still contested.I really don't think this is a common perception of electric vehicles at all. Basically all the hype I've heard is about their environmental benefit (no societal change required) and better experience (more responsive acceleration, charge at home, quieter, etc.).
Valid point. But it doesn't address the lack of infrastructure that autonomous vehicles need to operate. Lines aren't painted on the roads here because it doesn't really make financial sense to do that.
Can you explain what you mean here, and how it impacts something like a robo-taxi company's need for massive amounts of capital that they don't currently need?
So what do you think is a reasonable amount of time for your robo-carpool vehicle wait for a rider before leaving?
And what would the rider left behind do if they missed their carpool? They'd probably just summon another ride right? And that ride would likely be an empty vehicle rushed over, or a nearby carpool that drives out of it's way and adds miles, while also inconveniencing the riders of that carpool. All of that increases the miles driven, offsetting at least a portion of the efficiency gain of the carpool in the first place.
But you have to be prepared for the highest demand. Or you keep the current private vehicle ownership model and just make them autonomous. Both of them are wasteful in some way.
Predicting future events based on past events is kind of how this whole investment thing works isn't it? Things like the 4% rule and investing in index funds are the key to mustachianism actually working and both make predictions based on historical data.
EVs are coming a lot sooner than autonomous vehicles.
I guess I'm expecting evolution of the current model more than revolution to a completely new model. Not saying that another way better in some ways, but the current model is going to be really hard to stray from for a number of reasons.
Why do you believe autonomous cars need painted lines to operate?
QuoteCan you explain what you mean here, and how it impacts something like a robo-taxi company's need for massive amounts of capital that they don't currently need?
If the rate UBER pays today is so low that the UBER drivers expenses are not covered, there would be no UBER drivers.
QuoteSo what do you think is a reasonable amount of time for your robo-carpool vehicle wait for a rider before leaving?
1-2 minutes seems reasonable.
QuoteAnd what would the rider left behind do if they missed their carpool? They'd probably just summon another ride right? And that ride would likely be an empty vehicle rushed over, or a nearby carpool that drives out of it's way and adds miles, while also inconveniencing the riders of that carpool. All of that increases the miles driven, offsetting at least a portion of the efficiency gain of the carpool in the first place.
Yes, the next ride may be empty or shared. They'll also be penalised for missing the first ride so this behaviour doesn't continue (requesting rides when user aren't ready), so efficiency of the system remains high.
QuoteBut you have to be prepared for the highest demand. Or you keep the current private vehicle ownership model and just make them autonomous. Both of them are wasteful in some way.
The highest demand today is when we experience peak single occupant vehicle use. Ride sharing and higher utilisation is how autonomy will reduce vehicle fleet size.
QuotePredicting future events based on past events is kind of how this whole investment thing works isn't it? Things like the 4% rule and investing in index funds are the key to mustachianism actually working and both make predictions based on historical data.
Correct. So in the past we had horses and the cost of transport by horse was $1.70 per mile, then we had cars and the cost of transport by car was $0.70 per mile, human operated taxis at $3 per mile, and in the long term we'll see autonomous electric vehicle transport costs of $0.25 per mile.
QuoteI guess I'm expecting evolution of the current model more than revolution to a completely new model. Not saying that another way better in some ways, but the current model is going to be really hard to stray from for a number of reasons.
And normally I'd say you're right. What different this time is the convenience factor is so high for those that are typically the most resistant. The freedom autonomous electric vehicles gives the elderly will speed up its transition. It's also what will get the majority of the elderly into electric vehicles faster.
Seeing a lot of “we’ll kick people off, we’ll penalize people, we’ll force them into xxx behavior…”Is it so crazy to charge a cleaning fee to someone who makes a mess or set up some three strikes or time out system for those to behave poorly. Facebook/youtube have these systems, they seem to be doing fine.
Is it so crazy to charge a cleaning fee to someone who makes a mess or set up some three strikes or time out system for those to behave poorly. Facebook/youtube have these systems, they seem to be doing fine.
Lane lines were already not needed two years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6APlaHOW8g
I've done the same test in my car. I don't have autopilot (bought before it was standard and don't want to pay to upgrade unless I start doing longer road trips as an alternative to flying), but I've had the free trial for several weeks. It does a good job of inferring where they should be, which is what a human driver does.
Sorry about further the derail into autonomy when the thread really has nothing to do with that. In general though this is a good example of how a lot of (seemingly reasonable) assumptions get put forward as facts. Please, if you want to discuss the evils of autopilot, including how it's named, I would suggest starting a different thread.
It seems some here are thinking it would have to be 100% car pool 100% of the time, why? Would a privet car not be an option for an increased fee? Again this is not about absolutes but percent's.
Is it so crazy to charge a cleaning fee to someone who makes a mess or set up some three strikes or time out system for those to behave poorly. Facebook/youtube have these systems, they seem to be doing fine.
I do have little problem with expecting the elderly to be early adaptors, in may ways it is perfect for them. But anecdotally my grandparents never really took to technology and it may seem like a small thing but there eye sight and finger dexterity are not great so using a cell phone app is hard. I guess an audio system could be made but I dont think uber/lyft have done that so maybe that would not be so easy?
Re painted lines on roads: while current systems use a painted line as reference we humans are more than capable to use the roads uneven shoulder for reference. There is no reason the machine vison systems could not be trained to detect an uneven shoulder especially as the current systems get used in more places there will be places that have both center line and uneven shoulders that can serve as training data.
crawl -> walk -> run; center line and shoulder lines -> center line only -> no lines
There is no reason the tech has to remain static or reason to think the tech wont make incremental improvements, this is not binary :-)
NVR - "Do you think it should be illegal to run your own web site, and you have to use Facebook, follow their rules, or you cannot have a web presence? All those extra web servers are wasting electricity and destroying the environment!"
I have no clue how you got to that from what I wrote, and lets just not further drive this thread that far off topic.
Look at the chart I posted up thread, seems fairly clear that I dont think personal cars in rural areas (and suburbia ones) will be going away anytime soon.
Lane lines were already not needed two years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6APlaHOW8g
I've done the same test in my car. I don't have autopilot (bought before it was standard and don't want to pay to upgrade unless I start doing longer road trips as an alternative to flying), but I've had the free trial for several weeks. It does a good job of inferring where they should be, which is what a human driver does.
Sorry about further the derail into autonomy when the thread really has nothing to do with that. In general though this is a good example of how a lot of (seemingly reasonable) assumptions get put forward as facts. Please, if you want to discuss the evils of autopilot, including how it's named, I would suggest starting a different thread.
...
I do love puns. But yeah in the previous discussion, we were replacing all privately owned vehicles with a software-driven service that could ban people for spilling a coke. You mentioned Facebook having a "three strikes" model for kicking people off their service. I thought my exploration of the analogy was pretty straight forward from there. Private cars = private web sites. Corporate/autonomous taxi fleets = Facebook.
The reason this thread is going that way is bc ev adoption is no longer really speculative. It's basically here. People are adopting EVs and they will out sell ice in the near future if for no other reason than there won't be another option anymore. Look at the adoption curves posted earlier for tech 2022 is the beginning of that sharp incline. We just need battery production to scale. The Ford mustang ev already outsells the ice mustang.
Crap, I just fell in the trap of continuing to contribute to the autonomy discussion in this thread. I apologize.
I feel the autonomous nature as well as the autonomous car-sharing nature do go part and parcel with electric vehicles overall for several reasons.Crap, I just fell in the trap of continuing to contribute to the autonomy discussion in this thread. I apologize.
It was stupid of me to try to make decisions for every member of the thread. Each of you should continue to own your own personal preference for what gets contributed to this thread. If it crosses any lines, we'll be OK.
Crap, I just fell in the trap of continuing to contribute to the autonomy discussion in this thread. I apologize.
It was stupid of me to try to make decisions for every member of the thread. Each of you should continue to own your own personal preference for what gets contributed to this thread. If it crosses any lines, we'll be OK.
I feel the autonomous nature as well as the autonomous car-sharing nature do go part and parcel with electric vehicles overall for several reasons.Crap, I just fell in the trap of continuing to contribute to the autonomy discussion in this thread. I apologize.
It was stupid of me to try to make decisions for every member of the thread. Each of you should continue to own your own personal preference for what gets contributed to this thread. If it crosses any lines, we'll be OK.
For instance, EVs are an available technology now that will eventually be the majority of new cars sold. If there is talk of autonomous and what that might look like in a car-sharing world, depending on the gap (from EVs being ubiquitous to autonomous EVs being ubiquitous) there could be fear that the fancy new EV you purchase now might be obsolete on a shorter timeframe.
It's like buying a desktop in the early/mid 90s - things were changing so fast that if you waited 6 months, you could get a much better model that would take longer before it was obsolete.
Another reason (or myriad inter-related topics) that has been referenced numerous times already is the default infrastructure of our dense areas moving forward. Gasoline taxes pay for road infrastructure (and yes, rural infrastructure is often subsidized by urban taxpayers to an extent). As more ICE vehicles are replaced by EVs, that source of tax revenue either needs to come from somewhere else (or a new source, e.g. charging EV owners a premium on the electricity used for their EV, assuming that's feasible) and/or a fundamental shift in how our tax dollars are earmarked. Yes, there will likely be a slowly-shrinking-over-time non-zero proportion of vehicle users that are willing to pay for the privilege of private vehicle ownership but for many commuting in cities, I do think there is a lot to be said for car-sharing and better public transit options that reduce the need for construction of new and augmented roads. Privately-owned non-autonomous EVs simply replacing privately-owned non-autonomous ICEs might not be enough to change how cities are constructed but if we're talking autonomous EVs and that in dense areas most vehicles are shared fleet vehicles, then that absolutely changes the priorities for building roads and the associated infrastructure.
Humans like convenience and will pay handsomely for it (I expect not only charging stations but battery swapping stations to be commonplace - why take 20 min to charge up to a certain % when you could pay right now for a 100% charged battery?!). So, I am interested to see how everything plays out with the autonomous and car-sharing aspects which is all under the EV umbrella.
I could also see main-use commuter roads being fully autonomous (and required to be autonomous) just like there are roads that are HOV-only now. I remember when I lived in NoVa that I-66 East was HOV-only within the Beltway. If you were in a vehicle by yourself, that road just wasn't available to you. Certain roads might be mixed-use (autonomous and non-) and others the conditions might dictate that autonomous driving NOT be used. The point is obstacles like construction, painted lines, etc. aren't an all-or-nothing approach with autonomous vehicles. If we can solve those problems on the "easy roads" but can't on some more rural difficult roads, that doesn't mean we abandon the entire autonomous direction simply because it's not feasible on 100% of all roads. That's absurd.
That being said, I think it's almost a certainty that autonomy will be geo-fenced to specific well controlled, ideal locations first (see Waymo's current testing in AZ, or Cruise in the Bay Area) and then it may expand from there. Or it may not. Companies may decide that servicing less populous areas with more obstacles isn't worth the cost and time.
The irony is that places that are best suited for autonomous cars (dense cities) are going to be even better off with virtually no cars. Sweet spot for full driverless seems to be denser suburbia. Which is fine, a lot of people live there.
There is nothing wrong with cars and roads co-evolving together. I'm not optimistic, though - it would require standards, and we can't even have a single standard for an EV plug...
Re: people being resistant to sharing cars... not a barrier for Lyft and Uber, where every rider gets into a shared car. Or traditional taxis, for that matter. Sure, there will be holdouts - but there is no reason to speculate, we have the answer, and it is that most people are fine with ridesharing.
Why do you believe autonomous cars need painted lines to operate?
Because they all currently do?
Why do you believe autonomous cars need painted lines to operate?
Because they all currently do?
And that's not going to evolve in the near future?
Here's an electric car in self driving mode with human oversight on a dirt road with no lane markings at night keeping to the right and avoiding obstacles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWJoe8hwu_I
@Paper Chaser
Oh I have no doubt that new tax revenue sources can't be found, just that if there is a societal/governmental desire for the vehicles to transition from ICE to EV, you subsidize that somehow at least until you have enough momentum/acceptance. I'm not worried about upper class or upper middle class people finding ways to come up with some extra registration money to pay for their brand new shiny EV - I'm worried about mass acceptance of EVs on the lower rungs of the income/wealth ladder. If you have upfront fees that are relatively large in size compared to getting nickel and dimed for each gallon of gasoline, I'd guess that poorer would just keep the ICE as such a proportion live paycheck to paycheck. I.e. Paying $30 instead of $25 on your of gas might not make or break you all at once but car registration going up by hundreds of dollars very well could.
Heck, if we had European prices on gasoline now, I'd be confident that a majority of vehicles would be EVs within a greatly accelerated timeframe although the poor would still be hampered the most with the transition.Maybe. Cost /kwh is only now reaching a point where it makes financial sense for the legacy automakers to really pursue EVs. But they could certainly do hybrid versions of existing vehicles easily, and likely have a larger environmental impact.
Battery swapping is just an idea that in my head sounds good as I take lots of long road trips and I'm a big fan of minimizing the non-driving time on stops. I have no idea if that's feasible in any kind of widespread fashion. You say "nobody" would take the risk but I'm not so sure if one failed experiment is all there is to this especially before we have widespread EV adoption. I have no problem swapping out propane tanks (although my dad is weird and only uses his tank and goes through the rigmarole to have his specific vessel filled when it is empty). It is the fuel supply to my grill and some back patio furniture. I don't care which specific propane tank it comes from. I don't see why technology couldn't exist at these swapping stations that would effectively guarantee a good battery (much like if you buy a full propane tank with a functioning nozzle, there's not much else to it). Sure it might be a little more complicated than exchanging propane tanks but I could see it. I wouldn't compare it to engine swapping with an ICE vehicle at all - why not compare it to a battery swap as ICE vehicles already have this? Much more things can go wrong on an ICE vehicle that aren't related to the battery, no? Yes, standardization of EV batteries is likely to increase moving forward but even if not, there could be brand-specific stations just like there are now with gasoline or other indicators of quality (like Top Tier detergent gasoline brands). Of course, battery swapping might never become a thing at all. We shall see.
It was stated that paying for the roads will be done by the driver's registration of the electric vehicle. This means that those who drive little are paying as much as daily drivers. This differs from the existing system where the roads are largely paid on the fuel tax. Is there a possibility of requiring a separate meter for vehicle charged in homes? The rate for kilowatt hours on this separate meter would be a little more to cover the tax for roads. Those who rarely drive would not then be penalized. Heavier vehicles would cause more road wear. Heavier vehicles would also use more electricity and pay more tax as they do now for fuel.
Meters used for charging at remote locations would have the road tax added to the charging cost and added to the customer's bill.
It was stated that paying for the roads will be done by the driver's registration of the electric vehicle. This means that those who drive little are paying as much as daily drivers. This differs from the existing system where the roads are largely paid on the fuel tax. Is there a possibility of requiring a separate meter for vehicle charged in homes? The rate for kilowatt hours on this separate meter would be a little more to cover the tax for roads. Those who rarely drive would not then be penalized. Heavier vehicles would cause more road wear. Heavier vehicles would also use more electricity and pay more tax as they do now for fuel.
Meters used for charging at remote locations would have the road tax added to the charging cost and added to the customer's bill.
There should just be a tax on total miles driven IMO. I have solar and haven't paid for power in three months, despite having an EV.
It was stated that paying for the roads will be done by the driver's registration of the electric vehicle. This means that those who drive little are paying as much as daily drivers. This differs from the existing system where the roads are largely paid on the fuel tax. Is there a possibility of requiring a separate meter for vehicle charged in homes? The rate for kilowatt hours on this separate meter would be a little more to cover the tax for roads. Those who rarely drive would not then be penalized. Heavier vehicles would cause more road wear. Heavier vehicles would also use more electricity and pay more tax as they do now for fuel.
Meters used for charging at remote locations would have the road tax added to the charging cost and added to the customer's bill.
There should just be a tax on total miles driven IMO. I have solar and haven't paid for power in three months, despite having an EV.
That's kind of impressive. I guess Solar is indeed becoming more than a SCAM.
...
2. How many people replace their cars with Uber/Lyft full time? Maybe common on this board, but in general very few. Most people use U/L as a supplement, like for a designated driver, when traveling, or to airports etc. Not as many replace cars. I have 3 cars and I’m still a not infrequent U/L user.
1. Uber/Lyft cars have a human driver so “supervision” leading to better behavior, drivers holding riders accountable, and can clean up messes when they do occur
2. How many people replace their cars with Uber/Lyft full time? Maybe common on this board, but in general very few. Most people use U/L as a supplement, like for a designated driver, when traveling, or to airports etc. Not as many replace cars. I have 3 cars and I’m still a not infrequent U/L user.
All that aside, I'm not arguing for autonomous cars taking over the world. I'm rather a skeptic. I addressed a narrow and specific question: are people resistant to sharing cars with other people. All the examples from the real world - rental cars, taxis, ZipCar, Lyft/Uber - lead me to a conclusion that no, they are not.
Seems relevant…
Stellantis is planning on spending $35B (USD Equivalent) on EVs over the next 3 years, and all nine lines will release EVs in North America in this time frame.
If we keep adding all these billions up, pretty soon it’s going to be some real money towards EVs…
Battery swapping is just an idea that in my head sounds good as I take lots of long road trips and I'm a big fan of minimizing the non-driving time on stops. I have no idea if that's feasible in any kind of widespread fashion. You say "nobody" would take the risk but I'm not so sure if one failed experiment is all there is to this especially before we have widespread EV adoption.
There are currently car services that function as app based on demand rental services with various types of cars and trucks parked around urban centers.I could probably do that. Nowadays I only fill up 4 times a year. There's a point where it's cheaper not to own a car.
Battery swapping has failed several times: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company)
Renault long insisted that their batteries could only be leased. They hardly sold a single ev in Norway before the policy was changed. And since this was at the time where Norway had a substantial part of the evs in the world, it did hurt their overall sales to ignore customer preferences.
Battery swapping has failed several times: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company)
Renault long insisted that their batteries could only be leased. They hardly sold a single ev in Norway before the policy was changed. And since this was at the time where Norway had a substantial part of the evs in the world, it did hurt their overall sales to ignore customer preferences.
Cut and try until it fits. Maybe the time and technology just hasn't got it right yet. It doesn't seem to be rocket science.
I see people having the same attitude about nuclear power. They say, "Oh! There have been some problems. Let's just give up."
It would be desirable for me, someone that does 400+ mile round trip drives about twice a month on average, often parked for less than half an hour at my destination before turning around to head home. That desire goes away with DCFCs combined with the charging speed of cars like the upcoming Hyundai Ioniq 5 that can charge to 80% in 18 minutes.Battery swapping has failed several times: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company)
Renault long insisted that their batteries could only be leased. They hardly sold a single ev in Norway before the policy was changed. And since this was at the time where Norway had a substantial part of the evs in the world, it did hurt their overall sales to ignore customer preferences.
Cut and try until it fits. Maybe the time and technology just hasn't got it right yet. It doesn't seem to be rocket science.
I see people having the same attitude about nuclear power. They say, "Oh! There have been some problems. Let's just give up."
Ultimately I keep wondering what problem battery swapping would really solve.
Ask a group of people who do not own an EV what their major concerns are about the current state of technology, and range anxiety & speed of recharging are near the top of that list
But ask those who currently drive EVs and those issues aren’t that big a deal. For most, they are such infrequent edge cases which are easily adjusted for (and which keep getting easier) that it’s not a concern. With 300+ mile ranges and an emerging network of chargers (some of which include 80A and DCFCs) those edge cases become more extreme each year.
I’m just not sure why or how battery swapping would be desirable to an EV owner. I could see it making sense for commercial vehicles (particularly autonomous ones that might operate 22+ hours/day), but not for your everyday family car that gets topped up nightly.
Battery swapping has failed several times: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company)
Renault long insisted that their batteries could only be leased. They hardly sold a single ev in Norway before the policy was changed. And since this was at the time where Norway had a substantial part of the evs in the world, it did hurt their overall sales to ignore customer preferences.
Cut and try until it fits. Maybe the time and technology just hasn't got it right yet. It doesn't seem to be rocket science.
I see people having the same attitude about nuclear power. They say, "Oh! There have been some problems. Let's just give up."
Ultimately I keep wondering what problem battery swapping would really solve.
Ask a group of people who do not own an EV what their major concerns are about the current state of technology, and range anxiety & speed of recharging are near the top of that list
But ask those who currently drive EVs and those issues aren’t that big a deal. For most, they are such infrequent edge cases which are easily adjusted for (and which keep getting easier) that it’s not a concern. With 300+ mile ranges and an emerging network of chargers (some of which include 80A and DCFCs) those edge cases become more extreme each year.
I’m just not sure why or how battery swapping would be desirable to an EV owner. I could see it making sense for commercial vehicles (particularly autonomous ones that might operate 22+ hours/day), but not for your everyday family car that gets topped up nightly.
Battery swapping has failed several times: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_(company)
Renault long insisted that their batteries could only be leased. They hardly sold a single ev in Norway before the policy was changed. And since this was at the time where Norway had a substantial part of the evs in the world, it did hurt their overall sales to ignore customer preferences.
Cut and try until it fits. Maybe the time and technology just hasn't got it right yet. It doesn't seem to be rocket science.
I see people having the same attitude about nuclear power. They say, "Oh! There have been some problems. Let's just give up."
Ultimately I keep wondering what problem battery swapping would really solve.
Ask a group of people who do not own an EV what their major concerns are about the current state of technology, and range anxiety & speed of recharging are near the top of that list
But ask those who currently drive EVs and those issues aren’t that big a deal. For most, they are such infrequent edge cases which are easily adjusted for (and which keep getting easier) that it’s not a concern. With 300+ mile ranges and an emerging network of chargers (some of which include 80A and DCFCs) those edge cases become more extreme each year.
I’m just not sure why or how battery swapping would be desirable to an EV owner. I could see it making sense for commercial vehicles (particularly autonomous ones that might operate 22+ hours/day), but not for your everyday family car that gets topped up nightly.
With battery swapping, isn't there also the problem that you could get a worn out battery that won't take a charge properly?
Just to clarify, anytime that I've mentioned people disliking sharing a vehicle with others, I was referring to situations like carpools or mass transit where you're actually sharing the same vehicle at the same time with others. Those types of changes, where fewer people are traveling alone, are the only way that autonomous vehicles can really improve anything significant environmentally speaking. It's the only way that overall miles driven are likely to decrease. And human operated mass transit and carpools have been around for 100 years now without getting much of a foothold. We could've theoretically reduced total miles driven at anypoint in the last century by emphasizing them and it just hasn't happened. Emphasizing them moving forward doesn't necessarily have to involve autonomy either. It requires a change in public attitudes, not necessarily a change in what's piloting the vehicles.
If we just take human drivers out of taxis or personal vehicles (replaced by software) and then continue to operate them as we currently do, I don't see much benefit other than potential safety improvements. That's not to downplay the importance of safety at all. If autonomy delivers only on the safety claims, and isn't cheaper or better for the environment, it may still be worthwhile. I'm just saying that I'm highly skeptical of claims that autonomous taxis will be wide spread, and/or cheaper, and/or more convenient, and/or better for the environment than what we're currently doing. People aren't going to suddenly be more likely to take a carpool (or mass transit) that's operated by software than they are to take a human driven carpool (or mass transit )because most of the same annoyances are present regardless of what's controlling the vehicle. People aren't going to hail an autonomous taxi more often than they hail a regular taxi unless it's more convenient (which probably requires more total vehicles to be stationed all over) or cheaper (I'm clearly a skeptic on this claim, but time may reveal if I'm correct or not).
Rebates to subsidize EV purchases by consumers and direct spending on federal purchases of EVs would reach close to $1 billion in FY 2022, and a new tax credit would be created for purchases of medium- and heavy-duty zero emission trucks. Also, the budget envisions tax credits worth $236 million in FY 2022 for installation of EV chargers, as well as hundreds of millions more to upgrade the power transmission system, which would benefit EV users.
There has traditionally been a lot of resistance to making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists . . . because most methods for doing this involve reducing space for and speed of automobiles. In North America, the automobile is king - suggesting otherwise seems to either get you branded as a heretic or laughed out of the room.
All in all, Biden wants to spend $174 billion on vehicle electrification, yet only $20 billion to fund safer streets for people who do not use cars.
I'm always amazed at how many places in the USA don't even have a sidewalk for pedestrians.
There has traditionally been a lot of resistance to making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists . . . because most methods for doing this involve reducing space for and speed of automobiles. In North America, the automobile is king - suggesting otherwise seems to either get you branded as a heretic or laughed out of the room.
There has traditionally been a lot of resistance to making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists . . . because most methods for doing this involve reducing space for and speed of automobiles. In North America, the automobile is king - suggesting otherwise seems to either get you branded as a heretic or laughed out of the room.
Something makes me suspect that the pedestrian and cyclist lobbying organizations don't have the funding that the automotive and oil & gas lobbyists have, lol.
...
This thread about the Mach-E helping to spark change was started November, 2019.
In 2020, Ford didn't really sell any Mach-E.
In 2021, they've sold about 13,000. Looks like production numbers are approaching 7,000 / month now. (Tesla produces about 10x as many EVs each month.)
Overall this is very disappointing (unless you wish Ford just built bikes).
You can't blame the oil and gas lobby. Car use seems to be ridiculously deeply ingrained in our culture.
There has traditionally been a lot of resistance to making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists . . . because most methods for doing this involve reducing space for and speed of automobiles. In North America, the automobile is king - suggesting otherwise seems to either get you branded as a heretic or laughed out of the room.
Something makes me suspect that the pedestrian and cyclist lobbying organizations don't have the funding that the automotive and oil & gas lobbyists have, lol.
You can't blame the oil and gas lobby. Car use seems to be ridiculously deeply ingrained in our culture. It's a little frustrating that the same chorus of excuses always comes up:
- NOBODY COULD DO THAT AND YOU DON'T COUNT
- MY SON RIDES A BIKE, THEREFORE THEY'RE ONLY FOR CHILDREN
- ALL THAT BIKES DO IS SLOW DOWN TRAFFIC FOR EVERYONE ELSE
- WHAT IF IT RAINS / IS SUNNY / SNOWS / IS WINDY / HUMITITY / POLLUTION / BUGS / DUST / ALLERGIES
- IT'S SO DANGEROUS. DID YOU KNOW THAT 100% OF CYCLISTS WILL DIE?
- I'M AN OBESE SMOKER SO AM INCAPABLE OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
- YOU CAN'T CARRY ANYTHING WHILE CYCLING
- MY BODY IS UNIQUE AMONG HUMANS IN THAT I SWEAT
- I COMMUTE 300 MILES A DAY, YOU CAN'T BIKE THAT
- HOW WOULD I BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY RUNNING CYCLISTS OFF THE ROAD WHILE ON A BIKE?
:P
...
This thread about the Mach-E helping to spark change was started November, 2019.
In 2020, Ford didn't really sell any Mach-E.
In 2021, they've sold about 13,000. Looks like production numbers are approaching 7,000 / month now. (Tesla produces about 10x as many EVs each month.)
Overall this is very disappointing (unless you wish Ford just built bikes).
Thanks for getting us back on track, Neo. I'll chime in to say:
In 2020, I know I didn't drive around much, but I didn't see even one Mach-E out on the road.
In 2021, I've seen 3. Granted it's a 300% increase, but it still isn't a lot.
Where I live, Tesla's are far and away the most seen BEV (mostly Model 3s), with Nissan Leaf coming in 2nd. Outside of those handful of models (Tesla S, 3, X, Y, and Nissan Leaf), all other BEVs are seen far and few between (Maybe slightly more Chevy Bolts than others, but still not a lot).
However, I do think that there are many more EVs on the road today than 3 years ago. I'm hoping that trend continues. I say this as a non-EV owning person, but both of my family's cars are 15+ years old (and we definitely plan on replacing at least one with an EV when they die).
...
This thread about the Mach-E helping to spark change was started November, 2019.
In 2020, Ford didn't really sell any Mach-E.
In 2021, they've sold about 13,000. Looks like production numbers are approaching 7,000 / month now. (Tesla produces about 10x as many EVs each month.)
Overall this is very disappointing (unless you wish Ford just built bikes).
Thanks for getting us back on track, Neo. I'll chime in to say:
In 2020, I know I didn't drive around much, but I didn't see even one Mach-E out on the road.
In 2021, I've seen 3. Granted it's a 300% increase, but it still isn't a lot.
Where I live, Tesla's are far and away the most seen BEV (mostly Model 3s), with Nissan Leaf coming in 2nd. Outside of those handful of models (Tesla S, 3, X, Y, and Nissan Leaf), all other BEVs are seen far and few between (Maybe slightly more Chevy Bolts than others, but still not a lot).
However, I do think that there are many more EVs on the road today than 3 years ago. I'm hoping that trend continues. I say this as a non-EV owning person, but both of my family's cars are 15+ years old (and we definitely plan on replacing at least one with an EV when they die).
I've seen a lot more Tesla around lately. The booming economy has helped.
The best selling personal vehicle is the F150. Once Ford starts selling the F150 Lightning, the move to BEVs will quicken.
I plan to convert a classic car to electric and use it as our 2nd, around town, vehicle. My current daily driver is fun but it's now old enough to vote.
...
This thread about the Mach-E helping to spark change was started November, 2019.
In 2020, Ford didn't really sell any Mach-E.
In 2021, they've sold about 13,000. Looks like production numbers are approaching 7,000 / month now. (Tesla produces about 10x as many EVs each month.)
Overall this is very disappointing (unless you wish Ford just built bikes).
Thanks for getting us back on track, Neo. I'll chime in to say:
In 2020, I know I didn't drive around much, but I didn't see even one Mach-E out on the road.
In 2021, I've seen 3. Granted it's a 300% increase, but it still isn't a lot.
Where I live, Tesla's are far and away the most seen BEV (mostly Model 3s), with Nissan Leaf coming in 2nd. Outside of those handful of models (Tesla S, 3, X, Y, and Nissan Leaf), all other BEVs are seen far and few between (Maybe slightly more Chevy Bolts than others, but still not a lot).
However, I do think that there are many more EVs on the road today than 3 years ago. I'm hoping that trend continues. I say this as a non-EV owning person, but both of my family's cars are 15+ years old (and we definitely plan on replacing at least one with an EV when they die).
I've seen a lot more Tesla around lately. The booming economy has helped.
The best selling personal vehicle is the F150. Once Ford starts selling the F150 Lightning, the move to BEVs will quicken.
I plan to convert a classic car to electric and use it as our 2nd, around town, vehicle. My current daily driver is fun but it's now old enough to vote.
Lots of friends are signing up for the f150 that I know trucks rule suburban Midwest roads. When the lightning outsells the ice we'll know it's now an EV world my guess 2-3 years max.
I also have an itch to convert a classic car. Can pickup some wrecked tesla cells on ebay really cheap. Any resources you recommend?
...
This thread about the Mach-E helping to spark change was started November, 2019.
In 2020, Ford didn't really sell any Mach-E.
In 2021, they've sold about 13,000. Looks like production numbers are approaching 7,000 / month now. (Tesla produces about 10x as many EVs each month.)
Overall this is very disappointing (unless you wish Ford just built bikes).
Thanks for getting us back on track, Neo. I'll chime in to say:
In 2020, I know I didn't drive around much, but I didn't see even one Mach-E out on the road.
In 2021, I've seen 3. Granted it's a 300% increase, but it still isn't a lot.
Where I live, Tesla's are far and away the most seen BEV (mostly Model 3s), with Nissan Leaf coming in 2nd. Outside of those handful of models (Tesla S, 3, X, Y, and Nissan Leaf), all other BEVs are seen far and few between (Maybe slightly more Chevy Bolts than others, but still not a lot).
However, I do think that there are many more EVs on the road today than 3 years ago. I'm hoping that trend continues. I say this as a non-EV owning person, but both of my family's cars are 15+ years old (and we definitely plan on replacing at least one with an EV when they die).
I've seen a lot more Tesla around lately. The booming economy has helped.
The best selling personal vehicle is the F150. Once Ford starts selling the F150 Lightning, the move to BEVs will quicken.
I plan to convert a classic car to electric and use it as our 2nd, around town, vehicle. My current daily driver is fun but it's now old enough to vote.
Lots of friends are signing up for the f150 that I know trucks rule suburban Midwest roads. When the lightning outsells the ice we'll know it's now an EV world my guess 2-3 years max.
I also have an itch to convert a classic car. Can pickup some wrecked tesla cells on ebay really cheap. Any resources you recommend?
I just started looking but there are some here. The LG Chem's are supposed to be good if you want to get new instead of used.
https://www.evwest.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=4
more emmisions-gate fallout for them?
There has traditionally been a lot of resistance to making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists . . . because most methods for doing this involve reducing space for and speed of automobiles. In North America, the automobile is king - suggesting otherwise seems to either get you branded as a heretic or laughed out of the room.
Something makes me suspect that the pedestrian and cyclist lobbying organizations don't have the funding that the automotive and oil & gas lobbyists have, lol.
You can't blame the oil and gas lobby. Car use seems to be ridiculously deeply ingrained in our culture. It's a little frustrating that the same chorus of excuses always comes up:
- NOBODY COULD DO THAT AND YOU DON'T COUNT
- MY SON RIDES A BIKE, THEREFORE THEY'RE ONLY FOR CHILDREN
- ALL THAT BIKES DO IS SLOW DOWN TRAFFIC FOR EVERYONE ELSE
- WHAT IF IT RAINS / IS SUNNY / SNOWS / IS WINDY / HUMITITY / POLLUTION / BUGS / DUST / ALLERGIES
- IT'S SO DANGEROUS. DID YOU KNOW THAT 100% OF CYCLISTS WILL DIE?
- I'M AN OBESE SMOKER SO AM INCAPABLE OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
- YOU CAN'T CARRY ANYTHING WHILE CYCLING
- MY BODY IS UNIQUE AMONG HUMANS IN THAT I SWEAT
- I COMMUTE 300 MILES A DAY, YOU CAN'T BIKE THAT
- HOW WOULD I BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY RUNNING CYCLISTS OFF THE ROAD WHILE ON A BIKE?
:P
Why do you think that is?
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
This argument is similar to the "but America was designed for the car, so we can't have it any other way!! Not like those people in Amsterdam who have always had bike infrastructure!"
Of course, we work within systems and infrastructures that define where "extreme" is. 68% of trips to school and work in Amsterdam are by bike because the infrastructure supports it. Getting to 80% probably isn't supported by their infrastructure, yet. For many other cities around the world, but especially in North America getting to 5% would be extreme.
People will choose what to do in just about every area based on what's most convenient (fastest, lowest cost, etc.). Some of the decision-making around convenience is logical, but much of it also isn't - there's so much influence of habit, childhood, what everyone else is doing, and especially identity.
People in Amsterdam don't bike because they're altruistically doing something they don't want to do for the good of others. They're doing it because it's the best option based on factors like cost of private vehicles, bike paths, bike parking, work policies, bike design, helmet laws (lack thereof, which is possible because of the infrastructure, etc.), and because it's normal.
In a weak attempt to tie this back to the OP question... EVs are relatively easy to adopt because the infrastructure mostly already supports them (roads, parking, etc.). Some would say that the infrastructure doesn't support them because of a lack of sufficient public charging, and charging solutions for renters, apartment-dwellers, and street-parkers. There's some truth to that, but for a significant proportion of the population those infrastructure concerns aren't a big deal. Right now, the biggest factor that will drive or slow adoption is identity. If driving an EV conflicts with your identity you will hold out as long as possible. If it confirms or reinforces your identity, you'll pay a bit extra to be an early adopter. If it has no bearing on your identity, you'll drive one when the economics makes sense for you.
I think that Biden is balancing what is best with what is realistically possible in the current environment. The car reliance is very deeply ingrained, and there doesn't seem to be any significant grass roots support for a no car lifestyle. In Amsterdam the bike friendliness was largely a result of a sudden quadrupling increase in the price of oil.I see this as more an issue of communication. Let's look at what Americans' preferences are in regards to lifestyle:
If Biden started telling people to ride a bike to work and building bike infrastructure in the current US political climate, I suspect he would get a similar reception to the one that got Carter kicked out of the White House after he told people they should wear sweaters in the winter.
We are at an inflection point: should the federal government spend hundreds of billions more dollars to continue subsidizing automobiles, as Biden is proposing with his EV plan? Or should it spend more on accommodating other safer, more sustainable modes of transportation? No, you can't just fund "all of the above" -- that's not how these political negotiations work; there's not infinite money to spend on infrastructure.
I see this as more an issue of communication. Let's look at what Americans' preferences are in regards to lifestyle:
- 53% of Americans would prefer to live in a walkable neighborhood (https://www.wpr.org/more-americans-want-walkable-cities-how-does-happen)
- Americans support expanding public transit, including passenger rail, by a 77-15 margin (https://t4america.org/2020/03/17/voters-want-and-need-more-transportation-options/; https://www.onerail.org/resources/americans-strongly-support-rail/)
Thus, Biden is missing out on a huge opportunity to improve our transportation system by focusing primarily on EVs. Instead of framing it negatively ("You need to bike to work"), he could use positive messaging, such as, "Wouldn't you like to live in a walkable neighborhood?" and "What if our country had world-class passenger rail, thus allowing you to avoid those annoying security lines at the airport?"
One more reason for the EV push: making cars = jobs and no significant opposition. Like, what are you against? More blue collar jobs in the American heartland? Please sign here: "I commit my political suicide freely and willingly". Not only that EVs = jobs, they are jobs for people who (in the US political context) matter - gettable voters who are not already in the pocket, and who are geographically concentrated in important areas.Not sure I follow your point about jobs. Does building buses not produce jobs? Does building train cars or laying railroad lines not create jobs? And does building bike and pedestrian infrastructure not produce jobs? On the contrary, bicycle and pedestrian projects create more jobs than building roads and highways, due to a heavier reliance on humans vs. machines. (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/new-report-reveals-bike-and-pedestrian-projects-create-more-jobs-than-those-for-cars-only/; https://idahowalkbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Bicycling-and-Walking-Projects-Create-More-Jobs.pdf)
One more reason for the EV push: making cars = jobs and no significant opposition. Like, what are you against? More blue collar jobs in the American heartland? Please sign here: "I commit my political suicide freely and willingly". Not only that EVs = jobs, they are jobs for people who (in the US political context) matter - gettable voters who are not already in the pocket, and who are geographically concentrated in important areas.
Rebuilding infrastructure for better walking and biking at the expense of cars = making people change habits = huge opposition. You cannot come up with a better fuel for a culture war. THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE! It also means jobs, of course - but these are mostly city jobs, and thus they don't matter.
Not sure I follow your point about jobs. Does building buses not produce jobs? Does building train cars or laying railroad lines not create jobs? And does building bike and pedestrian infrastructure not produce jobs? On the contrary, bicycle and pedestrian projects create more jobs than building roads and highways, due to a heavier reliance on humans vs. machines. (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/new-report-reveals-bike-and-pedestrian-projects-create-more-jobs-than-those-for-cars-only/; https://idahowalkbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Bicycling-and-Walking-Projects-Create-More-Jobs.pdf)
Thus, Biden is missing out on a huge opportunity to improve our transportation system by focusing primarily on EVs. Instead of framing it negatively ("You need to bike to work"), he could use positive messaging, such as, "Wouldn't you like to live in a walkable neighborhood?" and "What if our country had world-class passenger rail, thus allowing you to avoid those annoying security lines at the airport?"
Transit: Provide every American city with 100,000 or more residents with high-quality, zero-emissions public transportation options through flexible federal investments with strong labor protections that create good, union jobs and meet the needs of these cities – ranging from light rail networks to improving existing transit and bus lines to installing infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Sparking the second great railroad revolution. Biden will make sure that America has the cleanest, safest, and fastest rail system in the world — for both passengers and freight.
Revolutionizing municipal transit networks. Most Americans do not have access to high-quality and zero-emissions options for affordable, reliable public transportation; and where transit exists, it’s often in need of repair. As a result, workers and families rely on cars and trucks, which can be a big financial burden and clog roadways. Biden will aim to provide all Americans in municipalities of more than 100,000 people with quality public transportation by 2030. He will allocate flexible federal investments with strong labor protections to help cities and towns install light rail networks and improve existing transit and bus lines. He’ll also help them invest in infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists, and riders of e-scooters and other micro-mobility vehicles and integrate technologies like machine-learning optimized traffic lights.
No.No? Then why do I keep reading that it does? Like here (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35203450/tesla-model-3-battery-capacity-loss-warranty/) and here (https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/is-dc-fast-charging-bad-for-your-electric-car) and here (https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/01/f19/dcfc_study_fs_50k.pdf) and here (https://www.kia.com/dm/discover-kia/ask/how-to-extend-ev-battery-life.html)?
However, a study conducted by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) concluded that while an electric car’s battery will deteriorate faster if it’s only power source is Level 3 charging (which is almost never the case) the difference isn’t particularly pronounced.
Is reduced capacity damage? No.
Factor in the $7,500 US federal tax credit, and you should be able to get into an F-150 Lightning for less money than a comparably capable and similarly equipped gas-powered model.
Our experience with hailing ride-shares has been to hurry up and wait a long, long time. If that's going to be fixed by EV + autonomy + not owning cars, there's going to have to be cars just sitting around idle doing nothing for big stretches of time near anyone who might need it. Seems inefficient to me...
Who cares if our car sits in the parking lot unused all day? B/c it rests most of the time, it lasts decades.
^THis.Who cares if our car sits in the parking lot unused all day? B/c it rests most of the time, it lasts decades.
For population dense areas, not having to waste precious space by parking cars walking distance from work/shopping is a big deal. I would also say from an MMM-philosophy standpoint, even where space is less at a premium, it significantly eats into our ability to be pedestrian friendly. Parking lots in front of every store stretches out our cities and towns, and we need all the help we can get to pull it back.
^THis.Who cares if our car sits in the parking lot unused all day? B/c it rests most of the time, it lasts decades.
For population dense areas, not having to waste precious space by parking cars walking distance from work/shopping is a big deal. I would also say from an MMM-philosophy standpoint, even where space is less at a premium, it significantly eats into our ability to be pedestrian friendly. Parking lots in front of every store stretches out our cities and towns, and we need all the help we can get to pull it back.
Here’s an example of how differently the issues are between rural/urban. In rural areas (like where I live now) there’s no shortage of space for cars. In urban areas both parking and congestion is an enormous deal. Not coincidentally this is where most people live. In these areas something like 40% of the area is devoted to parked cars, and these are parked >95% of the time. Even at ‘peak’ transit times some 80% of cars are just sitting in lots or by the side of the street. On-street parking conflicts with both car traffic and bike lanes. Every proposal to expand cycling lanes runs into opposition because it involves taking out a few dozen parking spots and parking is already at a premium. There’s a reason why taxis service became enormously popular in most every city in the 20th century despite its high per-mile cost.
I look at things just a little differently. I used to work in an office in the middle of a large Midwestern city. The thought occurred to me way back then that there was no real reason for the office to be located in the downtown. Cities like the businesses because of the tax base. Landlords like to rent space in the big buildings. Would the customers care if the offices were located in one of the largely empty malls? I doubt it.
There’s been this push and pull between putting offices in downtown locations or in more rural/suburban locales. Despite the added cost for, well, almost everything cities routinely win. Despite the enormous cost, there are huge advantages and inertia in being in a dense urban setting with lots of other businesses.
Of course dense urban settings done always win out. Every year some huge company relocates a major office in a less dense area (or overseas), always mentioning how the cost of doing business would be so much lower. Sometimes it works great. Sometimes it fails miserable. Ebb and flow.
EY surveyed 9,000 consumers across 13 countries (Australia, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, the UK, and the US) in June
In each country, the environment was the primary reason for wanting to electrify, and the major concern was the cost of ownership, not charging infrastructure. The good news is that time and again, research shows that EVs are cheaper to maintain and have a lower total cost of ownership than gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles.
The electric-car maker's fast charging network, with over 25,000 superchargers globally, has given it a competitive edge.
"We're making our Supercharger network open to other EVs later this year," Musk said on Tuesday, adding that over time Tesla's charging network will be opened to other electric vehicles in all countries.
And another important headline...
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-plans-open-up-its-charging-network-other-evs-later-this-year-2021-07-20/QuoteThe electric-car maker's fast charging network, with over 25,000 superchargers globally, has given it a competitive edge.Quote"We're making our Supercharger network open to other EVs later this year," Musk said on Tuesday, adding that over time Tesla's charging network will be opened to other electric vehicles in all countries.
And another important headline...
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-plans-open-up-its-charging-network-other-evs-later-this-year-2021-07-20/QuoteThe electric-car maker's fast charging network, with over 25,000 superchargers globally, has given it a competitive edge.Quote"We're making our Supercharger network open to other EVs later this year," Musk said on Tuesday, adding that over time Tesla's charging network will be opened to other electric vehicles in all countries.
This will be interesting. First off, it's just a tweet from Elon, so massive grain of salt... Second, when/if it happens it will be really interesting to see how they implement it. Will non Tesla's have to pay more? Will they just add more superchargers so that current Tesla owners won't be inconvenienced by other EVs taking up Supercharger space for long periods of time?
And another important headline...
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-plans-open-up-its-charging-network-other-evs-later-this-year-2021-07-20/QuoteThe electric-car maker's fast charging network, with over 25,000 superchargers globally, has given it a competitive edge.Quote"We're making our Supercharger network open to other EVs later this year," Musk said on Tuesday, adding that over time Tesla's charging network will be opened to other electric vehicles in all countries.
This will be interesting. First off, it's just a tweet from Elon, so massive grain of salt... Second, when/if it happens it will be really interesting to see how they implement it. Will non Tesla's have to pay more? Will they just add more superchargers so that current Tesla owners won't be inconvenienced by other EVs taking up Supercharger space for long periods of time?
I had a similar thought too - it would frustrate a lot of Tesla owners if slow charging cars were using up all the supercharger spots.
And another important headline...
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-plans-open-up-its-charging-network-other-evs-later-this-year-2021-07-20/QuoteThe electric-car maker's fast charging network, with over 25,000 superchargers globally, has given it a competitive edge.Quote"We're making our Supercharger network open to other EVs later this year," Musk said on Tuesday, adding that over time Tesla's charging network will be opened to other electric vehicles in all countries.
This will be interesting. First off, it's just a tweet from Elon, so massive grain of salt... Second, when/if it happens it will be really interesting to see how they implement it. Will non Tesla's have to pay more? Will they just add more superchargers so that current Tesla owners won't be inconvenienced by other EVs taking up Supercharger space for long periods of time?
I had a similar thought too - it would frustrate a lot of Tesla owners if slow charging cars were using up all the supercharger spots.
Short term vs long term. Short term it might cause some issues but long term if it increased demand and cash flow the network could be expanded more quickly (?). Maybe time limit slower charging cars?
From my experience, Tesla has built out their charging network where there's rarely a wait to get a charging spot. It seems very deliberate on their end.
...
Biggest issue is with trucks entering the market they don't have pull thru stalls for trucks towing trailers
...
Biggest issue is with trucks entering the market they don't have pull thru stalls for trucks towing trailers
I thought the idea with trucks would be to charge at the origin & destination at least in the early years and not try to charge "away from base"?
Sure they have. There are some at almost all of Tesla's superchargers in Norway, and several of the other charging operators are adapting to all the people who are towing campers with their EVs. If you don't have them in the US yet, I doubt it will take Tesla many weeks to implement them since everything is tested and ready.From my experience, Tesla has built out their charging network where there's rarely a wait to get a charging spot. It seems very deliberate on their end.
Biggest issue is with trucks entering the market they don't have pull thru stalls for trucks towing trailers
From my experience, Tesla has built out their charging network where there's rarely a wait to get a charging spot. It seems very deliberate on their end.
Biggest issue is with trucks entering the market they don't have pull thru stalls for trucks towing trailers
From my experience, Tesla has built out their charging network where there's rarely a wait to get a charging spot. It seems very deliberate on their end.
Biggest issue is with trucks entering the market they don't have pull thru stalls for trucks towing trailers
That is an interesting case, and one I hadn’t considered. I don;t think it is the “biggest issue” facing EV adaptation, though.
The few EV trucks hitting the road boast a 300mi range - probably 200mi hauling most trailers. Far enough for many, though certainly not enough for a few.
From my experience, Tesla has built out their charging network where there's rarely a wait to get a charging spot. It seems very deliberate on their end.
Biggest issue is with trucks entering the market they don't have pull thru stalls for trucks towing trailers
That is an interesting case, and one I hadn’t considered. I don;t think it is the “biggest issue” facing EV adaptation, though.
The few EV trucks hitting the road boast a 300mi range - probably 200mi hauling most trailers. Far enough for many, though certainly not enough for a few.
The f150 is the number one selling vehicle in the country. This is huge for adoption and most ranges are cut in half by towing. 150 vs 200 is a large difference.
From my experience, Tesla has built out their charging network where there's rarely a wait to get a charging spot. It seems very deliberate on their end.
Biggest issue is with trucks entering the market they don't have pull thru stalls for trucks towing trailers
That is an interesting case, and one I hadn’t considered. I don;t think it is the “biggest issue” facing EV adaptation, though.
The few EV trucks hitting the road boast a 300mi range - probably 200mi hauling most trailers. Far enough for many, though certainly not enough for a few.
The f150 is the number one selling vehicle in the country. This is huge for adoption and most ranges are cut in half by towing. 150 vs 200 is a large difference.
Sure, they can be cut in half with a heavy trailer. Many trailers aren’t, and most owners of the F150 haven’t trailered anything. As I said, charging with trailers is certainly something the existing charging infrastructure in the US isn’t terribly well set up to handle. I’m simply questioning how big an issue it actually is (vs perceived - much as ‘all-terrain’ is actually needed by only a very few).
From my experience, Tesla has built out their charging network where there's rarely a wait to get a charging spot. It seems very deliberate on their end.
Biggest issue is with trucks entering the market they don't have pull thru stalls for trucks towing trailers
That is an interesting case, and one I hadn’t considered. I don;t think it is the “biggest issue” facing EV adaptation, though.
The few EV trucks hitting the road boast a 300mi range - probably 200mi hauling most trailers. Far enough for many, though certainly not enough for a few.
The f150 is the number one selling vehicle in the country. This is huge for adoption and most ranges are cut in half by towing. 150 vs 200 is a large difference.
Sure, they can be cut in half with a heavy trailer. Many trailers aren’t, and most owners of the F150 haven’t trailered anything. As I said, charging with trailers is certainly something the existing charging infrastructure in the US isn’t terribly well set up to handle. I’m simply questioning how big an issue it actually is (vs perceived - much as ‘all-terrain’ is actually needed by only a very few).
I'm unclear where they got the number, but this article claims that 35% of truck drivers use their truck to tow once a year or less.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume (https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume)
So it sounds like it's probably not much of an issue.
A story over here today that a lot of EVs are rated for surprisingly litte load. Don't know if US rules are the same as in Europe, but if you are five adults in a Tesla Model 3 or 4 adults with some luggage the car is outside its rated weight. It can only carry 304 kilos (669 lbs) of load in addition to the driver. Model S is rated for 329 kilos or 724 lbs. A Nissan Leaf can cary a few lbs more than the Model 3. On the other end of the spectrum a VW ID.4 can transport 514 kg or 1130 lbs, roughly same as the new Skoda Enyaq.That doesn't seem right. I'm seeing 893 pounds (https://www.carsdirect.com/2021/tesla/model-3/specs) for the Model 3 and 1,056 pounds (https://www.carsdirect.com/2021/tesla/model-s/specs) for the Model S.
Might vary depending on build year - just checked the docs in my 2015 Model S at it had 408 kilos in addition to driver. Numbers above taken from the table in the article, not fact-checked by me.
Nissan Leaf should have a max payload of around 1,010 pounds (https://ev-database.org/car/1144/Nissan-Leaf-eplus).
I found a picture of a 2017 Model 3 (base) door sticker (the one with load and tire pressure info). GVWR of 4,806 lb. Curb weight should have been around 3,549 lb which makes the max load 1,257 lb (571 kg). I assume it does vary by year and version.
In the US, the VW ID.4 is rated for 1300lb, vs. 1100 for the Honda CR-V.Checked the specs for ID.4 and see the same with very litte variation across the models, so the article I read might be off. At least it was for my sample of Model S which is the one I checked. Another reason might be that they have erred on the fact that the weight of the driver is included in the car's weight (as is a spare tyre and a jack). In which case it's odd as it was in a car magazine (it's called "Motor", even...), in the footnote they use the correct definition of weight but the maths might be off so they basically include the driver twice, driver is defined as 75kg (165 lbs).
US tow ratings are really odd. They're super low compared to the same vehicles in the rest of the world, and I don't know why.It's because the way we hitch up the trailer has a different balance. When you put more weight on the tongue you can tow less weight (because of axle weight limits). But the trade-off is a higher maximum stable speed. Elsewhere can tow more because the trailer has a more neutral balance so it won't overload the axle but risks destabilization at higher speeds.
US tow ratings are really odd. They're super low compared to the same vehicles in the rest of the world, and I don't know why.It's because the way we hitch up the trailer has a different balance. When you put more weight on the tongue you can tow less weight (because of axle weight limits). But the trade-off is a higher maximum stable speed. Elsewhere can tow more because the trailer has a more neutral balance so it won't overload the axle but risks destabilization at higher speeds.
There was an excellent article about this on Jalopnik that seems to have been removed now. But you can still read it on the WaybackMachine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201111180652/https://oppositelock.kinja.com/tow-me-down-1609112611
US tow ratings are really odd. They're super low compared to the same vehicles in the rest of the world, and I don't know why.It's because the way we hitch up the trailer has a different balance. When you put more weight on the tongue you can tow less weight (because of axle weight limits). But the trade-off is a higher maximum stable speed. Elsewhere can tow more because the trailer has a more neutral balance so it won't overload the axle but risks destabilization at higher speeds.
There was an excellent article about this on Jalopnik that seems to have been removed now. But you can still read it on the WaybackMachine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201111180652/https://oppositelock.kinja.com/tow-me-down-1609112611
Great article. Still doesn't QUITE explain things like 0 lb ratings in the U.S. when the same car in the UK can tow 1300 lbs. (Without trailer brakes, the Mazda 3 is rated for 600kg / 1320lb in the UK, with brakes 1500kg / 3300lb!) Unless, they are assuming if you're driving a Mazda 3, even if you tow, you plan on going 100+ mph? :) But towing 500 lbs on a trailer with 10-15% on the tongue... 50-75 lbs(!!) is going to be relatively stable even at highway speeds. So my 35-45 mph jaunt was not horribly risky (in my mildly unscientific opinion.)
Or maybe there is a minimum tow rating to get a rating at all?
US tow ratings are really odd. They're super low compared to the same vehicles in the rest of the world, and I don't know why.
E.g. in NZ the Tesla Model 3 is towing rated for 910kg / 2006 lb.
I don't like a lot of government oversight such as vehicle inspections - and we don't have that in my state - but my opinion may be shifting. It is scary what is out on the roads in the USA. Pair that with a few YouTube channels that show a mechanic's perspective on people's cars that come in for repairs, and I want inspection laws yesterday.
Also, sharing observations from Iceland: the cost of gas is roughly $7.6 per gallon. A little digging on statise.is shows electricity price of ~16 cents/kWh. There looks to be more EVs on the roads, and the charging infrastructure is more visible than in the Eastern US - but even with this fuel cost disparity, EVs are far from dominating, with ~35% of new car sales for the last quarter I saw data for (q2 2020).
I doubt we will ever get to this level of economic advantage of EVs over ICE cars. Regulation is the only way.
Iceland only recently got charging infrastructure around the island. Just a few years ago, it was very difficult to travel electric on the north side, and downright impossible in the southeast. We had to charge at camping places, use extention cords through kitchen windows, etc, to get from Seydisfjørdur to Akureyri. From Selfoss to Seydisfjørdur, there are places with more than 100 km between houses, so with a first gen Nissan we would have been stranded. Now, I think they have rapid chargers around road 1, and you could almost see the increasing EV sales follow the geographical locations of the chargers.
The other issue in Iceland, is that they actually need 4WD to get around outside Reykjavik and the ring road. Most people have family or summer houses in rural areas, and have cars that can take them there. The Icelandic road naming system is very useful: 1 digit roads have asphalt everywhere, and rarely get washed away from floods. 2 digit roads are mainly gravel, and can be driven with most normal cars if you are careful. 3 digit roads will have the occasional river running through it, and you need an SUV or similar (not want: need). (There are some exceptions around Reykjavik, where roads have been upgraded due to tourists.)
Iceland only recently got charging infrastructure around the island. Just a few years ago, it was very difficult to travel electric on the north side, and downright impossible in the southeast. We had to charge at camping places, use extention cords through kitchen windows, etc, to get from Seydisfjørdur to Akureyri. From Selfoss to Seydisfjørdur, there are places with more than 100 km between houses, so with a first gen Nissan we would have been stranded. Now, I think they have rapid chargers around road 1, and you could almost see the increasing EV sales follow the geographical locations of the chargers.
The other issue in Iceland, is that they actually need 4WD to get around outside Reykjavik and the ring road. Most people have family or summer houses in rural areas, and have cars that can take them there. The Icelandic road naming system is very useful: 1 digit roads have asphalt everywhere, and rarely get washed away from floods. 2 digit roads are mainly gravel, and can be driven with most normal cars if you are careful. 3 digit roads will have the occasional river running through it, and you need an SUV or similar (not want: need). (There are some exceptions around Reykjavik, where roads have been upgraded due to tourists.)
It all explains why the most popular EV appears to be Outlander PHEV.
Kudos to you all for making pretty amazingly fast progress! Last I've been to Iceland was in 2018, and the changes around EV infrastructure are clearly visible and impressive.
One question, though: some charging stations seem to be lacking cords, having instead some heavy-duty outets. What's the deal with them and how do they work?
Last month here EVs made up 64.1% of cars sold. 27.6% were hybrids and only 4.3% powered by gasoline and 4.1% ran on diesel. The incentives are very skewed towards EVs and electricity is relatively cheap (around $0.15 / kWh while fossile fuels are very expensive (around $6.50 - $8 / gallon depending on loction) so the maths are quite different compared to the US. And pretty much 100% of our electricity supply comes from renewables in the first place.
Last month here EVs made up 64.1% of cars sold. 27.6% were hybrids and only 4.3% powered by gasoline and 4.1% ran on diesel. The incentives are very skewed towards EVs and electricity is relatively cheap (around $0.15 / kWh while fossile fuels are very expensive (around $6.50 - $8 / gallon depending on loction) so the maths are quite different compared to the US. And pretty much 100% of our electricity supply comes from renewables in the first place.
Where is "here"?
Last month here EVs made up 64.1% of cars sold. 27.6% were hybrids and only 4.3% powered by gasoline and 4.1% ran on diesel. The incentives are very skewed towards EVs and electricity is relatively cheap (around $0.15 / kWh while fossile fuels are very expensive (around $6.50 - $8 / gallon depending on loction) so the maths are quite different compared to the US. And pretty much 100% of our electricity supply comes from renewables in the first place.
Where is "here"?
Norway, home of heavily taxed cars and gas.
EVs are excempt from VAT (normally 25%), all car taxes (of which there is a shitload, generally calculated off weight and emission numbers), pay reduced yearly road tax, pay nothing or have a significant discount on toll roads and reduced parking fees on public space in cities. 14-15% of all personal cars are EVs so it takes a lot of time to replace the existing stock.
Im not really into car prices but to give you an idea a new Honda CR-V costs roughly 10-15k USD more than a new Tesla Model 3 AWD Long Range here so its quite different from most other places.
So based on this single data point (i.e what is happening in Norway) you can get a significant change provided strong incentives, but I guess if the US introduced norwegian car and gas taxes there would be a civil war or worse so it's starting from very different departure points. There are currently discussions on scaling back the incentives somewhat as the government looses significant revenue, cars being a cash cow for the government since the dawn of time. Currently the main topic is VAT on purchase price over a certain point. If introduced it will affect "luxury" cars like the electric Porsche. Teslas S and X models, the Audi E-tron but barely anything else afaik.
So due to the history adaption has been quicker here than most other places can expect. If you can live with the limitations of an EV (range, charging etc) its generally a pretty simple choice measured in money as the cars tend to be cheaper than a similar ICE car, especially on the higher end of the scale and much cheaper to operate due to high gas prices etc.
This is also why hybrids are popular, due to the somewhat optimistic official numbers for emission (CO2 and NOx) compared to real life it becomes a bit of an arbitrage vs the car tax system. You can buy one, get the reduced car tax compared to a pure ICE and if you end up ever charging it and driving it partly electric or not is irrelevant.
....
Very nice to have an on the ground summary ffom the world's case study on widespread EV adoption. Thanks, @habanero.
When I made my last car purchase in 2015, infrastructure wasn’t there yet for me in the US. My next car is likely to be a EV/hybrid or an EV. But I find it interesting that my new Bay Area lease specifically says I can’t charge an EV at my unit.
In some places and circles it seems like there’s an almost reactionary pushback to EVs.
In some places and circles it seems like there’s an almost reactionary pushback to EVs.
Absolutely. There are exactly two areas in which first questions often carry negative connotations: EVs and solar. For any other purchase, questions usually boil down to "tell me more about how awesome it is". For an EV, it's "defend your purchase for me".
Absolutely. There are exactly two areas in which first questions often carry negative connotations: EVs and solar. For any other purchase, questions usually boil down to "tell me more about how awesome it is". For an EV, it's "defend your purchase for me".
In some places and circles it seems like there’s an almost reactionary pushback to EVs.
Absolutely. There are exactly two areas in which first questions often carry negative connotations: EVs and solar. For any other purchase, questions usually boil down to "tell me more about how awesome it is". For an EV, it's "defend your purchase for me".
Sadly this is our experience with my FIL. His first reaction to seeing we had a PV array was to launch into some bizarre diatribe about how rare earth metals were finding sex. When we got our PHEV he said we were freeloading by not paying the gas tax.
I kinda get the queries about solar panels and wind turbines. They have been heavily oversold as a solution to our energy problem, and they absolutely are not that.
After I found sex, I'm sure I had some monologues about all types of odd subjects.In some places and circles it seems like there’s an almost reactionary pushback to EVs.
Absolutely. There are exactly two areas in which first questions often carry negative connotations: EVs and solar. For any other purchase, questions usually boil down to "tell me more about how awesome it is". For an EV, it's "defend your purchase for me".
Sadly this is our experience with my FIL. His first reaction to seeing we had a PV array was to launch into some bizarre diatribe about how rare earth metals were finding sex. When we got our PHEV he said we were freeloading by not paying the gas tax.
Having reverse engineering autocorrect. What did he say??
I kinda get the queries about solar panels and wind turbines. They have been heavily oversold as a solution to our energy problem, and they absolutely are not that.
Land Rovers are oversold even more heavily, as a solution to a problem that 99.89% of their buyers don't have. Yet a newly minted owner of one never gets challenged on anything.
In some places and circles it seems like there’s an almost reactionary pushback to EVs.
Absolutely. There are exactly two areas in which first questions often carry negative connotations: EVs and solar. For any other purchase, questions usually boil down to "tell me more about how awesome it is". For an EV, it's "defend your purchase for me".
Sadly this is our experience with my FIL. His first reaction to seeing we had a PV array was to launch into some bizarre diatribe about how rare earth metals were finding sex. When we got our PHEV he said we were freeloading by not paying the gas tax.
Having reverse engineering autocorrect. What did he say??
I kinda get the queries about solar panels and wind turbines. They have been heavily oversold as a solution to our energy problem, and they absolutely are not that.
Land Rovers are oversold even more heavily, as a solution to a problem that 99.89% of their buyers don't have. Yet a newly minted owner of one never gets challenged on anything.
Valid point.
Actually, I used to regularly tell people that new cars they had bought seemed a bit silly, but the incredibly negative reaction that always earned me eventually let me to stop. Should probably start that up again.
I kinda get the queries about solar panels and wind turbines. They have been heavily oversold as a solution to our energy problem, and they absolutely are not that.
Land Rovers are oversold even more heavily, as a solution to a problem that 99.89% of their buyers don't have. Yet a newly minted owner of one never gets challenged on anything.
Valid point.
Actually, I used to regularly tell people that new cars they had bought seemed a bit silly, but the incredibly negative reaction that always earned me eventually let me to stop. Should probably start that up again.
Is it really that silly in Canada? Don't a lot of people use those to hunt and fish in the bush? There have to be some pretty tough roads to get to these places. Land Rovers have aluminum bodies and don't rust. This also seems practical. However, the newer ones are not known to be too reliable so I think a Jeep would be a better option.
You can get an electric Jeep.
The one I got most often as a first was "how long does it take to charge from empty to full at home" ? To which I generally have to explain why it's irrelevant and the wrong question to ask. Folks got it when I explained it at least.
The one I got most often as a first was "how long does it take to charge from empty to full at home" ? To which I generally have to explain why it's irrelevant and the wrong question to ask. Folks got it when I explained it at least.
Best eye rolling question I ever got was:
Q. How can you drive your EV if there's a power cut?
A. The same way I use a torch when my house is without power.
The one I got most often as a first was "how long does it take to charge from empty to full at home" ? To which I generally have to explain why it's irrelevant and the wrong question to ask. Folks got it when I explained it at least.
Best eye rolling question I ever got was:
Q. How can you drive your EV if there's a power cut?
A. The same way I use a torch when my house is without power.
"How can you pump gas when the gas station has no power?"
:D
In some places and circles it seems like there’s an almost reactionary pushback to EVs.
Absolutely. There are exactly two areas in which first questions often carry negative connotations: EVs and solar. For any other purchase, questions usually boil down to "tell me more about how awesome it is". For an EV, it's "defend your purchase for me".
Sadly this is our experience with my FIL. His first reaction to seeing we had a PV array was to launch into some bizarre diatribe about how rare earth metals were finding sex. When we got our PHEV he said we were freeloading by not paying the gas tax.
Having reverse engineering autocorrect. What did he say??
The answer: I just plug it into my solar panel powered wallbox at home. Can't you do that with your car in your garage refinery?
Best eye rolling question I ever got was:
Q. How can you drive your EV if there's a power cut?
A. The same way I use a torch when my house is without power.
Canada has an absolute ton of wilderness, second only perhaps to Russia. But the overwhelming majority of Canadians live in and around a dozen or so metropolitan areas. As a country the population is about as urban-centric as the United States (slightly over 80% live in urban/suburban areas).There is a funny (and correct, for a certain squinted-eye sort of correctness) video that "proofs" that more Canadians living south than US citizens.
I kinda get the queries about solar panels and wind turbines. They have been heavily oversold as a solution to our energy problem, and they absolutely are not that.
Land Rovers are oversold even more heavily, as a solution to a problem that 99.89% of their buyers don't have. Yet a newly minted owner of one never gets challenged on anything.
Valid point.
Actually, I used to regularly tell people that new cars they had bought seemed a bit silly, but the incredibly negative reaction that always earned me eventually let me to stop. Should probably start that up again.
Is it really that silly in Canada? Don't a lot of people use those to hunt and fish in the bush? There have to be some pretty tough roads to get to these places. Land Rovers have aluminum bodies and don't rust. This also seems practical. However, the newer ones are not known to be too reliable so I think a Jeep would be a better option.
You can get an electric Jeep.
No deer season in Canada? No rifle season, no bow season, no black powder? Different country & different culture, I guess.
I don't think that I'd enjoy the African Lion Safari style drive-through hunting. The challenge of being outdoors for extended periods, hiking and portaging, and actually having to work hard on the hunt is as important to me as the act of killing an animal. Each to his own though.
I don't think that I'd enjoy the African Lion Safari style drive-through hunting. The challenge of being outdoors for extended periods, hiking and portaging, and actually having to work hard on the hunt is as important to me as the act of killing an animal. Each to his own though.
I've been toying with the idea of trying to import a Chang Li (https://cnruipaiying.en.alibaba.com/product/1600090919879-812167396/The_new_Chang_li_electric_car_in_2021.html). Unfortunately, shipping is still crazy. There's a company in Utah (https://electricimportmotors.com/) that is importing them, but their prices have risen pretty drastically too.
But I'm guessing me driving that around town probably won't do much for countering current perceptions of electric vehicles. :)
I've been toying with the idea of trying to import a Chang Li (https://cnruipaiying.en.alibaba.com/product/1600090919879-812167396/The_new_Chang_li_electric_car_in_2021.html). Unfortunately, shipping is still crazy. There's a company in Utah (https://electricimportmotors.com/) that is importing them, but their prices have risen pretty drastically too.
But I'm guessing me driving that around town probably won't do much for countering current perceptions of electric vehicles. :)
There are plenty of electric skateboard alternatives to the Chang Li made domestically :-)
I've been toying with the idea of trying to import a Chang Li (https://cnruipaiying.en.alibaba.com/product/1600090919879-812167396/The_new_Chang_li_electric_car_in_2021.html). Unfortunately, shipping is still crazy. There's a company in Utah (https://electricimportmotors.com/) that is importing them, but their prices have risen pretty drastically too.
But I'm guessing me driving that around town probably won't do much for countering current perceptions of electric vehicles. :)
There are plenty of electric skateboard alternatives to the Chang Li made domestically :-)
I already use a Radwagon4 for taking the kids to daycare/school, and it should work until the end of September, weather depending. Looking for cheap simple transport for the winter months.
Well, since the foam is here:
As someone who's bike (non-e) commuted for years. Most people underestimate the crossover point of when a car is quicker. In fact in very heavy traffic, a bike is often quicker period. For a urban/suburban commute, for me the crossover is about 2 miles. Shorter than that, and there's no difference or the bike is quicker. It often feels* longer, but if you watch the clock it's not.
To stand on my soapbox a bit more: I try to ask people if they biked when they were kids. Then I ask if them if it was fun. I find a lot of people just sort of gave up on biking at some point** and kind of forgot how simple and fun it is. Truth be told, I've not won over that many converts, but I think of made a number of people at least think about it, and even bike a bit more for fun even if they never actually do much beyond a weekend bike ride.
*Probably because you're actually taking life in a bit more.
**I tend to think it's when we get our driver's license here in the US. Enjoying the new found freedom of driving so much we tend to forget that it's not necessary all the time. Heck I remember driving my first car half a block away to a friends house just because I could.
Well, since the foam is here:
As someone who's bike (non-e) commuted for years. Most people underestimate the crossover point of when a car is quicker. In fact in very heavy traffic, a bike is often quicker period. For a urban/suburban commute, for me the crossover is about 2 miles. Shorter than that, and there's no difference or the bike is quicker.
Well, since the foam is here:
As someone who's bike (non-e) commuted for years. Most people underestimate the crossover point of when a car is quicker. In fact in very heavy traffic, a bike is often quicker period. For a urban/suburban commute, for me the crossover is about 2 miles. Shorter than that, and there's no difference or the bike is quicker. It often feels* longer, but if you watch the clock it's not.
To stand on my soapbox a bit more: I try to ask people if they biked when they were kids. Then I ask if them if it was fun. I find a lot of people just sort of gave up on biking at some point** and kind of forgot how simple and fun it is. Truth be told, I've not won over that many converts, but I think of made a number of people at least think about it, and even bike a bit more for fun even if they never actually do much beyond a weekend bike ride.
*Probably because you're actually taking life in a bit more.
**I tend to think it's when we get our driver's license here in the US. Enjoying the new found freedom of driving so much we tend to forget that it's not necessary all the time. Heck I remember driving my first car half a block away to a friends house just because I could.
People often ask why I commute via bike when I own a car. An effective response has been: “I almost never get into my car and think “oh boy, I get to spend 20 minutes driving! I never feel physically better after driving. But most days when I’m on my bike I have at least a few moments when I just think “Whheeeee!!!!” I always feel better after a bike ride. And I hit my minimum daily exercise.”
Well, since the foam is here:
As someone who's bike (non-e) commuted for years. Most people underestimate the crossover point of when a car is quicker. In fact in very heavy traffic, a bike is often quicker period. For a urban/suburban commute, for me the crossover is about 2 miles. Shorter than that, and there's no difference or the bike is quicker. It often feels* longer, but if you watch the clock it's not.
To stand on my soapbox a bit more: I try to ask people if they biked when they were kids. Then I ask if them if it was fun. I find a lot of people just sort of gave up on biking at some point** and kind of forgot how simple and fun it is. Truth be told, I've not won over that many converts, but I think of made a number of people at least think about it, and even bike a bit more for fun even if they never actually do much beyond a weekend bike ride.
*Probably because you're actually taking life in a bit more.
**I tend to think it's when we get our driver's license here in the US. Enjoying the new found freedom of driving so much we tend to forget that it's not necessary all the time. Heck I remember driving my first car half a block away to a friends house just because I could.
People often ask why I commute via bike when I own a car. An effective response has been: “I almost never get into my car and think “oh boy, I get to spend 20 minutes driving! I never feel physically better after driving. But most days when I’m on my bike I have at least a few moments when I just think “Whheeeee!!!!” I always feel better after a bike ride. And I hit my minimum daily exercise.”
That’s completely fair.
But that sense of euphoria that you get from biking is what I get from driving. I absolutely love driving, it is what makes me happiest out of any activity I do outside of the bedroom. But I also have two cars that are designed to make driving fun, a sports car/roadster and a Jeep Wrangler.
Well, since the foam is here:
As someone who's bike (non-e) commuted for years. Most people underestimate the crossover point of when a car is quicker. In fact in very heavy traffic, a bike is often quicker period. For a urban/suburban commute, for me the crossover is about 2 miles. Shorter than that, and there's no difference or the bike is quicker. It often feels* longer, but if you watch the clock it's not.
To stand on my soapbox a bit more: I try to ask people if they biked when they were kids. Then I ask if them if it was fun. I find a lot of people just sort of gave up on biking at some point** and kind of forgot how simple and fun it is. Truth be told, I've not won over that many converts, but I think of made a number of people at least think about it, and even bike a bit more for fun even if they never actually do much beyond a weekend bike ride.
*Probably because you're actually taking life in a bit more.
**I tend to think it's when we get our driver's license here in the US. Enjoying the new found freedom of driving so much we tend to forget that it's not necessary all the time. Heck I remember driving my first car half a block away to a friends house just because I could.
People often ask why I commute via bike when I own a car. An effective response has been: “I almost never get into my car and think “oh boy, I get to spend 20 minutes driving! I never feel physically better after driving. But most days when I’m on my bike I have at least a few moments when I just think “Whheeeee!!!!” I always feel better after a bike ride. And I hit my minimum daily exercise.”
That’s completely fair.
But that sense of euphoria that you get from biking is what I get from driving. I absolutely love driving, it is what makes me happiest out of any activity I do outside of the bedroom. But I also have two cars that are designed to make driving fun, a sports car/roadster and a Jeep Wrangler.
Cars can be fun, for me commuting really isn't. I autocrossed for several years, attended several driving schools, and have owned several fast/fun cars. I'd drive everyday but for all the other drivers...
So has anyone hired a customs broker and actually had something shipped in from Alibaba? I still haven't given up on the idea of getting a Chang Li to run around in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEigaJ6mInM
I've been toying with the idea of trying to import a Chang Li (https://cnruipaiying.en.alibaba.com/product/1600090919879-812167396/The_new_Chang_li_electric_car_in_2021.html). Unfortunately, shipping is still crazy. There's a company in Utah (https://electricimportmotors.com/) that is importing them, but their prices have risen pretty drastically too.wow those are cute!
But I'm guessing me driving that around town probably won't do much for countering current perceptions of electric vehicles. :)
I have been on the fence with ebikes for several years, mostly I dont trust myself to get up earlier so I have the extra 15min to bike to work vs drive. Not a good reason I know.
I have biked (non-ebike) to work any number of times. It is nice to ride in and I do ride recreationally, but between getting up earlier, the logistics of a change of clothes and it being either f-ing hot or raining I have never made the habit stick. Right now at 6pm it is 93 outside with heat index of 108. yeah none of those a great reasons and maybe just jumping in to an ebike would get me ridding more often but change requires effort...
If you can borrow one for a few days, do it.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08/senate-votes-to-restrict-ev-tax-credits-despite-climate-crisis/?amp=1
Well this may slow adoption have to see what shakes out of the budget reconciliation
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08/senate-votes-to-restrict-ev-tax-credits-despite-climate-crisis/?amp=1
Well this may slow adoption have to see what shakes out of the budget reconciliation
It’s a restriction on expanding, capping new credits to sub $40k EVs and under $100k earners. From what I understand the current crop of rebates and credits would go unchanged.
Currently, tax payers are eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500 based on the size of the vehicle's battery for the first 200,000 plug-in vehicles from a given automaker. But Republican Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska introduced a non-binding amendment to the $3.5 trillion budget bill that would means-test this tax credit, restricting it to tax payers with incomes below $100,000.
Perhaps more significantly, Sen. Fischer's amendment also restricts the tax credit to EVs that cost less than $40,000.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08/senate-votes-to-restrict-ev-tax-credits-despite-climate-crisis/?amp=1
Well this may slow adoption have to see what shakes out of the budget reconciliation
It’s a restriction on expanding, capping new credits to sub $40k EVs and under $100k earners. From what I understand the current crop of rebates and credits would go unchanged.
That doesn't seem to be the intention of it.QuoteCurrently, tax payers are eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500 based on the size of the vehicle's battery for the first 200,000 plug-in vehicles from a given automaker. But Republican Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska introduced a non-binding amendment to the $3.5 trillion budget bill that would means-test this tax credit, restricting it to tax payers with incomes below $100,000.
Perhaps more significantly, Sen. Fischer's amendment also restricts the tax credit to EVs that cost less than $40,000.
I think this is generally bad. The people with higher incomes are much more likely to be considering $40k+ electric cars (which, honestly, before credits, is a lot of them!) This would change (if made into law) a lot of $45k - $7500 = $37.5k EV vs $40-45k ICE comparison to favor ICE on initial purchase cost vs trim level/features.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08/senate-votes-to-restrict-ev-tax-credits-despite-climate-crisis/?amp=1
Well this may slow adoption have to see what shakes out of the budget reconciliation
It’s a restriction on expanding, capping new credits to sub $40k EVs and under $100k earners. From what I understand the current crop of rebates and credits would go unchanged.
That doesn't seem to be the intention of it.QuoteCurrently, tax payers are eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500 based on the size of the vehicle's battery for the first 200,000 plug-in vehicles from a given automaker. But Republican Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska introduced a non-binding amendment to the $3.5 trillion budget bill that would means-test this tax credit, restricting it to tax payers with incomes below $100,000.
Perhaps more significantly, Sen. Fischer's amendment also restricts the tax credit to EVs that cost less than $40,000.
I think this is generally bad. The people with higher incomes are much more likely to be considering $40k+ electric cars (which, honestly, before credits, is a lot of them!) This would change (if made into law) a lot of $45k - $7500 = $37.5k EV vs $40-45k ICE comparison to favor ICE on initial purchase cost vs trim level/features.
Do you all live in single family houses?
I've always live in apartments or condos, and I have no idea where I would be able to reliably plug vs. the simplicity of spending a few minutes at a gas station.
I think when they can solve that problem, when super fast charging stations are off the interstates and on several street corners, maybe they won't even need the tax credits.
Do you all live in single family houses?
I've always live in apartments or condos, and I have no idea where I would be able to reliably plug vs. the simplicity of spending a few minutes at a gas station.
I think when they can solve that problem, when super fast charging stations are off the interstates and on several street corners, maybe they won't even need the tax credits.
Earlier this week, I began working to get local developers to plan and install charging in new apartment developments. Hopefully other people will do the same in future. Long process though.
Do you all live in single family houses?
I've always live in apartments or condos, and I have no idea where I would be able to reliably plug vs. the simplicity of spending a few minutes at a gas station.
I think when they can solve that problem, when super fast charging stations are off the interstates and on several street corners, maybe they won't even need the tax credits.
Earlier this week, I began working to get local developers to plan and install charging in new apartment developments. Hopefully other people will do the same in future. Long process though.
I believe drafts of or model building codes are calling for some form of EV parking or conduit in place in anticipation of future EV charging.
The problem I've seen with relying on dc fast chargers rather than at home/work 120 or 240 charging (at the cost of electricity) is that the fuel costs can meet or exceed gasoline. That really eats away at the economic argument for EVs.v
I believe drafts of or model building codes are calling for some form of EV parking or conduit in place in anticipation of future EV charging.
The problem I've seen with relying on dc fast chargers rather than at home/work 120 or 240 charging (at the cost of electricity) is that the fuel costs can meet or exceed gasoline. That really eats away at the economic argument for EVs.v
Model codes that include conduit sound very good to me! With just a spots available at first, each complex could naturally add charging as demand rose.
Re fast chargers, wouldn't cheap trickle charging be enough, just like at a house?
Level 1 has worked perfectly well for us (2014 LEAF - never have more than an overnight's worth of level 1 charging to do). As a bonus, the circuit best for charging the car also allows me to reach every corner of the yard with one extension cord on the corded-electric mower that we found in the shed when we bought this place. Which reminds me - lawn is about 3 weeks overdue for mowing.
I believe drafts of or model building codes are calling for some form of EV parking or conduit in place in anticipation of future EV charging.
The problem I've seen with relying on dc fast chargers rather than at home/work 120 or 240 charging (at the cost of electricity) is that the fuel costs can meet or exceed gasoline. That really eats away at the economic argument for EVs.v
Model codes that include conduit sound very good to me! With just a spots available at first, each complex could naturally add charging as demand rose.
Re fast chargers, wouldn't cheap trickle charging be enough, just like at a house?
IMO, the incremental cost to do 220 over 110 is so small to do in the construction phase they’d be silly not to.
Level 1 has worked perfectly well for us (2014 LEAF - never have more than an overnight's worth of level 1 charging to do). As a bonus, the circuit best for charging the car also allows me to reach every corner of the yard with one extension cord on the corded-electric mower that we found in the shed when we bought this place. Which reminds me - lawn is about 3 weeks overdue for mowing.
I believe drafts of or model building codes are calling for some form of EV parking or conduit in place in anticipation of future EV charging.
The problem I've seen with relying on dc fast chargers rather than at home/work 120 or 240 charging (at the cost of electricity) is that the fuel costs can meet or exceed gasoline. That really eats away at the economic argument for EVs.v
Model codes that include conduit sound very good to me! With just a spots available at first, each complex could naturally add charging as demand rose.
Re fast chargers, wouldn't cheap trickle charging be enough, just like at a house?
IMO, the incremental cost to do 220 over 110 is so small to do in the construction phase they’d be silly not to.
*ETA - I agree with you - if building new, having level 2 charging readily available is the way to go. Maybe run both 110 and 220?
Do you all live in single family houses?I charge mostly at work, where I successfully lobbied to install a 208V/20A “dumb charger”.
I've always live in apartments or condos, and I have no idea where I would be able to reliably plug vs. the simplicity of spending a few minutes at a gas station.
I think when they can solve that problem, when super fast charging stations are off the interstates and on several street corners, maybe they won't even need the tax credits.
There is no need to put in any bigger charger at home, what you have is sufficient to recover your range.
We tried level 1 with my wife's Kona EV, eventually I installed a level 2. If she did only her regular work commute, she could make it through the week starting eat day with a little less range and recover the rest on the weekend. That didn't allow enough of a cushion for a longer trip on the weekend, shopping, or having to commute to a different site for work. If she could use one of the 120v outlets at work she wouldn't need a 240 at home, but those are always occupied by plugin hybrids that get there earlier.
My car is in the shop this weekend due to a seal leak from the transmission to the axles. I guess i wouldn't have had this problem with an electric car.
My car is in the shop this weekend due to a seal leak from the transmission to the axles. I guess i wouldn't have had this problem with an electric car.
You could still have the problem. There are still axles, and there is still some sort of gearbox present so there is still some sort of grease seal.
It is an easy repair with a lift. I've done this repair in my driveway with a jack. Loosen axle nut, lift car, remove wheel, disconnect suspension, remove axle, replace seal, etc. The DIY version take a couple of hours. A shop is much more efficient.
Seal is $5-10.
Do you all live in single family houses?
I've always live in apartments or condos, and I have no idea where I would be able to reliably plug vs. the simplicity of spending a few minutes at a gas station.
I think when they can solve that problem, when super fast charging stations are off the interstates and on several street corners, maybe they won't even need the tax credits.
Earlier this week, I began working to get local developers to plan and install charging in new apartment developments. Hopefully other people will do the same in future. Long process though.
Do you all live in single family houses?
I've always live in apartments or condos, and I have no idea where I would be able to reliably plug vs. the simplicity of spending a few minutes at a gas station.
I think when they can solve that problem, when super fast charging stations are off the interstates and on several street corners, maybe they won't even need the tax credits.
Earlier this week, I began working to get local developers to plan and install charging in new apartment developments. Hopefully other people will do the same in future. Long process though.
Who pays for the electricity used for charging in the apartment parking lot ? It's been a long time since i lived in an apartment, and i never lived in one where the electric power bill was not assigned to the specific renter and/or unit that used it. One place i was at , the rent included cable tv, and garbage dumpsters- but the garbage service was likely mandated by the town.
Would the builder wire up chargers seperately thru each apartment unit's dedicated electric line, so each unit gets one or two parking spaces that are billed directly from their unit's meter ? Would the charger work on a pass code, so neighbors wouldn't "steal" your electricity ? Or would the charging costs be borne like the cable tv example above, where the building owner just pays a variable amount each month depending on kilowatt use , but all residents pay a higher rent to cover this, regardless of whether they even own an EV or use the system ?
{ I imagine the cable tv costs was just one fixed price every month for the building owner, as there were no varying levels of service or # of channels available - each unit got the same "TV package", and if a renter never watched tv there was no rent discount }
Do you all live in single family houses?
I've always live in apartments or condos, and I have no idea where I would be able to reliably plug vs. the simplicity of spending a few minutes at a gas station.
I think when they can solve that problem, when super fast charging stations are off the interstates and on several street corners, maybe they won't even need the tax credits.
Earlier this week, I began working to get local developers to plan and install charging in new apartment developments. Hopefully other people will do the same in future. Long process though.
Who pays for the electricity used for charging in the apartment parking lot ? It's been a long time since i lived in an apartment, and i never lived in one where the electric power bill was not assigned to the specific renter and/or unit that used it. One place i was at , the rent included cable tv, and garbage dumpsters- but the garbage service was likely mandated by the town.
Would the builder wire up chargers seperately thru each apartment unit's dedicated electric line, so each unit gets one or two parking spaces that are billed directly from their unit's meter ? Would the charger work on a pass code, so neighbors wouldn't "steal" your electricity ? Or would the charging costs be borne like the cable tv example above, where the building owner just pays a variable amount each month depending on kilowatt use , but all residents pay a higher rent to cover this, regardless of whether they even own an EV or use the system ?
{ I imagine the cable tv costs was just one fixed price every month for the building owner, as there were no varying levels of service or # of channels available - each unit got the same "TV package", and if a renter never watched tv there was no rent discount }
Probably the easiest way would be to install a small (for now) number of 240v chargers that are associated with one of the charging networks like Chargepoint and set the prices to cover the electrical costs. Then the users activate the charger using their account and the network handles the billing.
My car is in the shop this weekend due to a seal leak from the transmission to the axles. I guess i wouldn't have had this problem with an electric car.
You could still have the problem. There are still axles, and there is still some sort of gearbox present so there is still some sort of grease seal.
It is an easy repair with a lift. I've done this repair in my driveway with a jack. Loosen axle nut, lift car, remove wheel, disconnect suspension, remove axle, replace seal, etc. The DIY version take a couple of hours. A shop is much more efficient.
Seal is $5-10.
Even easier when it is a warranty repair. It's a lot cleaner too. You always have the right tools. You don't need to run for parts. It takes a lot less longer. You don't even need to watch You Tube videos three plus times to know how to do it. No trouble lights to see the things. It's back. I'm happy.
It does sound like the gearbox is much simplified with electric cars.
https://www.kia.com/dm/discover-kia/ask/do-electric-cars-have-transmissions.html (https://www.kia.com/dm/discover-kia/ask/do-electric-cars-have-transmissions.html)
I guess you would still need bearing seals.
Do you all live in single family houses?
I've always live in apartments or condos, and I have no idea where I would be able to reliably plug vs. the simplicity of spending a few minutes at a gas station.
I think when they can solve that problem, when super fast charging stations are off the interstates and on several street corners, maybe they won't even need the tax credits.
Earlier this week, I began working to get local developers to plan and install charging in new apartment developments. Hopefully other people will do the same in future. Long process though.
Who pays for the electricity used for charging in the apartment parking lot ? It's been a long time since i lived in an apartment, and i never lived in one where the electric power bill was not assigned to the specific renter and/or unit that used it. One place i was at , the rent included cable tv, and garbage dumpsters- but the garbage service was likely mandated by the town.
Would the builder wire up chargers seperately thru each apartment unit's dedicated electric line, so each unit gets one or two parking spaces that are billed directly from their unit's meter ? Would the charger work on a pass code, so neighbors wouldn't "steal" your electricity ? Or would the charging costs be borne like the cable tv example above, where the building owner just pays a variable amount each month depending on kilowatt use , but all residents pay a higher rent to cover this, regardless of whether they even own an EV or use the system ?
{ I imagine the cable tv costs was just one fixed price every month for the building owner, as there were no varying levels of service or # of channels available - each unit got the same "TV package", and if a renter never watched tv there was no rent discount }
Probably the easiest way would be to install a small (for now) number of 240v chargers that are associated with one of the charging networks like Chargepoint and set the prices to cover the electrical costs. Then the users activate the charger using their account and the network handles the billing.
The electricity use is much lower than most people think. If you drive 10 000 km/year, it will take about 2000 kWh. So the easiest way by far (and cheapest for all involved, since you don't need the fanciest equipment) is to let all EV owners pay ~$25/month for free access to the chargers. It usually averages out to be more than enough to cover the costs.
Not to mention if more states keep adding higher registration for EVs, that eats into some of the gas savings too.
Not to mention if more states keep adding higher registration for EVs, that eats into some of the gas savings too.
Are electrical cars generally of lighter weight? If they are, this would imply less road wear. I'll bet bike paths last longer than roads.
Not to mention if more states keep adding higher registration for EVs, that eats into some of the gas savings too.
Are electrical cars generally of lighter weight? If they are, this would imply less road wear. I'll bet bike paths last longer than roads.
Cars already don't wear roads remotely the same as industrial trucks anyways. It's a stupidly exponential relationship between weight and damage.
Basically all the optimization for car weights don't make any appreciable difference if semis drive on the road somewhat often.
Weather is also a big factor on road lifespan in a lot of states even ignoring driving.
Not to mention if more states keep adding higher registration for EVs, that eats into some of the gas savings too.
Are electrical cars generally of lighter weight? If they are, this would imply less road wear. I'll bet bike paths last longer than roads.
Not to mention if more states keep adding higher registration for EVs, that eats into some of the gas savings too.
Are electrical cars generally of lighter weight? If they are, this would imply less road wear. I'll bet bike paths last longer than roads.
Cars already don't wear roads remotely the same as industrial trucks anyways. It's a stupidly exponential relationship between weight and damage.
Basically all the optimization for car weights don't make any appreciable difference if semis drive on the road somewhat often.
Weather is also a big factor on road lifespan in a lot of states even ignoring driving.
All of this. Plus you mention weather; a related factor is plows. Plows absolutely destroy roads.
Don't forget the salt! I don't understand how people in some areas still find it acceptable to dump massive amounts of salt on the road. Kills the road, kills cars, messes up the soil and hurts water sources.
Locally the DOT has started mixing in beet juice with brine to spray on the roads which prevents ice. Apparently they can significantly reduce the amount of salt when they do so.
Don't forget the salt! I don't understand how people in some areas still find it acceptable to dump massive amounts of salt on the road. Kills the road, kills cars, messes up the soil and hurts water sources.
Salt is pretty horrific for the environment, cars, and roads. Most importantly though, it wreaks hell on my bike. Here in Toronto many of the local rivers and streams have been recorded as having higher salt concentrations than sea water after snowfall in the winter because of runoff.
Salt will melt the snow and ice faster than plows, and it's cheaper to use . . . so we always salt more often than we plow.
Do you all live in single family houses?
I've always live in apartments or condos, and I have no idea where I would be able to reliably plug vs. the simplicity of spending a few minutes at a gas station.
I think when they can solve that problem, when super fast charging stations are off the interstates and on several street corners, maybe they won't even need the tax credits.
Earlier this week, I began working to get local developers to plan and install charging in new apartment developments. Hopefully other people will do the same in future. Long process though.
Who pays for the electricity used for charging in the apartment parking lot ? It's been a long time since i lived in an apartment, and i never lived in one where the electric power bill was not assigned to the specific renter and/or unit that used it. One place i was at , the rent included cable tv, and garbage dumpsters- but the garbage service was likely mandated by the town.
Would the builder wire up chargers seperately thru each apartment unit's dedicated electric line, so each unit gets one or two parking spaces that are billed directly from their unit's meter ? Would the charger work on a pass code, so neighbors wouldn't "steal" your electricity ? Or would the charging costs be borne like the cable tv example above, where the building owner just pays a variable amount each month depending on kilowatt use , but all residents pay a higher rent to cover this, regardless of whether they even own an EV or use the system ?
{ I imagine the cable tv costs was just one fixed price every month for the building owner, as there were no varying levels of service or # of channels available - each unit got the same "TV package", and if a renter never watched tv there was no rent discount }
Probably the easiest way would be to install a small (for now) number of 240v chargers that are associated with one of the charging networks like Chargepoint and set the prices to cover the electrical costs. Then the users activate the charger using their account and the network handles the billing.
The electricity use is much lower than most people think. If you drive 10 000 km/year, it will take about 2000 kWh. So the easiest way by far (and cheapest for all involved, since you don't need the fanciest equipment) is to let all EV owners pay ~$25/month for free access to the chargers. It usually averages out to be more than enough to cover the costs.
I'm guessing the cost would end up being more than just $25/mo. Especially at first when acceptance and usage remain low.
The average American drives around 13000 miles (say 21k km) per year. The EVs that are likely to be purchased moving forward will probably be large, heavy trucks and CUVS that aren't as likely to get 4-5 miles per kwh as what's currently out there. I'd guess an average CUV EV, driven by an average, inattentive American driver, in climates with plenty of HVAC use would get 3 miles per kwh. That might be optimistic. So the hypothetical average EV would use something like 4333 kwh of electricity per year. The average electrical cost in the US is around $0.13/kwh but that varies a lot. So for home charging prices it would be $563 annually. That's $46/month at pretty cheap home electricity rates just for the electricity. That doesn't pay for the charger, the operating/admin costs, or profit for the charging network if applicable.
Public chargers like Tesla's Supercharger network can price in those extras, but they tend to be $0.25-0.30/kwh in the US. And that puts the total cost to charge an EV at public chargers at $1083 ($90/mo).
Don't forget the salt! I don't understand how people in some areas still find it acceptable to dump massive amounts of salt on the road. Kills the road, kills cars, messes up the soil and hurts water sources.
Salt is pretty horrific for the environment, cars, and roads. Most importantly though, it wreaks hell on my bike. Here in Toronto many of the local rivers and streams have been recorded as having higher salt concentrations than sea water after snowfall in the winter because of runoff.
Salt will melt the snow and ice faster than plows, and it's cheaper to use . . . so we always salt more often than we plow.
Fun story. When working for DFO (Dept of Fisheries and Oceans) we got a crazy report of saltwater fish way up in the watershed. Went and checked it out, and sure enough there they were, a good 50km upstream where they definitely shouldn't be. Sampled the water, and it was 1.035 (slightly saltier than the N. Atlantic). WTF? Turns out there was a déneigement depot just a few hundred meters upstream, and being Quebec it was supplying tons of salt into the river even in July as it melted.
My supervisor convinced the town to move the depot to the other side of town and the salinity went away (and so did the saltwater fish).
If you have a flat fee for all users in a closed system (like an apartment complex, or a closed parking area), you don't need an operator, administration or any fancy equipment. You just need a plug (with a little bit of extra safety, like a type B breaker). I will never understand the need to over-engineer this stuff. Charging an EV is not rocket science. It is a battery that needs charging every so often.
If you have a flat fee for all users in a closed system (like an apartment complex, or a closed parking area), you don't need an operator, administration or any fancy equipment. You just need a plug (with a little bit of extra safety, like a type B breaker). I will never understand the need to over-engineer this stuff. Charging an EV is not rocket science. It is a battery that needs charging every so often.
If you have a flat fee for all users in a closed system (like an apartment complex, or a closed parking area), you don't need an operator, administration or any fancy equipment. You just need a plug (with a little bit of extra safety, like a type B breaker). I will never understand the need to over-engineer this stuff. Charging an EV is not rocket science. It is a battery that needs charging every so often.
In a largish apartment block you might pretty quickly need fancy equipment if many want to charge their EVs because you might need load balancing. If everyone wants to charge at the same time there might just not be enough power available into the building. While an EV itself is not a massive load if charged with lowish power, say 2kW, it multiplies up, the load is present for hours and hours, and everyone generally want to charge at the same time and this time happens to collide with peak load as folks get home from work and start making dinner etc. Afaik its frequently an issue in older blocks where the main intake isn't that big as all was done at a time when less electricity was used.
Do you all live in single family houses?
I've always live in apartments or condos, and I have no idea where I would be able to reliably plug vs. the simplicity of spending a few minutes at a gas station.
I think when they can solve that problem, when super fast charging stations are off the interstates and on several street corners, maybe they won't even need the tax credits.
Earlier this week, I began working to get local developers to plan and install charging in new apartment developments. Hopefully other people will do the same in future. Long process though.
Who pays for the electricity used for charging in the apartment parking lot ? It's been a long time since i lived in an apartment, and i never lived in one where the electric power bill was not assigned to the specific renter and/or unit that used it. One place i was at , the rent included cable tv, and garbage dumpsters- but the garbage service was likely mandated by the town.
Would the builder wire up chargers seperately thru each apartment unit's dedicated electric line, so each unit gets one or two parking spaces that are billed directly from their unit's meter ? Would the charger work on a pass code, so neighbors wouldn't "steal" your electricity ? Or would the charging costs be borne like the cable tv example above, where the building owner just pays a variable amount each month depending on kilowatt use , but all residents pay a higher rent to cover this, regardless of whether they even own an EV or use the system ?
{ I imagine the cable tv costs was just one fixed price every month for the building owner, as there were no varying levels of service or # of channels available - each unit got the same "TV package", and if a renter never watched tv there was no rent discount }
Probably the easiest way would be to install a small (for now) number of 240v chargers that are associated with one of the charging networks like Chargepoint and set the prices to cover the electrical costs. Then the users activate the charger using their account and the network handles the billing.
The electricity use is much lower than most people think. If you drive 10 000 km/year, it will take about 2000 kWh. So the easiest way by far (and cheapest for all involved, since you don't need the fanciest equipment) is to let all EV owners pay ~$25/month for free access to the chargers. It usually averages out to be more than enough to cover the costs.
I'm guessing the cost would end up being more than just $25/mo. Especially at first when acceptance and usage remain low.
The average American drives around 13000 miles (say 21k km) per year. The EVs that are likely to be purchased moving forward will probably be large, heavy trucks and CUVS that aren't as likely to get 4-5 miles per kwh as what's currently out there. I'd guess an average CUV EV, driven by an average, inattentive American driver, in climates with plenty of HVAC use would get 3 miles per kwh. That might be optimistic. So the hypothetical average EV would use something like 4333 kwh of electricity per year. The average electrical cost in the US is around $0.13/kwh but that varies a lot. So for home charging prices it would be $563 annually. That's $46/month at pretty cheap home electricity rates just for the electricity. That doesn't pay for the charger, the operating/admin costs, or profit for the charging network if applicable.
Public chargers like Tesla's Supercharger network can price in those extras, but they tend to be $0.25-0.30/kwh in the US. And that puts the total cost to charge an EV at public chargers at $1083 ($90/mo).
If you have a flat fee for all users in a closed system (like an apartment complex, or a closed parking area), you don't need an operator, administration or any fancy equipment. You just need a plug (with a little bit of extra safety, like a type B breaker). I will never understand the need to over-engineer this stuff. Charging an EV is not rocket science. It is a battery that needs charging every so often.
If you have a flat fee for all users in a closed system (like an apartment complex, or a closed parking area), you don't need an operator, administration or any fancy equipment. You just need a plug (with a little bit of extra safety, like a type B breaker). I will never understand the need to over-engineer this stuff. Charging an EV is not rocket science. It is a battery that needs charging every so often.
In a largish apartment block you might pretty quickly need fancy equipment if many want to charge their EVs because you might need load balancing. If everyone wants to charge at the same time there might just not be enough power available into the building. While an EV itself is not a massive load if charged with lowish power, say 2kW, it multiplies up, the load is present for hours and hours, and everyone generally want to charge at the same time and this time happens to collide with peak load as folks get home from work and start making dinner etc. Afaik its frequently an issue in older blocks where the main intake isn't that big as all was done at a time when less electricity was used.
I thought time shifting charging was already a thing, ie dont start charging as soon as it is plugged it but wait for cheaper power latter in the evening. Presumably something similar could be done for a buildings power management.
Do you all live in single family houses?
I've always live in apartments or condos, and I have no idea where I would be able to reliably plug vs. the simplicity of spending a few minutes at a gas station.
I think when they can solve that problem, when super fast charging stations are off the interstates and on several street corners, maybe they won't even need the tax credits.
Earlier this week, I began working to get local developers to plan and install charging in new apartment developments. Hopefully other people will do the same in future. Long process though.
Who pays for the electricity used for charging in the apartment parking lot ? It's been a long time since i lived in an apartment, and i never lived in one where the electric power bill was not assigned to the specific renter and/or unit that used it. One place i was at , the rent included cable tv, and garbage dumpsters- but the garbage service was likely mandated by the town.
Would the builder wire up chargers seperately thru each apartment unit's dedicated electric line, so each unit gets one or two parking spaces that are billed directly from their unit's meter ? Would the charger work on a pass code, so neighbors wouldn't "steal" your electricity ? Or would the charging costs be borne like the cable tv example above, where the building owner just pays a variable amount each month depending on kilowatt use , but all residents pay a higher rent to cover this, regardless of whether they even own an EV or use the system ?
{ I imagine the cable tv costs was just one fixed price every month for the building owner, as there were no varying levels of service or # of channels available - each unit got the same "TV package", and if a renter never watched tv there was no rent discount }
Probably the easiest way would be to install a small (for now) number of 240v chargers that are associated with one of the charging networks like Chargepoint and set the prices to cover the electrical costs. Then the users activate the charger using their account and the network handles the billing.
The electricity use is much lower than most people think. If you drive 10 000 km/year, it will take about 2000 kWh. So the easiest way by far (and cheapest for all involved, since you don't need the fanciest equipment) is to let all EV owners pay ~$25/month for free access to the chargers. It usually averages out to be more than enough to cover the costs.
I'm guessing the cost would end up being more than just $25/mo. Especially at first when acceptance and usage remain low.
The average American drives around 13000 miles (say 21k km) per year. The EVs that are likely to be purchased moving forward will probably be large, heavy trucks and CUVS that aren't as likely to get 4-5 miles per kwh as what's currently out there. I'd guess an average CUV EV, driven by an average, inattentive American driver, in climates with plenty of HVAC use would get 3 miles per kwh. That might be optimistic. So the hypothetical average EV would use something like 4333 kwh of electricity per year. The average electrical cost in the US is around $0.13/kwh but that varies a lot. So for home charging prices it would be $563 annually. That's $46/month at pretty cheap home electricity rates just for the electricity. That doesn't pay for the charger, the operating/admin costs, or profit for the charging network if applicable.
Public chargers like Tesla's Supercharger network can price in those extras, but they tend to be $0.25-0.30/kwh in the US. And that puts the total cost to charge an EV at public chargers at $1083 ($90/mo).
If you have a flat fee for all users in a closed system (like an apartment complex, or a closed parking area), you don't need an operator, administration or any fancy equipment. You just need a plug (with a little bit of extra safety, like a type B breaker). I will never understand the need to over-engineer this stuff. Charging an EV is not rocket science. It is a battery that needs charging every so often.
I’d add that the challenges of electrical connections to apartment buildings have been solved in northern countries (+Alaska) decades ago, where block heaters are common if not essential. Sure the amperage is a bit less but the process is the same.
If you Can plug in at home with 110V and you can plug in at work there is very, very little need fire any actual charging capacity save some fast chargers asking major travel corridors.
Too bad we aren’t there yet
Basically, everything isn't on at the same time so you don't have to size the equipment as though it is on at the same time. Now you are thinking of adding some big loads that will be on at the same time. Well - it's got to be looked at to see whether the upstream wiring, breakers, transformers, etc have the amp ratings to handle all your new charging loads.
Basically, everything isn't on at the same time so you don't have to size the equipment as though it is on at the same time. Now you are thinking of adding some big loads that will be on at the same time. Well - it's got to be looked at to see whether the upstream wiring, breakers, transformers, etc have the amp ratings to handle all your new charging loads.
My electrician once explained me roughly how they calculate actual need and number of breakers needed based on some factor since, as you say, not everything will be on at the same time and even lots of stuff that is "on" for long time, like a fridge, an oven, a water boiler etc is "off" quite a lot of the time as it just needs to maintain a state which requires a lot less energy than getting to that state in the first place. For EV chargers this factor is assumed 1 as it is, for dimenstoning purposes, considered always on. When I plug in my car it charges for say 8-24 hours depending on how much I've used since last time. Even prertty low charging current (say 9A at 230V so bit over 2kW) is roughly 10% of what the main circuit breaker in my house can take. If I installed a bad-ass 22kW charger, the breaker would cut if the water boiler turned itself on (or after 30 minutes to be exact as that's how the breakers are designed).
Been seeing quite a few of the VW ID.4 in my area. Talked to a lady who brings her grandkids to the YMCA pool where my kids train. She said it was her first electric and had a lot of good things to say about it. She said she was skeptical at first, but has been convinced.
Might have to go to the dealer and have a test drive. Not going to buy one until my red Toyota dies. (Top Gear reference)
Oof, this isn't going to help perception https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08/gm-recalls-every-chevy-bolt-ever-made-blames-lg-for-faulty-batteries/
Ford says that higher than expected demand for their Lightning F150 model means they'll double their expected production from 40k units annually to 80k by 2024
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/exclusive-ford-doubles-lightning-production-target-strong-pre-launch-demand-2021-08-23/
That's still a fairly small percentage of overall Ford truck sales, but it's still promising
Ford says that higher than expected demand for their Lightning F150 model means they'll double their expected production from 40k units annually to 80k by 2024
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/exclusive-ford-doubles-lightning-production-target-strong-pre-launch-demand-2021-08-23/
That's still a fairly small percentage of overall Ford truck sales, but it's still promising
Yeah and the standout is only 15k being made next year. At least it stands out to me since I pre-ordered.
Ford says that higher than expected demand for their Lightning F150 model means they'll double their expected production from 40k units annually to 80k by 2024
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/exclusive-ford-doubles-lightning-production-target-strong-pre-launch-demand-2021-08-23/
That's still a fairly small percentage of overall Ford truck sales, but it's still promising
Yeah and the standout is only 15k being made next year. At least it stands out to me since I pre-ordered.
Post pics after delivery! :)
The F150 will be interesting, while it has the potential to satisfy a huge portion of the truck market, there are some use cases it will likely be a non-starter for.
Everyone that works around town, or just has a truck for show really (hauling something once a year maybe), it should be great for. But the big question for me is towing. You can't get around the physics of towing, and any size-able load will likely demolish the range.
The F150 will be interesting, while it has the potential to satisfy a huge portion of the truck market, there are some use cases it will likely be a non-starter for.
Everyone that works around town, or just has a truck for show really (hauling something once a year maybe), it should be great for. But the big question for me is towing. You can't get around the physics of towing, and any size-able load will likely demolish the range.
Yeah I need it to get to a lake 2x a year that's 200 miles away. All data I've read tells me it will cut range in half. So I'll have to stop and charge half way or so and if I want to tow my cousins camper I have to charge every 2 hours of road time on road trips if it takes the 300 to 150. Really need 400 to 450 for it to work towing if range gets cut in half imo. But I currently do neither of those things. And don't own a truck. So whatever it can do increases my options.
Sooner or later someone will get clever and realize a trailer is a great place to mount a range-extender engine (or spare battery pack, or fuel cell) and tow capable EVs will get a plug on the rear fender for power going "the other way." You don't even have to haul the range-extender around when you don't need it, unlike a PHEV.
You'll love me then I live on a lake with a boat made to plow water and plan to tow it to a different lake 2x a year to plow some different water. Then borrow my cousins camper to go see national parks.Sooner or later someone will get clever and realize a trailer is a great place to mount a range-extender engine (or spare battery pack, or fuel cell) and tow capable EVs will get a plug on the rear fender for power going "the other way." You don't even have to haul the range-extender around when you don't need it, unlike a PHEV.
Or we will find that you can either have a lake, or tow a camper to it.
But by that time everything around the lake will long be ash.
(To clarify, I'm not blaming the entire climate change thing on the recreational camper users. And I have plenty of wasteful carbon emissions to cut myself, guilty as charged. But the whole notion of needing to do something recreational in the face of the existential crisis strikes me as a perfect example of why we are all doomed.)
Sooner or later someone will get clever and realize a trailer is a great place to mount a range-extender engine (or spare battery pack, or fuel cell) ...
Much of that weight is due to the Boulder's battery pack, which is built into the trailer's frame. The idea is that the trailer's 75 kWh lithium-ion pack can recharge your EV at your destination.
Yeah I need it to get to a lake 2x a year that's 200 miles away. All data I've read tells me it will cut range in half. So I'll have to stop and charge half way or so and if I want to tow my cousins camper I have to charge every 2 hours of road time on road trips if it takes the 300 to 150. Really need 400 to 450 for it to work towing if range gets cut in half imo. But I currently do neither of those things. And don't own a truck. So whatever it can do increases my options.
Sooner or later someone will get clever and realize a trailer is a great place to mount a range-extender engine (or spare battery pack, or fuel cell) and tow capable EVs will get a plug on the rear fender for power going "the other way." You don't even have to haul the range-extender around when you don't need it, unlike a PHEV.
Ford says that higher than expected demand for their Lightning F150 model means they'll double their expected production from 40k units annually to 80k by 2024
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/exclusive-ford-doubles-lightning-production-target-strong-pre-launch-demand-2021-08-23/
That's still a fairly small percentage of overall Ford truck sales, but it's still promising
Yeah and the standout is only 15k being made next year. At least it stands out to me since I pre-ordered.
Why is Ford moving so slowly? 80,000 produced in 2024 is a crawl of a ramp. The market for that is so much larger and that truck looks rad. It's possible they're just sandbagging for market surprise with their valuations in 2023/2024. Usually not a bad move.
Why is Ford moving so slowly? 80,000 produced in 2024 is a crawl of a ramp. The market for that is so much larger and that truck looks rad. It's possible they're just sandbagging for market surprise with their valuations in 2023/2024. Usually not a bad move.
Why is Ford moving so slowly? 80,000 produced in 2024 is a crawl of a ramp. The market for that is so much larger and that truck looks rad. It's possible they're just sandbagging for market surprise with their valuations in 2023/2024. Usually not a bad move.
Did they know these were going to be so popular? Always remember the Edsel.
What I don't understand is that nobody seems to produce camper (and mobile homes and all that) electrified with PV on the top.
The roof is a fairly big space. Even if you park in the shadow you should get at least 100W out of it (and more if you use a different type of cell which has lower on sun but much higher diffuse light use). That should suffice for the normal small TV or phone charger. And you could even slowly charge your car range. And in the sun it would shadow the vehicle a bit, making the temperature inside better.
Also it would make you less dependend on charging stations on route (you could probably get 50km out of this system in the summer sun before you run dry from a full charge) and charge you up while you camp.
What I don't understand is that nobody seems to produce camper (and mobile homes and all that) electrified with PV on the top.
The roof is a fairly big space. Even if you park in the shadow you should get at least 100W out of it (and more if you use a different type of cell which has lower on sun but much higher diffuse light use). That should suffice for the normal small TV or phone charger. And you could even slowly charge your car range. And in the sun it would shadow the vehicle a bit, making the temperature inside better.
Also it would make you less dependend on charging stations on route (you could probably get 50km out of this system in the summer sun before you run dry from a full charge) and charge you up while you camp.
This may really be disgusting to you guys. I think one of those little Honda generators could be used to do some charging of your truck battery at night. Sure you are against it because of the environmental principles, but if you are only hauling stuff with the electric truck a couple times a year, I wouldn't feel real guilty.
They've got a 30 amp outlet and should be a lot lighter than the battery solar panel trailer.
It’s not unlike the principle behind a PHEV - an EV with an onboard gas-powered ‘generator’ to recharge the battery pack. They can be incredibly versatile for a lot of people.
With high efficiency solar panels, you could conceivably get about 500W on the roof of a car. In most of the US you get 4-5 solar hours a day. So, ~2.5Kwh a day optimally, that's about 10 miles in model Y/3. We don't know F150 efficiency number yet, but it's likely half that initially, and half again when towing. Then again potentially larger solar area if you put a topper or something on. Bottom line, solar on an F150 MIGHT get you 5 miles a day.
The generator idea for occasional use is worth thinking about. The downsides being that, A) you'd need a large one to deliver power on a short trip, and B) you'd have to run it continuously to get a good charge. And C) generators run harder the bigger the load, so you might end up needing quite a bit of gas.
A common model is Honda's E2200, technically 2200 watts, but likely would only get 1500w of charging via one leg of 120v.
So that's 1.5KWH an hour. With the F150s estimated 200KWH battery, you're looking at 66 hours for half a "tank". 66/4hrs a gallon, puts you at 16.5 gallons of gas.
Obviously very back of the napkin, but running a small generator for 66 hrs over the course of a long weekend is doable, but not ideal.
A bigger 7000w generator, would output 240v and charge a lot faster but still consume a significant amount of gas. Say 6.5Kwh an hour, 100/6.5 ~ 15 hours. ~.75 gallon per hour ~= 12 gallons of gas for half a tank
edit: Not to mention the up front cost of $800-$5000 depending on how big/efficient/loud of a generator you want to run.
Shade really kills solar generation -- I have 13.2 kW on my house/garage and can do ~1.7 mWh in a good month, but less than half of that in off-peak seasons (less sun / worse angle).That depends a lot on the system. You can make it so that part shadowing does not affect the result as much (but it's more expensive and so nearly never done for free land or roof systems which you put away from trees).
If you somehow managed to sustain 100 watts over an 8 hour period on a small mobile array and you were getting Model 3 efficiency, that'd provide 3-4 miles of additional range.
It’s not unlike the principle behind a PHEV - an EV with an onboard gas-powered ‘generator’ to recharge the battery pack. They can be incredibly versatile for a lot of people.I always thought that would be the main route of car electrification. The majority of people don't have an outlet near their car after all, and putting up charging stations in public is expensive. Having what is basically a plug-in hybrid with a charger onboard sounded like the best bet for the time between gas and full electric in 30 years.
QuoteIt’s not unlike the principle behind a PHEV - an EV with an onboard gas-powered ‘generator’ to recharge the battery pack. They can be incredibly versatile for a lot of people.I always thought that would be the main route of car electrification. The majority of people don't have an outlet near their car after all, and putting up charging stations in public is expensive. Having what is basically a plug-in hybrid with a charger onboard sounded like the best bet for the time between gas and full electric in 30 years.
In the street I lived most of my live there were exatly 0 from at least a hundred car owners that could put electricity into their car from their home.Quote from: LennStarQuoteIt’s not unlike the principle behind a PHEV - an EV with an onboard gas-powered ‘generator’ to recharge the battery pack. They can be incredibly versatile for a lot of people.I always thought that would be the main route of car electrification. The majority of people don't have an outlet near their car after all, and putting up charging stations in public is expensive. Having what is basically a plug-in hybrid with a charger onboard sounded like the best bet for the time between gas and full electric in 30 years.
If we follow the assumption, that people don't have power outlets near their car, then a PHEV is useless compared to a hybrid.
Thankfully 99.9% of car owners also have electricity.
Shade really kills solar generation -- I have 13.2 kW on my house/garage and can do ~1.7 mWh in a good month, but less than half of that in off-peak seasons (less sun / worse angle).That depends a lot on the system. You can make it so that part shadowing does not affect the result as much (but it's more expensive and so nearly never done for free land or roof systems which you put away from trees).
If you somehow managed to sustain 100 watts over an 8 hour period on a small mobile array and you were getting Model 3 efficiency, that'd provide 3-4 miles of additional range.
And of course when I said "could" I imagined a sunny highway ;) Even a small camper should have a roof for 2-3kW. Your model 3 would get ~100 miles out of it according to your numbers, so 50km for a camper sounds equivalent to me.QuoteIt’s not unlike the principle behind a PHEV - an EV with an onboard gas-powered ‘generator’ to recharge the battery pack. They can be incredibly versatile for a lot of people.I always thought that would be the main route of car electrification. The majority of people don't have an outlet near their car after all, and putting up charging stations in public is expensive. Having what is basically a plug-in hybrid with a charger onboard sounded like the best bet for the time between gas and full electric in 30 years.
To fit 2-3 kW on that roof you'd need room for 9-15 more panels...
The MMM answer, as noted above, is to ditch the camper .... Stop driving an entire house around
Haha true, but I still wonder why nobody is selling those things. (btw. the campers here don't have an AC unit on top. And you could easily use the windows (which are generally not see through anyway) as panel place too.The MMM answer, as noted above, is to ditch the camper .... Stop driving an entire house around
This, times 10. We have entire towns burned down or washed away due to climate change. Yet we keep insisting that only solutions that allow us to do exactly what we are doing now how we are doing now are acceptable.
To fit 2-3 kW on that roof you'd need room for 9-15 more panels...
To fit 2-3 kW on that roof you'd need room for 9-15 more panels...
You know, anti-EV folks are often accused of using ridiculous examples and what-ifs to claim EVs are impractical.
Showing possibly the most cluttered and unoptimized camper roof to argue against a large solar array is very similar. There's plenty to suggest that 2-3kw isn't enough to meaningfully charge an EV without disingenuous nonsense. To be clear it would be fairly trivial to get 2kw on a camper that size, just because it currently isn't done, doesn't mean it's at all unfeasible.
To fit 2-3 kW on that roof you'd need room for 9-15 more panels...
You know, anti-EV folks are often accused of using ridiculous examples and what-ifs to claim EVs are impractical.
Showing possibly the most cluttered and unoptimized camper roof to argue against a large solar array is very similar. There's plenty to suggest that 2-3kw isn't enough to meaningfully charge an EV without disingenuous nonsense. To be clear it would be fairly trivial to get 2kw on a camper that size, just because it currently isn't done, doesn't mean it's at all unfeasible.
If you're talking about a factory-produced system with walkable solar panels and integrated roof components, that's a different story - but my impression from this conversation was "why don't people just put 2-3 kW solar arrays on small campers."
I picked a camper at random, and a medium sized one at that. The initial claim was 2-3 kW on a small camper. I made a legitimate effort based on a random (common) trailer. If you're going to accuse me of "disingenuous nonsense," at least show your work instead of making lazy accusations that you can't be bothered to back up with any actual effort.
This is 1350 watts of solar on a trailer (https://www.boondockersbible.com/knowledgebase/how-many-solar-panels-do-i-need-for-rv-boondocking/). You're talking about more than that on a trailer half the size. If your trailer is a box with nothing on the roof, no need for roof access, and you literally cover it 100% with solar panels, then sure -- you could get close or maybe even get 2 kW, depending on your definition of "small trailer." In the real world, with the trailers that exist today? Not so much.
Means on a sunny summer day you can harvest about 15kW. I have no idea how much range that means, but it is certainly enough for onboard electronics, which should be important for people valuing independence and living away from the grid.
To fit 2-3 kW on that roof you'd need room for 9-15 more panels...
You know, anti-EV folks are often accused of using ridiculous examples and what-ifs to claim EVs are impractical.
Showing possibly the most cluttered and unoptimized camper roof to argue against a large solar array is very similar. There's plenty to suggest that 2-3kw isn't enough to meaningfully charge an EV without disingenuous nonsense. To be clear it would be fairly trivial to get 2kw on a camper that size, just because it currently isn't done, doesn't mean it's at all unfeasible.
If you're talking about a factory-produced system with walkable solar panels and integrated roof components, that's a different story - but my impression from this conversation was "why don't people just put 2-3 kW solar arrays on small campers."
I picked a camper at random, and a medium sized one at that. The initial claim was 2-3 kW on a small camper. I made a legitimate effort based on a random (common) trailer. If you're going to accuse me of "disingenuous nonsense," at least show your work instead of making lazy accusations that you can't be bothered to back up with any actual effort.
This is 1350 watts of solar on a trailer (https://www.boondockersbible.com/knowledgebase/how-many-solar-panels-do-i-need-for-rv-boondocking/). You're talking about more than that on a trailer half the size. If your trailer is a box with nothing on the roof, no need for roof access, and you literally cover it 100% with solar panels, then sure -- you could get close or maybe even get 2 kW, depending on your definition of "small trailer." In the real world, with the trailers that exist today? Not so much.
I thought it was quite clear that I meant solar power that is meant and made to be on that roof, not put on later. Not that it would change a lot.
That is what I consider a small one (not the smallest variant in existance, but the smallest common size today): https://img.ricardostatic.ch/t_1000x750/pl/1126526162/1/1/wohnmobil-camper-hymer-mlt-580.jpg and it is likely a popular one (I have no interest in those things so I just took the winner from several tests).
From the technical data: size is 598x222cm - roof is maybe 2m shorter and that could be changed easily if needed.
I can see only 3 small obstructions. You can probably move them around if you want it.
That should easily give you 6m² (or 10m² if you use full size as other models do). Per m² you can get about 200W. So this would give you 1,2-2kW peak.
I can still not see that my rough calculation is that wrong considering that this calculation is very lowballed on the 1,2 end.
Means on a sunny summer day you can harvest about 15kW. I have no idea how much range that means, but it is certainly enough for onboard electronics, which should be important for people valuing independence and living away from the grid.
It is expensive an impractical to have solar on an EV itself. The biggest drawback in my mind is that without grid connection, there's no way to put excess energy to any good use. If you started with a full battery, and let the car sit in the sun all day, all the energy is wasted - but the cost of panels is still the same.
The math for a camper is a bit different. People use solar to camp where there's no grid connection. A small generator is loud, dirty, inefficient, it's power expensive. That's where solar starts to shine (pun intended). Plenty of people do these conversions.
Also, the cost to install solar on a house is around $2.75 per kW. A lot of it is soft cost - cost of sales, permits, design for each unique roof, etc. None of it applies to a factory-assembled car or trailer. But they may have their own unique costs of which I'm not aware. For campers, it's the batteries. But even with the batteries math is positive for solar if off-grid.
It is expensive an impractical to have solar on an EV itself. The biggest drawback in my mind is that without grid connection, there's no way to put excess energy to any good use. If you started with a full battery, and let the car sit in the sun all day, all the energy is wasted - but the cost of panels is still the same.
The math for a camper is a bit different. People use solar to camp where there's no grid connection. A small generator is loud, dirty, inefficient, it's power expensive. That's where solar starts to shine (pun intended). Plenty of people do these conversions.
Also, the cost to install solar on a house is around $2.75 per kW. A lot of it is soft cost - cost of sales, permits, design for each unique roof, etc. None of it applies to a factory-assembled car or trailer. But they may have their own unique costs of which I'm not aware. For campers, it's the batteries. But even with the batteries math is positive for solar if off-grid.
I used to use a 2 kW Honda generator at work. It wasn't very loud and is a small engine so wasn't too dirty. The ones I used started with one pull.
I used to work with utility generators. They were like 98 percent efficient. So, I figure a little Honda has a minimum of 85 percent efficiency from the engine.
https://powerequipment.honda.com/generators/models/eu3000is (https://powerequipment.honda.com/generators/models/eu3000is)
The world isn't perfect. If you are only needing it a few times a year and worry about the carbon footprint, maybe it could be made up elsewhere. It seems a lot easier to haul a small generator than a special trailer.
Someday, I too will own an electric vehicle and will better understand.
I see - we are talking about different things. These are what I think about in the context of "small trailer:"I always talked about camper, not trailer. Not least because since everything gets electrified now, that looks like the logical combination - you are off grid (or it's at least a viable possibility) for several days in a row, you have a big mostly flat roof, you run on batteries - that sounds like the perfect combination if done at production time.
https://camperreport.com/7-awesome-small-travel-trailers-under-3000-pounds/
https://www.thespruce.com/glamping-worthy-camping-trailers-3017221
I used to use a 2 kW Honda generator at work. It wasn't very loud and is a small engine so wasn't too dirty.
I see - we are talking about different things. These are what I think about in the context of "small trailer:"I always talked about camper, not trailer. Not least because since everything gets electrified now, that looks like the logical combination - you are off grid (or it's at least a viable possibility) for several days in a row, you have a big mostly flat roof, you run on batteries - that sounds like the perfect combination if done at production time.
https://camperreport.com/7-awesome-small-travel-trailers-under-3000-pounds/
https://www.thespruce.com/glamping-worthy-camping-trailers-3017221
But afaik there aren't even prototypes for that. So why? is what keeps me awake in the night ;)
In my experience (at least in the areas of the US I have lived) the term “camper” most often means trailer.That can very well be the case, a misunderstanding on my side since I am a German never been in the US and have no interest in the camping topic, so my vacabulary isn't exactly 5-star level ;)
In my experience (at least in the areas of the US I have lived) the term “camper” most often means trailer.That can very well be the case, a misunderstanding on my side since I am a German never been in the US and have no interest in the camping topic, so my vacabulary isn't exactly 5-star level ;)
You guys were right overall. The internal combustion Carnot cycle is not that efficient. I was only considering the generator itself. However, if I were parked for the night running my little generator in a campground to charge my truck. I figured if I looked around i would probably see a lot of campfires. These are fires just for fun and to roast marshmallows and such. MY little generator is not benign, but it sure doesn't seem like an evil poison spewing monster.
I would also probably see gigantic motor homes that may almost flip the normal miles per gallon to gallons per mile. There would be trailers pulled by big gas guzzling trucks. Once again, I would turn to my little generator chugging away charging the truck batteries overnight. I think I would be entitled to smile.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/08/26/tesla-is-slowly-cutting-into-pharmaceutical-health-insurance-costs/amp/
Interesting side effect that doesn't really get talked about
I've driven about 2000 miles in my ID.4 and like it. The apple CarPlay is a bit wonky (works better with the USB plugged in) but otherwise no issues. The remote AC start is nice. Also the emergency braking feature already saved me from an accident with a terrible driver on the interstate. Would recommend it for anyone looking for a soccer-parent SUV. The range is as stated, even with the AC running all the time.
I've driven about 2000 miles in my ID.4 and like it. The apple CarPlay is a bit wonky (works better with the USB plugged in) but otherwise no issues. The remote AC start is nice. Also the emergency braking feature already saved me from an accident with a terrible driver on the interstate. Would recommend it for anyone looking for a soccer-parent SUV. The range is as stated, even with the AC running all the time.
I'm waiting for the 3.5t bill to pass hoping they increase tax credits. Currently debating the Id.4 vs the y vs the stang. Any reason you went with the VW? And did you drive the others
I'll bet I'm not the only one who didn't know what a pouch cell was.
https://www.vpwllc.com/pouch-cells/ (https://www.vpwllc.com/pouch-cells/)
I'll bet I'm not the only one who didn't know what a pouch cell was.
https://www.vpwllc.com/pouch-cells/ (https://www.vpwllc.com/pouch-cells/)
I’ll admit I didn’t know. Thanks for sharing.
Then again, I’d reckon that the overwhelming majority of people have (at best) only a cursory understanding of how their internal combustion engine works.
But in less car-centric areas of the world (aka everywhere outside North America) people don't drive their car to get a few bananas.
Means on a sunny summer day you can harvest about 15kW. I have no idea how much range that means, but it is certainly enough for onboard electronics, which should be important for people valuing independence and living away from the grid.
In a small EV, without a trailer, you can get 4 miles/6 km per kWh. So, 15 kWh = 60 miles/90 km. Not too shabby.
This. We need to re-optimize the USA to a car free design I think if we expect to survive as a species. More like European towns/villages or American neighborhoods of 125 years ago when most people pedaled or walked to get where they are going. End the crazy commutes. End the car based shopping trips. More opportunities to walk and bike. #NotJustBikes.
I suspect in the future at some point Americans might need to give up this idea of taking a 40ft house with them for the weekend and settle on the idea of renting a cottage. A big RV necessitates a big tow vehicle. Perhaps that will become prohibitively expensive at some point? Or not. People spend some amazing amounts of money to go camping.There are plenty of RVs that already cost as much or more than a house. Examples:
This. We need to re-optimize the USA to a car free design I think if we expect to survive as a species. More like European towns/villages or American neighborhoods of 125 years ago when most people pedaled or walked to get where they are going. End the crazy commutes. End the car based shopping trips. More opportunities to walk and bike. #NotJustBikes.
Personal hand-held thorium reactors will be sold in Walmart before the US public supports this. Sorry. It's perfectly logical, yet completely impossible.
If they made bike paths safe and easy to access, I think they would get a lot more use for trips to the market. The separation from street road traffic would certainly make it more desirable. With electric bicycles, it could become a very pleasant trip. With a bike rack right outside the market door, it can be made more convenient than roaring through traffic with a giant pickup. Maybe some would even be able to pick up that new reactor at Wal-Mart and pedal home with it.
This. We need to re-optimize the USA to a car free design I think if we expect to survive as a species. More like European towns/villages or American neighborhoods of 125 years ago when most people pedaled or walked to get where they are going. End the crazy commutes. End the car based shopping trips. More opportunities to walk and bike. #NotJustBikes.
I suspect in the future at some point Americans might need to give up this idea of taking a 40ft house with them for the weekend and settle on the idea of renting a cottage. A big RV necessitates a big tow vehicle. Perhaps that will become prohibitively expensive at some point? Or not. People spend some amazing amounts of money to go camping.There are plenty of RVs that already cost as much or more than a house. Examples:
https://www.americancoach.com/shop/research/build-price
Gotta love (/s) some of the names, like "American Dream" and "American Tradition". I'm not sure what it would take to make it prohibitively expensive if people already buy these $500k+ RVs.
QuoteThis. We need to re-optimize the USA to a car free design I think if we expect to survive as a species. More like European towns/villages or American neighborhoods of 125 years ago when most people pedaled or walked to get where they are going. End the crazy commutes. End the car based shopping trips. More opportunities to walk and bike. #NotJustBikes.
The first and fastest step to achieving this is self driving cars.
This removes the need for large amounts of parking spots from city streets and you have a huge area to improve inner city life and accessibility with footpaths, bike lanes, green space etc.
And once we remove the requirement for car ownership from the equation, people will be more receptive to new modes of transport.
QuoteThis. We need to re-optimize the USA to a car free design I think if we expect to survive as a species. More like European towns/villages or American neighborhoods of 125 years ago when most people pedaled or walked to get where they are going. End the crazy commutes. End the car based shopping trips. More opportunities to walk and bike. #NotJustBikes.
The first and fastest step to achieving this is self driving cars.
This removes the need for large amounts of parking spots from city streets and you have a huge area to improve inner city life and accessibility with footpaths, bike lanes, green space etc.
And once we remove the requirement for car ownership from the equation, people will be more receptive to new modes of transport.
Bike lanes also become entirely unnecessary. If self driving cars work properly, anyone could ride their bike down the middle of the lane of any road in the city safely and without worry.
QuoteThis. We need to re-optimize the USA to a car free design I think if we expect to survive as a species. More like European towns/villages or American neighborhoods of 125 years ago when most people pedaled or walked to get where they are going. End the crazy commutes. End the car based shopping trips. More opportunities to walk and bike. #NotJustBikes.
The first and fastest step to achieving this is self driving cars.
This removes the need for large amounts of parking spots from city streets and you have a huge area to improve inner city life and accessibility with footpaths, bike lanes, green space etc.
And once we remove the requirement for car ownership from the equation, people will be more receptive to new modes of transport.
Bike lanes also become entirely unnecessary. If self driving cars work properly, anyone could ride their bike down the middle of the lane of any road in the city safely and without worry.
Yeh - Well - How long would it be until all the cars are self driving? It would be quite a while before some of us are comfortable with that. Plus - It would certainly be more convenient for drivers not to have the street deluged with bikes. Bikes are slower than cars. Bike paths are usually multi-function as well. Walkers and roller blade people can usually coexist with most cyclists.
QuoteThis. We need to re-optimize the USA to a car free design I think if we expect to survive as a species. More like European towns/villages or American neighborhoods of 125 years ago when most people pedaled or walked to get where they are going. End the crazy commutes. End the car based shopping trips. More opportunities to walk and bike. #NotJustBikes.
The first and fastest step to achieving this is self driving cars.
This removes the need for large amounts of parking spots from city streets and you have a huge area to improve inner city life and accessibility with footpaths, bike lanes, green space etc.
And once we remove the requirement for car ownership from the equation, people will be more receptive to new modes of transport.
Bike lanes also become entirely unnecessary. If self driving cars work properly, anyone could ride their bike down the middle of the lane of any road in the city safely and without worry.
Yeh - Well - How long would it be until all the cars are self driving? It would be quite a while before some of us are comfortable with that. Plus - It would certainly be more convenient for drivers not to have the street deluged with bikes. Bikes are slower than cars. Bike paths are usually multi-function as well. Walkers and roller blade people can usually coexist with most cyclists.
QuoteThis. We need to re-optimize the USA to a car free design I think if we expect to survive as a species. More like European towns/villages or American neighborhoods of 125 years ago when most people pedaled or walked to get where they are going. End the crazy commutes. End the car based shopping trips. More opportunities to walk and bike. #NotJustBikes.
The first and fastest step to achieving this is self driving cars.
This removes the need for large amounts of parking spots from city streets and you have a huge area to improve inner city life and accessibility with footpaths, bike lanes, green space etc.
And once we remove the requirement for car ownership from the equation, people will be more receptive to new modes of transport.
Bike lanes also become entirely unnecessary. If self driving cars work properly, anyone could ride their bike down the middle of the lane of any road in the city safely and without worry.
Yeh - Well - How long would it be until all the cars are self driving? It would be quite a while before some of us are comfortable with that. Plus - It would certainly be more convenient for drivers not to have the street deluged with bikes. Bikes are slower than cars. Bike paths are usually multi-function as well. Walkers and roller blade people can usually coexist with most cyclists.
Bike paths and multi-use paths where I live are largely useless for transportation cycling. (This might well be location dependent though.)
They tend to cut through out of the way greenspaces in lazy/indirect routes and are clogged with groups of pedestrians . . . so a trip that is 5-10 km on the road and maybe 15 - 20 minutes to ride becomes 8 - 14 km because of the need to redirect to an out of the way and indirect route and 30 - 40 minutes to ride because it's not possible to cycle both safely and quickly on a 'bike' path that's full of people slowly ambling around. Then there's the problem that none of these paths are maintained in the winter, so they become unsafe for 4 months of the year.
This seems to be a common problem around here that cycling infrastructure is often built with the idea of recreational/pleasure cycling in mind rather than useful cycling. If you want people to get out of their cars and ride bikes to do things like run errands or commute, multi-use paths just aren't going to cut it.
I guess you people are right for heavily populated areas. Just another reason not to live in those places.
You guys were right overall. The internal combustion Carnot cycle is not that efficient. I was only considering the generator itself. However, if I were parked for the night running my little generator in a campground to charge my truck. I figured if I looked around i would probably see a lot of campfires. These are fires just for fun and to roast marshmallows and such. MY little generator is not benign, but it sure doesn't seem like an evil poison spewing monster.
I would also probably see gigantic motor homes that may almost flip the normal miles per gallon to gallons per mile. There would be trailers pulled by big gas guzzling trucks. Once again, I would turn to my little generator chugging away charging the truck batteries overnight. I think I would be entitled to smile.
This. We need to re-optimize the USA to a car free design I think if we expect to survive as a species. More like European towns/villages or American neighborhoods of 125 years ago when most people pedaled or walked to get where they are going. End the crazy commutes. End the car based shopping trips. More opportunities to walk and bike. #NotJustBikes.
Personal hand-held thorium reactors will be sold in Walmart before the US public supports this. Sorry. It's perfectly logical, yet completely impossible.
You guys were right overall. The internal combustion Carnot cycle is not that efficient. I was only considering the generator itself. However, if I were parked for the night running my little generator in a campground to charge my truck. I figured if I looked around i would probably see a lot of campfires. These are fires just for fun and to roast marshmallows and such. MY little generator is not benign, but it sure doesn't seem like an evil poison spewing monster.
I would also probably see gigantic motor homes that may almost flip the normal miles per gallon to gallons per mile. There would be trailers pulled by big gas guzzling trucks. Once again, I would turn to my little generator chugging away charging the truck batteries overnight. I think I would be entitled to smile.
Plus - It would certainly be more convenient for drivers not to have the street deluged with bikes. Bikes are slower than cars.
QuotePlus - It would certainly be more convenient for drivers not to have the street deluged with bikes. Bikes are slower than cars.
Actually the reverse is true. More bikes is better for drivers of cars.
Every bike on the road is one less car clogging your commute. By and large bikes do not block your path, do not add to the wait at intersections and do not add wear and tear to the road.
I'm not entirely convinced that the weight of your typical small car matters much as far as road damage goes - it seems like heavy trucks, busses, and goods vehicles tend to be the major contributors to this.
QuotePlus - It would certainly be more convenient for drivers not to have the street deluged with bikes. Bikes are slower than cars.
Actually the reverse is true. More bikes is better for drivers of cars.
Every bike on the road is one less car clogging your commute. By and large bikes do not block your path, do not add to the wait at intersections and do not add wear and tear to the road.
This is so true and so misunderstood by the general population. Everyone remembers the two second wait to pass a cyclist which causes rage . . . but nobody remembers little stuff like the minutes lost at each traffic light because of distracted drivers not paying attention.
I'm not entirely convinced that the weight of your typical small car matters much as far as road damage goes - it seems like heavy trucks, busses, and goods vehicles tend to be the major contributors to this.
QuotePlus - It would certainly be more convenient for drivers not to have the street deluged with bikes. Bikes are slower than cars.
Actually the reverse is true. More bikes is better for drivers of cars.
Every bike on the road is one less car clogging your commute. By and large bikes do not block your path, do not add to the wait at intersections and do not add wear and tear to the road.
This is so true and so misunderstood by the general population. Everyone remembers the two second wait to pass a cyclist which causes rage . . . but nobody remembers little stuff like the minutes lost at each traffic light because of distracted drivers not paying attention.
I'm not entirely convinced that the weight of your typical small car matters much as far as road damage goes - it seems like heavy trucks, busses, and goods vehicles tend to be the major contributors to this.
People who like to complain about traffic and then simultaneously complain about cyclists is kind of crazy to me. Every commuting cyclist is one less large vehicle on the road. Luckily, I think this is even improving in very dense American cities like NYC. Build it and they will come. The bike infrastructure is becoming such that more people are beginning to realize they can get around significantly faster and easier on a bike. Driving across Manhattan is crazy when you get there in a quarter of the time on a bike. And again everyone of those people on a bike is one less person clogging up the streets and parking with a car.
I think it will be a very long time coming to suburbia, and perhaps even changing the idea of suburbia. But one can hope (probably long after I'm dead) that the car-centric nonsense of the last century will fade away.
The Rivian is ugly but sounds great for rich people that want an all-around beast. It's kind of like a Hummer H2. Starting at $68k with 300 mile range, and excels at on-road and off-road driving. Can't see this selling in great enough numbers to really impact EV adoption, though.
But it’s comparable to the ICE trucks that people buy in droves.
The Rivian is ugly but sounds great for rich people that want an all-around beast. It's kind of like a Hummer H2. Starting at $68k with 300 mile range, and excels at on-road and off-road driving. Can't see this selling in great enough numbers to really impact EV adoption, though.Hope they are taking the same approach as Tesla took: build a very expensive niche vehicle, use it to finance expensive vehicle with a broader appeal, use it to finance a mainstream vehicle.
The Rivian is ugly but sounds great for rich people that want an all-around beast. It's kind of like a Hummer H2. Starting at $68k with 300 mile range, and excels at on-road and off-road driving. Can't see this selling in great enough numbers to really impact EV adoption, though.Hope they are taking the same approach as Tesla took: build a very expensive niche vehicle, use it to finance expensive vehicle with a broader appeal, use it to finance a mainstream vehicle.
They kind of are... they are using their "skateboard platform" to build a delivery van fleet with Amazon. It's not the exact same business model as Tesla, but definitely not focused on just the Luxury vehicle market.
At the end of the cycle you have a street that was all-cars instead being a street that is mostly for bikes, where cars are guests and drive as slow as a bike. But since they rarely need to stop (and then not for long) they end up as fast.QuotePlus - It would certainly be more convenient for drivers not to have the street deluged with bikes. Bikes are slower than cars.
Actually the reverse is true. More bikes is better for drivers of cars.
Every bike on the road is one less car clogging your commute. By and large bikes do not block your path, do not add to the wait at intersections and do not add wear and tear to the road.
This is so true and so misunderstood by the general population. Everyone remembers the two second wait to pass a cyclist which causes rage . . . but nobody remembers little stuff like the minutes lost at each traffic light because of distracted drivers not paying attention.
I'm not entirely convinced that the weight of your typical small car matters much as far as road damage goes - it seems like heavy trucks, busses, and goods vehicles tend to be the major contributors to this.
People who like to complain about traffic and then simultaneously complain about cyclists is kind of crazy to me. Every commuting cyclist is one less large vehicle on the road. Luckily, I think this is even improving in very dense American cities like NYC. Build it and they will come. The bike infrastructure is becoming such that more people are beginning to realize they can get around significantly faster and easier on a bike. Driving across Manhattan is crazy when you get there in a quarter of the time on a bike. And again everyone of those people on a bike is one less person clogging up the streets and parking with a car.
I think it will be a very long time coming to suburbia, and perhaps even changing the idea of suburbia. But one can hope (probably long after I'm dead) that the car-centric nonsense of the last century will fade away.
I guess I did complain about cyclists as they do not coexist well with car traffic. I also am a cyclist and do not coexist well with car traffic. I hope some of that infrastructure money goes to new bike paths. I agree "Build it and they will ride."
We have learned it’s not good enough to offer little electric powered shitboxes and then wonder why no one buys them; you need to electrify the kinds of vehicles people actually want to buy, and that means trucks and SUVs.I would be good with a very small electric car (if I could load and and it would not cost a lot more). Similar my neighbor, who can load, and travels to work 12km (single direction) which they think is a bit long for biking, especially in the extremer temperatures and on the streets where cars zip by.
btw. I think BYD will be one of the big auto makers in 10 years. I wonder how many of you have heard of that company?I've heard of them. They've been around for quite some time now (established 2003), just not in the US (besides some fleet vehicles). They're already huge in China. But it has been historically difficult for Chinese manufacturers to gain global appeal. Lately some Chinese companies are simply buying an established brand. Like Lotus and Volvo/Polestar under Geely and MG under SAIC.
I think one way forward for humanity is long term choices, things that can be repaired, things that do not require proprietary consumables. Simplicity rather than Tesla like tech complexity.
I have no idea how we square this with capitalism though. Seems like if this were done right at some point everyone would have all the things they need and the used markets would provide the next generation with all the things.
Good for MMM types, not so good for companies that need to turn a profit to exist.
In the direction of ebikes:
https://myelec-traks.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5kP4g57Ycw
Still out there, still being used regularly. What else in your life has lasted 50 years?
I think one way forward for humanity is long term choices, things that can be repaired, things that do not require proprietary consumables. Simplicity rather than Tesla like tech complexity.
I have no idea how we square this with capitalism though. Seems like if this were done right at some point everyone would have all the things they need and the used markets would provide the next generation with all the things.
Good for MMM types, not so good for companies that need to turn a profit to exist.
I disagree with the first premise, respectfully. While there are cases where planned obsolescence is an issue, for the most part improvements in technology are better than extreme longevity. The latter would mean that we would still be heating with oil boilers and washing clothes with 50 gallon cycles. Not to mention driving unsafe polluting vehicles and using the ozone depleting R-12 refrigerant. As things wear out, is it better to endlessely repair them or replace them with something much better? There is certainly a break even for the lifecycle of most things, wherein a product doesn't last long enough to make up for the embodied carbon in making it. But it is likely less than people think. A new cell phone, for instance, uses like 75% less material than the old Nokia bricks. You could buy 4 of them before you are actually "wasting" material. There are also cases where newer tech feels wasteful just because of the speed of innovation. There was a time when it "made sense" to buy a new smart phone every 2 years because the tech was so much better. But now there are diminishing incremental returns and most people find that they are completely fine with a 4 or 5 year old device. Same with light bulbs and such. Now the markets are a bit more mature.
Something like a cast iron skillet or drip coffee maker were perfected long ago, so there isn't a need to upgrade.
That's a separate issue from curbing our consumer debt appetite that you allude to, which I totally agree with.
i mentioned to a friend, while riding in his diesel truck in the mountains, that my next vehicle would be electric. He was skeptical and mentioned niche cases where a conventional gas or diesel truck is the best option and he may not be wrong, but the issues he brought up were extreme niche cases. like back country hunting in -20 deg. F temps. my typical commute is 5 miles round trip, paved roads and i average ~6k miles a year of driving my car. But even where we hunt there are 3 charging stations within a 25 mile radius of the small town that we frequent.
i think the biggest barriers to entry are range anxiety, lack of knowledge regarding range and available infrastructure, and niche cases guiding vehicle purchases.
i worry about battery capacity in cold temps but not a lot. if the industry can market better regarding the first two above, i think they have a chance.
i want a electric truck to replace my Mazda 3 hatchback some time in the next 1-5 years
i mentioned to a friend, while riding in his diesel truck in the mountains, that my next vehicle would be electric. He was skeptical and mentioned niche cases where a conventional gas or diesel truck is the best option and he may not be wrong, but the issues he brought up were extreme niche cases. like back country hunting in -20 deg. F temps. my typical commute is 5 miles round trip, paved roads and i average ~6k miles a year of driving my car. But even where we hunt there are 3 charging stations within a 25 mile radius of the small town that we frequent.
i think the biggest barriers to entry are range anxiety, lack of knowledge regarding range and available infrastructure, and niche cases guiding vehicle purchases.
i worry about battery capacity in cold temps but not a lot. if the industry can market better regarding the first two above, i think they have a chance.
i want a electric truck to replace my Mazda 3 hatchback some time in the next 1-5 years
Depending on usage, the off-road capability of EVs is pretty terrible.
TFL did a video on the Jeep 4xe, which had about 21 miles of on-road range, and got 3 miles off road. Granted, terrible conditions that may not apply everywhere (4Lo, uphill, etc) but also in mild weather.
https://youtu.be/Cy7tIAa_eKQ
I am eager to see how well my 4xe does for hunting this year, it’s usually in the 20s or 30s, but I don’t drive a long way off-road (few miles maybe) and I don’t need to use 4Lo, 4Hi works on our trails unless it’s really snowy.
I personally think that for now the killer app is short-range (25-50 mile) PHEVs with a gas engine. EV use for all of your usual around town stuff, daily commute, etc, and a gas engine for longer trips/range anxiety/suboptimal conditions, etc.
I think moving forward I'm ever more cognizant of the amount of traditional waste and specifically e-waste humanity is creating. Electric cars won't help this at all. Maybe our consumer choices going forward need to be more simplistic.
i mentioned to a friend, while riding in his diesel truck in the mountains, that my next vehicle would be electric. He was skeptical and mentioned niche cases where a conventional gas or diesel truck is the best option and he may not be wrong, but the issues he brought up were extreme niche cases. like back country hunting in -20 deg. F temps. my typical commute is 5 miles round trip, paved roads and i average ~6k miles a year of driving my car. But even where we hunt there are 3 charging stations within a 25 mile radius of the small town that we frequent.
i think the biggest barriers to entry are range anxiety, lack of knowledge regarding range and available infrastructure, and niche cases guiding vehicle purchases.
i worry about battery capacity in cold temps but not a lot. if the industry can market better regarding the first two above, i think they have a chance.
i want a electric truck to replace my Mazda 3 hatchback some time in the next 1-5 years
Depending on usage, the off-road capability of EVs is pretty terrible.
TFL did a video on the Jeep 4xe, which had about 21 miles of on-road range, and got 3 miles off road. Granted, terrible conditions that may not apply everywhere (4Lo, uphill, etc) but also in mild weather.
https://youtu.be/Cy7tIAa_eKQ
I am eager to see how well my 4xe does for hunting this year, it’s usually in the 20s or 30s, but I don’t drive a long way off-road (few miles maybe) and I don’t need to use 4Lo, 4Hi works on our trails unless it’s really snowy.
I personally think that for now the killer app is short-range (25-50 mile) PHEVs with a gas engine. EV use for all of your usual around town stuff, daily commute, etc, and a gas engine for longer trips/range anxiety/suboptimal conditions, etc.
The second part of Motor Trend's Trans-America Trail experience with the Rivian R1T came out yesterday:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-america-trail-off-road/
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-atlantic-trail-off-road-part-2/
i mentioned to a friend, while riding in his diesel truck in the mountains, that my next vehicle would be electric. He was skeptical and mentioned niche cases where a conventional gas or diesel truck is the best option and he may not be wrong, but the issues he brought up were extreme niche cases. like back country hunting in -20 deg. F temps. my typical commute is 5 miles round trip, paved roads and i average ~6k miles a year of driving my car. But even where we hunt there are 3 charging stations within a 25 mile radius of the small town that we frequent.
i think the biggest barriers to entry are range anxiety, lack of knowledge regarding range and available infrastructure, and niche cases guiding vehicle purchases.
i worry about battery capacity in cold temps but not a lot. if the industry can market better regarding the first two above, i think they have a chance.
i want a electric truck to replace my Mazda 3 hatchback some time in the next 1-5 years
Depending on usage, the off-road capability of EVs is pretty terrible.
TFL did a video on the Jeep 4xe, which had about 21 miles of on-road range, and got 3 miles off road. Granted, terrible conditions that may not apply everywhere (4Lo, uphill, etc) but also in mild weather.
https://youtu.be/Cy7tIAa_eKQ
I am eager to see how well my 4xe does for hunting this year, it’s usually in the 20s or 30s, but I don’t drive a long way off-road (few miles maybe) and I don’t need to use 4Lo, 4Hi works on our trails unless it’s really snowy.
I personally think that for now the killer app is short-range (25-50 mile) PHEVs with a gas engine. EV use for all of your usual around town stuff, daily commute, etc, and a gas engine for longer trips/range anxiety/suboptimal conditions, etc.
The second part of Motor Trend's Trans-America Trail experience with the Rivian R1T came out yesterday:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-america-trail-off-road/
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-atlantic-trail-off-road-part-2/
Interesting series, although unless I missed it, very short on detail regarding their charging frequencies, availability, etc. 43 days to go 5000 miles is a little suspect, even off road.
The majority of the days along the route are around two hundred miles in length, so most people will find that the entire route can take around four weeks, although it is perfectly possible to ride shorter sections of the route instead. The trail has been designed to have accommodation and gas stations within easy reach, and at a reasonable distance to allow most motorcycles to travel without needing a support vehicle.
The second part of Motor Trend's Trans-America Trail experience with the Rivian R1T came out yesterday:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-america-trail-off-road/
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-atlantic-trail-off-road-part-2/
Here’s the information I was looking for:QuoteThe majority of the days along the route are around two hundred miles in length, so most people will find that the entire route can take around four weeks, although it is perfectly possible to ride shorter sections of the route instead. The trail has been designed to have accommodation and gas stations within easy reach, and at a reasonable distance to allow most motorcycles to travel without needing a support vehicle.
https://www.tripsavvy.com/off-road-trans-america-trail-4104446
So if a normal ICE driver does this in about 30 days +/-, taking an extra 2 weeks (43% more time) to do it in EV isn’t that impressive to me.
The second part of Motor Trend's Trans-America Trail experience with the Rivian R1T came out yesterday:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-america-trail-off-road/
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-atlantic-trail-off-road-part-2/
@JLee, thanks so much for posting these. They were absolutely AWESOME.
"If MotorTrend's band of leadfoots can cross the county offroad in an electric pickup truck, then the once-per-year 500-mile road trip the average driver might take should be a cakewalk in comparison."
Admittedly, @Chris22 has very good points. Along his lines, the average driver won't have a caravan of three vehicles populated by factory support technicians ready to replace an axle or something on the spot. Also, the team in the articles planned their days with care. An average driver wants to know "Can I drive anywhere I'd normally go, and not have to think about anything?" It may be a while before charging is so readily available that you can drive an EV without planning ahead.
Still, the writers claim that that the Rivians saved the Ram more often than the other way around.
This charging thing,.......yeh well.
Is it easier to build a gas station with the buried tanks, pumps and whatever fire protection must be required than a charging station? I've never really looked for fire protection, but I assume there are requirements. Maybe lot size if nothing else. They are getting really fussy about gas station leaks so I'm guessing that some sort of underground liner would be required even if it's only clay. You need access to the tank so it can be regularly filled. Metering of the tank level certainly seems like a necessity or maybe a big dipstick. The pumps seem to be a lot more involved than an electrical plug.
I can visualize a charging station even though I've never built one or barely looked at one. I can see a pole or padmount transformer, protective fusing and a bus for cabling to each charging station. Each station would have some lighting, charging plug, further electrical protective fuses and billing equipment to meter usage. Of course there is some sort of electrical cord with the plug on the end.
Am I wrong or are charging stations quite a lot simpler than gas stations?
This charging thing,.......yeh well.
Is it easier to build a gas station with the buried tanks, pumps and whatever fire protection must be required than a charging station? I've never really looked for fire protection, but I assume there are requirements. Maybe lot size if nothing else. They are getting really fussy about gas station leaks so I'm guessing that some sort of underground liner would be required even if it's only clay. You need access to the tank so it can be regularly filled. Metering of the tank level certainly seems like a necessity or maybe a big dipstick. The pumps seem to be a lot more involved than an electrical plug.
I can visualize a charging station even though I've never built one or barely looked at one. I can see a pole or padmount transformer, protective fusing and a bus for cabling to each charging station. Each station would have some lighting, charging plug, further electrical protective fuses and billing equipment to meter usage. Of course there is some sort of electrical cord with the plug on the end.
Am I wrong or are charging stations quite a lot simpler than gas stations?
I’m not looking for negatives, but everyone in the world knows the biggest issues with long trips in EVs are range and charger availability/reliability. If someone is touting a cross country trip in an EV, isn’t it natural to want to understand how they overcame those limitations??? Not mentioning them or glossing over them seems like a pretty big omission to me.
MT stated in one of their opening paragraphs that the trail is 5,000 miles; I would also be interested in knowing how their trip took them 50% more miles than that. Or is that also looking for negatives?
I do worry that people's new high efficiency appliance or vehicle or building that develops problems within a decade, that is too expensive or complicated to repair and is discarded and replaced again is a bad cycle that diminishes its efficiency advantages.
I look at life a little like a camping packing list. Done right - you could equip your life with long term purchases that get the job done for a very long time with maintenance and without re-purchase. Bonus points for buying quality things second hand that last decades.
i mentioned to a friend, while riding in his diesel truck in the mountains, that my next vehicle would be electric. He was skeptical and mentioned niche cases where a conventional gas or diesel truck is the best option and he may not be wrong, but the issues he brought up were extreme niche cases. like back country hunting in -20 deg. F temps. my typical commute is 5 miles round trip, paved roads and i average ~6k miles a year of driving my car. But even where we hunt there are 3 charging stations within a 25 mile radius of the small town that we frequent.
i think the biggest barriers to entry are range anxiety, lack of knowledge regarding range and available infrastructure, and niche cases guiding vehicle purchases.
i worry about battery capacity in cold temps but not a lot. if the industry can market better regarding the first two above, i think they have a chance.
i want a electric truck to replace my Mazda 3 hatchback some time in the next 1-5 years
Depending on usage, the off-road capability of EVs is pretty terrible.
TFL did a video on the Jeep 4xe, which had about 21 miles of on-road range, and got 3 miles off road. Granted, terrible conditions that may not apply everywhere (4Lo, uphill, etc) but also in mild weather.
https://youtu.be/Cy7tIAa_eKQ
I am eager to see how well my 4xe does for hunting this year, it’s usually in the 20s or 30s, but I don’t drive a long way off-road (few miles maybe) and I don’t need to use 4Lo, 4Hi works on our trails unless it’s really snowy.
I personally think that for now the killer app is short-range (25-50 mile) PHEVs with a gas engine. EV use for all of your usual around town stuff, daily commute, etc, and a gas engine for longer trips/range anxiety/suboptimal conditions, etc.
The second part of Motor Trend's Trans-America Trail experience with the Rivian R1T came out yesterday:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-america-trail-off-road/
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-atlantic-trail-off-road-part-2/
i mentioned to a friend, while riding in his diesel truck in the mountains, that my next vehicle would be electric. He was skeptical and mentioned niche cases where a conventional gas or diesel truck is the best option and he may not be wrong, but the issues he brought up were extreme niche cases. like back country hunting in -20 deg. F temps. my typical commute is 5 miles round trip, paved roads and i average ~6k miles a year of driving my car. But even where we hunt there are 3 charging stations within a 25 mile radius of the small town that we frequent.
i think the biggest barriers to entry are range anxiety, lack of knowledge regarding range and available infrastructure, and niche cases guiding vehicle purchases.
i worry about battery capacity in cold temps but not a lot. if the industry can market better regarding the first two above, i think they have a chance.
i want a electric truck to replace my Mazda 3 hatchback some time in the next 1-5 years
Depending on usage, the off-road capability of EVs is pretty terrible.
TFL did a video on the Jeep 4xe, which had about 21 miles of on-road range, and got 3 miles off road. Granted, terrible conditions that may not apply everywhere (4Lo, uphill, etc) but also in mild weather.
https://youtu.be/Cy7tIAa_eKQ
I am eager to see how well my 4xe does for hunting this year, it’s usually in the 20s or 30s, but I don’t drive a long way off-road (few miles maybe) and I don’t need to use 4Lo, 4Hi works on our trails unless it’s really snowy.
I personally think that for now the killer app is short-range (25-50 mile) PHEVs with a gas engine. EV use for all of your usual around town stuff, daily commute, etc, and a gas engine for longer trips/range anxiety/suboptimal conditions, etc.
The second part of Motor Trend's Trans-America Trail experience with the Rivian R1T came out yesterday:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-america-trail-off-road/
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-atlantic-trail-off-road-part-2/
Thanks for Sharing, cool story, from a cost perspective i figured out the following
i just did the math and its cheaper to buy both a used 2015 nissan leaf for ~$15k and a used 2006-2008 dodge ram diesel for $17-22k. Makes it hard to justify a new electric truck
i mentioned to a friend, while riding in his diesel truck in the mountains, that my next vehicle would be electric. He was skeptical and mentioned niche cases where a conventional gas or diesel truck is the best option and he may not be wrong, but the issues he brought up were extreme niche cases. like back country hunting in -20 deg. F temps. my typical commute is 5 miles round trip, paved roads and i average ~6k miles a year of driving my car. But even where we hunt there are 3 charging stations within a 25 mile radius of the small town that we frequent.
i think the biggest barriers to entry are range anxiety, lack of knowledge regarding range and available infrastructure, and niche cases guiding vehicle purchases.
i worry about battery capacity in cold temps but not a lot. if the industry can market better regarding the first two above, i think they have a chance.
i want a electric truck to replace my Mazda 3 hatchback some time in the next 1-5 years
Depending on usage, the off-road capability of EVs is pretty terrible.
TFL did a video on the Jeep 4xe, which had about 21 miles of on-road range, and got 3 miles off road. Granted, terrible conditions that may not apply everywhere (4Lo, uphill, etc) but also in mild weather.
https://youtu.be/Cy7tIAa_eKQ
I am eager to see how well my 4xe does for hunting this year, it’s usually in the 20s or 30s, but I don’t drive a long way off-road (few miles maybe) and I don’t need to use 4Lo, 4Hi works on our trails unless it’s really snowy.
I personally think that for now the killer app is short-range (25-50 mile) PHEVs with a gas engine. EV use for all of your usual around town stuff, daily commute, etc, and a gas engine for longer trips/range anxiety/suboptimal conditions, etc.
The second part of Motor Trend's Trans-America Trail experience with the Rivian R1T came out yesterday:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-america-trail-off-road/
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2022-rivian-r1t-exclusive-drive-review-trans-atlantic-trail-off-road-part-2/
Thanks for Sharing, cool story, from a cost perspective i figured out the following
i just did the math and its cheaper to buy both a used 2015 nissan leaf for ~$15k and a used 2006-2008 dodge ram diesel for $17-22k. Makes it hard to justify a new electric truck
Yes, it's cheaper to buy an old EV with an 84 mile range and an even older diesel pickup of dubious reliability than it is to buy the bleeding edge of EV tech - much like it's cheaper to buy a potato than it is to go to a 5 star restaurant.
Yes. But compare it to a new Nissan Leaf and a new Dodge Ram and all of a sudden the Rivian looks good price wise.
FWIW Cybertruck base price is 40k.
Same here. He has a long history of over-promising (https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a35350331/checking-in-on-all-the-promises-elon-musk-and-tesla-have-made/). It wouldn't even be the first time the cheapest version of a Tesla is not actually available.FWIW Cybertruck base price is 40k.I'm hugely skeptical that Elon will keep his end of this bargain. It's basically the base price of a (non-phone-order) Model 3 - a much smaller car with a smaller battery.
Like, yes, the promise is that the origami body will be cheaper - but at the moment, it's just a promise.
Same here. He has a long history of over-promising (https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a35350331/checking-in-on-all-the-promises-elon-musk-and-tesla-have-made/). It wouldn't even be the first time the cheapest version of a Tesla is not actually available.FWIW Cybertruck base price is 40k.I'm hugely skeptical that Elon will keep his end of this bargain. It's basically the base price of a (non-phone-order) Model 3 - a much smaller car with a smaller battery.
Like, yes, the promise is that the origami body will be cheaper - but at the moment, it's just a promise.
It wouldn't even be the first time the cheapest version of a Tesla is not actually available.
FWIW Cybertruck base price is 40k.
FWIW Cybertruck base price is 40k.
FWIW, I can't find a price listed anywhere on Tesla's site for the Cybertruck. I think it's fair to say that Tesla is targeting a base price of $40k...eventually, because that's what they've said in flashy product reveals. But the most recent delay has pushed back the beginning of production until "late 2022" (and that could continue to be pushed back) so I think it's a bit premature to say the base price is $40k. "Might be, at some point" is probably more accurate right now.
We're basically at the mercy of battery production at this point. Which Tesla realized when they first started and its why they built large battery plants. The adoption curve is going to be exponential soon and all the automakers production levels are still extremely short sighted. Ford is ramping to 80k trucks by 2024 they sell 700k-900k trucks a year, the demand far exceeds supply so these will all maintain or increase in value in the short term IMO as automakers realize how much higher demand is than they realize.
FWIW Cybertruck base price is 40k.
FWIW, I can't find a price listed anywhere on Tesla's site for the Cybertruck. I think it's fair to say that Tesla is targeting a base price of $40k...eventually, because that's what they've said in flashy product reveals. But the most recent delay has pushed back the beginning of production until "late 2022" (and that could continue to be pushed back) so I think it's a bit premature to say the base price is $40k. "Might be, at some point" is probably more accurate right now.
https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck/design#battery
During the original reveal, Musk said the Cybertruck would be available in late 2021, with the base model following by about a year. With the entire time line being pushed back at least 12 months, we're probably talking about late 2023 for the $40k model at this point. If the chip shortage and other supply chain constraints continue, then it gets pushed back even further.
FWIW Cybertruck base price is 40k.
We're basically at the mercy of battery production at this point. Which Tesla realized when they first started and its why they built large battery plants. The adoption curve is going to be exponential soon and all the automakers production levels are still extremely short sighted. Ford is ramping to 80k trucks by 2024 they sell 700k-900k trucks a year, the demand far exceeds supply so these will all maintain or increase in value in the short term IMO as automakers realize how much higher demand is than they realize.
Is the economy of scale going to "kick in" like it's done for flat screen TVs, cell phones, computers and LED lighting to make electric cars much cheaper than their gasoline burning equivalents? I guess it takes a few years. I can wait.
FWIW Cybertruck base price is 40k.
i saw that but the $40k truck is a single motor RWD, which, where i live is useless, especially for my use case.
Apologies though you are correct
The new Mercedes EQS is $7.5k cheaper than the cheapest ICE S-class (without even considering incentives).
https://insideevs.com/news/534417/mercedes-eqs-us-prices/
FWIW Cybertruck base price is 40k.
i saw that but the $40k truck is a single motor RWD, which, where i live is useless, especially for my use case.
Apologies though you are correct
a rear wheel drive EV performs much differently than a rear wheel drive ICE due to weight distribution the weight is over the rear tires and in the center as opposed to an ICE where its all up front. and to add range and a second motor is a meer 10k more which is almost entirely offset by the new tax credit
Say I wanted to go crazy and get a 2022 Ford Lightning truck with the 9.6kW external AC power capability to use as a off grid power source.
How might one mustachingly capture the $11,500 tax credit if it passes (the $7500 plus the $4000 bonus for making your vehicles in Mexico)?
It is not a refundable tax credit right? So I would need a $11,500 tax bill although our spending is only around $30,000 a year.
Say I wanted to go crazy and get a 2022 Ford Lightning truck with the 9.6kW external AC power capability to use as a off grid power source.
How might one mustachingly capture the $11,500 tax credit if it passes (the $7500 plus the $4000 bonus for making your vehicles in Mexico)?
It is not a refundable tax credit right? So I would need a $11,500 tax bill although our spending is only around $30,000 a year.
Say I wanted to go crazy and get a 2022 Ford Lightning truck with the 9.6kW external AC power capability to use as a off grid power source.
How might one mustachingly capture the $11,500 tax credit if it passes (the $7500 plus the $4000 bonus for making your vehicles in Mexico)?
It is not a refundable tax credit right? So I would need a $11,500 tax bill although our spending is only around $30,000 a year.
You can't get it anyway so it's not really a reasonable question. They have 150k reservations and are only making 15k in 2022. Outside of that others answered this question for what you need to do to get the. Credit.
Say I wanted to go crazy and get a 2022 Ford Lightning truck with the 9.6kW external AC power capability to use as a off grid power source.
How might one mustachingly capture the $11,500 tax credit if it passes (the $7500 plus the $4000 bonus for making your vehicles in Mexico)?
It is not a refundable tax credit right? So I would need a $11,500 tax bill although our spending is only around $30,000 a year.
You can't get it anyway so it's not really a reasonable question. They have 150k reservations and are only making 15k in 2022. Outside of that others answered this question for what you need to do to get the. Credit.
I doubt those are all real. I reserved a cybertruck and probably have no intention of getting one.
You'd be betting on over 90% of the orders not going thru in a chip shortage with a very large appetite for EVs with the most popular vehicle ever sold in America. So yeah you're going to wait a long time. 4 years if you reserved today unless ford gets smart and ramps production faster. Next year you have no chance but I'll sell you my reservation for 40k.
Causing problems? Or timed perfectly for people to wait on EVs?You'd be betting on over 90% of the orders not going thru in a chip shortage with a very large appetite for EVs with the most popular vehicle ever sold in America. So yeah you're going to wait a long time. 4 years if you reserved today unless ford gets smart and ramps production faster. Next year you have no chance but I'll sell you my reservation for 40k.
Yeah, I am not that spastic over one. I actually hate Ford because of their scuzzy warranty policies but the power source feature was winning me over a bit.
I hope the chip shortage is over soon...it is causing problems for all vehicles.
My beloved Nissan 2015 Leaf is no more.
My DD was doing her driving test and was hit by a dude missing the red light in front of the front wheels on the passenger side. She and the driving tester are bruised but no worse. Car was spun around 300 degrees and hit on the back side as well. Air bags deployed. The front of the frame is displaced more than 12 inches so it now sticks out way past the side mirror on the driver's side. But that beautiful little car kept her safe.
(She didn't complete her test so even though they were 3 minutes from being in the office doing the paper work, and the tester was going to pass her, she had to redo her test. A new tester took her out Saturday morning and she passed again)
We won't buy another leaf because of the range issues and it is a little squishy in the back seat. We are looking at the Bolt EUV - I am not afraid of the battery issue and man, there is a lot of space in the back seats. 400km range and 6" longer than the bolt cabin. We are a family of four adults. The options are luxurious and most importantly it will hold a wheelbarrow and all the squash I have grown this summer out at my parents' farm. BUT we can't test drive one. I can sit in it but I can't take it out on the road until it gets the battery replaced. I swore up and down I wouldn't buy a new vehicle ever again, but there is just nothing available and if there was - the newer tech/battery and rebates are mighty shiny.
My beloved Nissan 2015 Leaf is no more.
My DD was doing her driving test and was hit by a dude missing the red light in front of the front wheels on the passenger side. She and the driving tester are bruised but no worse. Car was spun around 300 degrees and hit on the back side as well. Air bags deployed. The front of the frame is displaced more than 12 inches so it now sticks out way past the side mirror on the driver's side. But that beautiful little car kept her safe.
Did she pass her test?.
Her Dad had to stalk the manager of the drive test place to get her an appointment so soon.Did she pass her test?.
See the parenthesis - she did this past Saturday.
Her Dad had to stalk the manager of the drive test place to get her an appointment so soon.Did she pass her test?.
See the parenthesis - she did this past Saturday.
The insurance adjuster offered us $9,100K CAN plus HST. The only car we can find on auto trader for that price has been in a collision. They rated our car to be in good condition - We did a full brake job, new 12 volt battery, and rust proofing undercoating after DH removed all the tiny rust spots and touched up all the chips and marks - I think he spent 30 hours on the car getting it all clean this summer. Other cars are listed at 16K, 14K and 11K but are lower mileage. DH sent the dude a spreadsheet of all the cars he could find. If they don't increase their settlement, we are just going to say - you get us a car then and let the claim sit unresolved. We are borrowing my mom's car so we can wait it out. DH is hoping for 13K.
They do. And Ontario is not great for car insurance. I think that since we are not in a hurry to buy a car and the individual adjusters will not be too comfortable having a long open case file, we may have a tiny bit of leverage. I haven't had a claim in 26 years and DH has been with the company since he was 16. I think moving our business would also be a tiny bit of leverage. But at the end of the day, if that is all they will give us, despite the comparables DH found, then that is all we will be getting. It really sucks.Her Dad had to stalk the manager of the drive test place to get her an appointment so soon.Did she pass her test?.
See the parenthesis - she did this past Saturday.
The insurance adjuster offered us $9,100K CAN plus HST. The only car we can find on auto trader for that price has been in a collision. They rated our car to be in good condition - We did a full brake job, new 12 volt battery, and rust proofing undercoating after DH removed all the tiny rust spots and touched up all the chips and marks - I think he spent 30 hours on the car getting it all clean this summer. Other cars are listed at 16K, 14K and 11K but are lower mileage. DH sent the dude a spreadsheet of all the cars he could find. If they don't increase their settlement, we are just going to say - you get us a car then and let the claim sit unresolved. We are borrowing my mom's car so we can wait it out. DH is hoping for 13K.
Just curious - Who holds the cards? What clout is there to make them increase to a reasonable settlement? The longer they sit on that money, the more they make from it and the less a given amount is worth. I used to work for a utility. They didn't pay vendors until the last minute for the money they made while holding it. I've never put in an insurance claim other than health insurance so this is educational. Maybe Ontario has better regulatory bodies for this type of thing.
FWIW Cybertruck base price is 40k.
FWIW, I can't find a price listed anywhere on Tesla's site for the Cybertruck. I think it's fair to say that Tesla is targeting a base price of $40k...eventually, because that's what they've said in flashy product reveals. But the most recent delay has pushed back the beginning of production until "late 2022" (and that could continue to be pushed back) so I think it's a bit premature to say the base price is $40k. "Might be, at some point" is probably more accurate right now.
https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck/design#battery
Ahhh, there it is. Thanks.
During the original reveal, Musk said the Cybertruck would be available in late 2021, with the base model following by about a year. With the entire time line being pushed back at least 12 months, we're probably talking about late 2023 for the $40k model at this point. If the chip shortage and other supply chain constraints continue, then it gets pushed back even further.
Random comment:
Yesterday I was sitting in a parking lot making a zoom call and a big-ass diesel truck pulled up next to me and proceeded to sit there with his engine running (this is super common in my area btw). Within a few minutes i was getting light-headed and had to move to the opposite end of the parking lot.
All of which to say - for me, personally, the transition to an EV fleet can’t come fast enough.
Random comment:
Yesterday I was sitting in a parking lot making a zoom call and a big-ass diesel truck pulled up next to me and proceeded to sit there with his engine running (this is super common in my area btw). Within a few minutes i was getting light-headed and had to move to the opposite end of the parking lot.
All of which to say - for me, personally, the transition to an EV fleet can’t come fast enough.
Random comment:
Yesterday I was sitting in a parking lot making a zoom call and a big-ass diesel truck pulled up next to me and proceeded to sit there with his engine running (this is super common in my area btw). Within a few minutes i was getting light-headed and had to move to the opposite end of the parking lot.
All of which to say - for me, personally, the transition to an EV fleet can’t come fast enough.
This happens a lot down here in Houston, as you can imagine. Right now there's an inversion layer over southeast Texas and all the smog is just sitting on us. It's a gross reminder of how polluting some of these vehicles are. Also someone tried to coal-roll me on the highway. Extra gross.
Random comment:
Yesterday I was sitting in a parking lot making a zoom call and a big-ass diesel truck pulled up next to me and proceeded to sit there with his engine running (this is super common in my area btw). Within a few minutes i was getting light-headed and had to move to the opposite end of the parking lot.
All of which to say - for me, personally, the transition to an EV fleet can’t come fast enough.
This happens a lot down here in Houston, as you can imagine. Right now there's an inversion layer over southeast Texas and all the smog is just sitting on us. It's a gross reminder of how polluting some of these vehicles are. Also someone tried to coal-roll me on the highway. Extra gross.
Can you explain what this is?
Huh. Thanks for the explanation. How does that impact the engine performance?
Huh. Thanks for the explanation. How does that impact the engine performance?
I'm actually not sure. There's probably some gear head on this thread that knows more about diesel engines than I do.
Coal rolling is when bubbas in modified diesel pickups dump extra fuel in the combustion chamber. This causes the engine to emit plumes of black smoke from the exhaust. It looks like the exhaust from an old steam locomotive. It can make it hard to see if someone does it in front of you.If you did this as a steam engine driver, your supervidor would give you a headache. And the next time the last pay cheque.
If a diesel vehicle is rolling coal it means less than optimal power and efficiency (https://dieseliq.com/truth-about-rolling-coal-black-smoke/). Combustion engines make the most power with an optimal air/fuel ratio. Adding extra fuel just wastes fuel, decreases power, and increases pollution.Huh. Thanks for the explanation. How does that impact the engine performance?
I'm actually not sure. There's probably some gear head on this thread that knows more about diesel engines than I do.
Not a gear head but did used to own a diesel Jeep. People actually told me it was good for the Jeep to tromp the accelerator once in a while to clean out all the soot from the exhaust. And,........yes I did it to tailgaters on multiple occasions.How does it make sense to increase the soot coming out of your exhaust to clean it? They either had no idea what they were talking about and/or you misunderstood. Soot build-up can be a problem in diesel engines but not in the exhaust, in the engine itself. And occasional hard acceleration is not a solution to this. To mitigate soot build-up (https://auto.howstuffworks.com/how-to-prevent-soot-buildup-in-your-cars-engine.htm) you need to change your oil regularly and maintain a properly operating engine (i.e. not rolling coal).
I still wonder about the diesels. Batteries are still not as energy dense as diesel fuel. I wonder if it may be better to manufacture an artificial diesel,i.e. biodiesel for transportation purposes. Biodiesel can be made as a rather clean fuel.Biodiesel still pollutes ~20% as much as regular diesel. It's not a good long term solution.
I'm actually not sure. There's probably some gear head on this thread that knows more about diesel engines than I do.
Huh. Thanks for the explanation. How does that impact the engine performance?
after all that's been said it seems beyond stupid - people doing things against their own interest simply because it pisses other people off.
thanks all for the very detailed info on diesel engines and 'roll coal".
Having only heard the term in passing I thought it had something to do with burning/mining more coal. I'm guessing it's more tied to the black color of the exhaust then?
after all that's been said it seems beyond stupid - people doing things against their own interest simply because it pisses other people off.
Trillion dollar market cap for Tesla today.
I think F, GM, TM together is something less than $350B
I think electric cars are finally becoming popular.
thanks all for the very detailed info on diesel engines and 'roll coal".
Having only heard the term in passing I thought it had something to do with burning/mining more coal. I'm guessing it's more tied to the black color of the exhaust then?
after all that's been said it seems beyond stupid - people doing things against their own interest simply because it pisses other people off.
Sad to say but if I still had the diesel, I'd blast the tailgaters again. I guess there is evil in us all.
thanks all for the very detailed info on diesel engines and 'roll coal".
Having only heard the term in passing I thought it had something to do with burning/mining more coal. I'm guessing it's more tied to the black color of the exhaust then?
after all that's been said it seems beyond stupid - people doing things against their own interest simply because it pisses other people off.
Sad to say but if I still had the diesel, I'd blast the tailgaters again. I guess there is evil in us all.
Why not just let your foot off the accelerator, and let them pass you? You get rid of the person tailgating, there's no environmental damage, and you reduce the risk of an accident.
Not exactly evil, but it seems like what you're indicating as a preference is low reward/high risk and motivated by emotion rather than good decision making.
You can make artificial fuel, no problem, Hitler did it.
But then and now the main problem is that it's several times more expensive. (And I don't think it's better environmentally btw.)Coal rolling is when bubbas in modified diesel pickups dump extra fuel in the combustion chamber. This causes the engine to emit plumes of black smoke from the exhaust. It looks like the exhaust from an old steam locomotive. It can make it hard to see if someone does it in front of you.If you did this as a steam engine driver, your supervidor would give you a headache. And the next time the last pay cheque.
Rolling Coal is the epitome of human stupidity. If there are Aliens, they only need to show this to convince everyone to put a "wild animals, do not enter" sign on our solar system.
Rental fleet ramp-up:
https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/hertz-orders-100000-teslas-the-single-largest-ev-purchase-ever/
Rental fleet ramp-up:
https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/hertz-orders-100000-teslas-the-single-largest-ev-purchase-ever/
About time rental companies offered this as a choice.
This will alter the used car pricing for the S when the fleet cars are sold.
Rental fleet ramp-up:
https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/hertz-orders-100000-teslas-the-single-largest-ev-purchase-ever/
About time rental companies offered this as a choice.
This will alter the used car pricing for the S when the fleet cars are sold.
I bet they'll keep them in service longer than the ICE cars - I'm curious to see how it all pans out.
thanks all for the very detailed info on diesel engines and 'roll coal".
Having only heard the term in passing I thought it had something to do with burning/mining more coal. I'm guessing it's more tied to the black color of the exhaust then?
after all that's been said it seems beyond stupid - people doing things against their own interest simply because it pisses other people off.
Sad to say but if I still had the diesel, I'd blast the tailgaters again. I guess there is evil in us all.
Why not just let your foot off the accelerator, and let them pass you? You get rid of the person tailgating, there's no environmental damage, and you reduce the risk of an accident.
Not exactly evil, but it seems like what you're indicating as a preference is low reward/high risk and motivated by emotion rather than good decision making.
This latest turn in discussion makes me look forward to a time when cars aren’t driven by humans anymore…
This latest turn in discussion makes me look forward to a time when cars aren’t driven by humans anymore…
Should happen around the time fusion powered cars are a thing. "20-50 years," or, in practical terms, "Never, but keep the funding coming, I've built my career on this and intend to retire before other people figure out it won't work too."
Rental fleet ramp-up:
https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/hertz-orders-100000-teslas-the-single-largest-ev-purchase-ever/
About time rental companies offered this as a choice.
This will alter the used car pricing for the S when the fleet cars are sold.
I bet they'll keep them in service longer than the ICE cars - I'm curious to see how it all pans out.
I’ll take that bet.
For rental cars it’s never seemed to be about mechanical reliability, but near- new interiors. IIRC most rental cars are sold before they hit 35,000 miles. Even for an ICE vehicle that’s still almost brand new.
Rental fleet ramp-up:
https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/hertz-orders-100000-teslas-the-single-largest-ev-purchase-ever/
About time rental companies offered this as a choice.
This will alter the used car pricing for the S when the fleet cars are sold.
I bet they'll keep them in service longer than the ICE cars - I'm curious to see how it all pans out.
I’ll take that bet.
For rental cars it’s never seemed to be about mechanical reliability, but near- new interiors. IIRC most rental cars are sold before they hit 35,000 miles. Even for an ICE vehicle that’s still almost brand new.
How much of that is general wear and how much is wear on buttons/switches/climate knobs/etc that don't really exist in the Tesla, though? There's two stalks and a touchscreen -- other than people just destroying the interior, there's not much there to wear out.
Rental fleet ramp-up:
https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/hertz-orders-100000-teslas-the-single-largest-ev-purchase-ever/
About time rental companies offered this as a choice.
This will alter the used car pricing for the S when the fleet cars are sold.
I bet they'll keep them in service longer than the ICE cars - I'm curious to see how it all pans out.
I’ll take that bet.
For rental cars it’s never seemed to be about mechanical reliability, but near- new interiors. IIRC most rental cars are sold before they hit 35,000 miles. Even for an ICE vehicle that’s still almost brand new.
How much of that is general wear and how much is wear on buttons/switches/climate knobs/etc that don't really exist in the Tesla, though? There's two stalks and a touchscreen -- other than people just destroying the interior, there's not much there to wear out.
It's not about it wearing out as much as it's about it being the latest and greatest and looking and feeling new.
Rental cars, like rental houses, are often used harshly. We've all seen near new rental cars with scratched up bumpers from people loading luggage. There's no reason to think that drivers will baby their rental EV.
I wonder how much Hertz will charge for non-full batteries on return. They do, what, a 2x multiplier for gas?
You can make artificial fuel, no problem, Hitler did it.
But then and now the main problem is that it's several times more expensive. (And I don't think it's better environmentally btw.)Coal rolling is when bubbas in modified diesel pickups dump extra fuel in the combustion chamber. This causes the engine to emit plumes of black smoke from the exhaust. It looks like the exhaust from an old steam locomotive. It can make it hard to see if someone does it in front of you.If you did this as a steam engine driver, your supervidor would give you a headache. And the next time the last pay cheque.
Rolling Coal is the epitome of human stupidity. If there are Aliens, they only need to show this to convince everyone to put a "wild animals, do not enter" sign on our solar system.
Porsche has announced intentions to make synthetic fuels going forward.
Rental fleet ramp-up:
https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/hertz-orders-100000-teslas-the-single-largest-ev-purchase-ever/
About time rental companies offered this as a choice.
This will alter the used car pricing for the S when the fleet cars are sold.
I bet they'll keep them in service longer than the ICE cars - I'm curious to see how it all pans out.
You can make artificial fuel, no problem, Hitler did it.
But then and now the main problem is that it's several times more expensive. (And I don't think it's better environmentally btw.)Coal rolling is when bubbas in modified diesel pickups dump extra fuel in the combustion chamber. This causes the engine to emit plumes of black smoke from the exhaust. It looks like the exhaust from an old steam locomotive. It can make it hard to see if someone does it in front of you.If you did this as a steam engine driver, your supervidor would give you a headache. And the next time the last pay cheque.
Rolling Coal is the epitome of human stupidity. If there are Aliens, they only need to show this to convince everyone to put a "wild animals, do not enter" sign on our solar system.
Porsche has announced intentions to make synthetic fuels going forward.
While a synthetic fuel made using renewable electricity can be carbon neutral, it's still going to have tailpipe emissions that form smog and create GHGs. It's also super expensive. I think their stretch goal was to eventually scale enough to get the price down to just $7/gal or something. Porsche is investing in it because lots of old Porsche's have lots of value, and they'd like them to retain that value by still being usable in the future. Porsche is about the only manufacturer that can really do something like that because they've got the engineering chops, they've got the legacy cars, and they've got clientele that won't flinch paying lots for fuel to keep their vintage machines on the road in locations where carbon neutral fuels will be required. But that's likely a very niche product rather than a widespread solution for pollution/air quality/climate change.
It will be interesting to see how they approach it. The EVs should be lower maintenance, at least from the powertrains, but how many rental cars are kept long enough to actually need powertrain maintenance?
It will be interesting to see how they approach it. The EVs should be lower maintenance, at least from the powertrains, but how many rental cars are kept long enough to actually need powertrain maintenance?
Rental cars rack up 30k miles (+/-) which means at least an oil change or two. But that's pretty small potatoes as far as combustion engine maintenance goes.
I'd bet the (lack of) depreciation is a bigger draw for them than cheaper running costs. But a big reason why the rental fleets see such depreciation is because they flood the markets with gently used options so often, so it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.
I'd bet the (lack of) depreciation is a bigger draw for them than cheaper running costs. But a big reason why the rental fleets see such depreciation is because they flood the markets with gently used options so often, so it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.I agree. For reasons rational or not, teslas do keep their value. It must be very attractive to anybody who has to buy new and sell soon.
I'd bet the (lack of) depreciation is a bigger draw for them than cheaper running costs. But a big reason why the rental fleets see such depreciation is because they flood the markets with gently used options so often, so it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.
No.
The second fastest off road car is your rental car, the first fastest off-roader is your buddies rental car.
I would very much hesitate to buy a second hand rental car, maybe with Tesla on board logging showing its real maintenance state and the reduction of mechanical parts to be damaged. I would not say I abuse rental cars but I sure dont drive them like I own them.
I'll submit the current exterior appearance of our current cars, one of which was brand new when we bought it, as proof of your point . . . also if you have a newer car, and then move to a place with a garage, make sure your garage is at least a quite large one or is not a garage at all. We did a number on that new car in the single car garage that came with our apartment in California - one time the bumper cover came all the way off. So the next time I lose my mind and take a job on the other side of the country, "garage" is gonna be a net negative when apartment shopping.I'd bet the (lack of) depreciation is a bigger draw for them than cheaper running costs. But a big reason why the rental fleets see such depreciation is because they flood the markets with gently used options so often, so it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.
No.
The second fastest off road car is your rental car, the first fastest off-roader is your buddies rental car.
I would very much hesitate to buy a second hand rental car, maybe with Tesla on board logging showing its real maintenance state and the reduction of mechanical parts to be damaged. I would not say I abuse rental cars but I sure dont drive them like I own them.
Are you sure about this? I remember reading how the overwhelming majority of rentals involved trips from the airport to a hotel/conference center/resort and not much else. Given how poorly most people maintain their own cars I’m not convinced that a used rental car is any more risky than a used private vehicle coming off lease.
It takes quite a few miles driven to really recoup much environmental or financial benefit.
It takes quite a few miles driven to really recoup much environmental or financial benefit.
It doesn't take as long as you'd think overcoming the embodied carbon in an EV before the environmental benefits catch up. Well under 50k miles according to basic analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k
It takes quite a few miles driven to really recoup much environmental or financial benefit.
It doesn't take as long as you'd think overcoming the embodied carbon in an EV before the environmental benefits catch up. Well under 50k miles according to basic analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k
I love EE's work, and hadn't seen that one so thanks for sharing. I understand the point.
My larger point was that it takes miles driven for the benefits of an EV to eventually overcome the initial financial and environmental investments compared to a similar ICE. The specifics vary a ton depending on a number of factors, but whether we're looking for financial benefits or the environmental benefits from an EV, the general theme is that the more you drive, the more benefit will be seen vs an ICE. If you drive a lot and/or keep your vehicles for a long time then the math probably works out in both financial and environmental cases. But if you drive very little (many MMMers), or you frequently replace your vehicles (like a rental company) then it's going to be harder to see a financial or environmental benefit from an EV.
It takes quite a few miles driven to really recoup much environmental or financial benefit.
It doesn't take as long as you'd think overcoming the embodied carbon in an EV before the environmental benefits catch up. Well under 50k miles according to basic analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k
I love EE's work, and hadn't seen that one so thanks for sharing. I understand the point.
My larger point was that it takes miles driven for the benefits of an EV to eventually overcome the initial financial and environmental investments compared to a similar ICE. The specifics vary a ton depending on a number of factors, but whether we're looking for financial benefits or the environmental benefits from an EV, the general theme is that the more you drive, the more benefit will be seen vs an ICE. If you drive a lot and/or keep your vehicles for a long time then the math probably works out in both financial and environmental cases. But if you drive very little (many MMMers), or you frequently replace your vehicles (like a rental company) then it's going to be harder to see a financial or environmental benefit from an EV.
in a vacuum yes but the car is now out there and available on the second hand market so society will experience these benefits long term. Also MMMers will buy used EVs as they already do.
If we're trying to maximize environmental impact right now, converting more vehicles to PHEVs will have broader impact (more miles driven with electricity) than going full EV on fewer cars.
It takes quite a few miles driven to really recoup much environmental or financial benefit.
It doesn't take as long as you'd think overcoming the embodied carbon in an EV before the environmental benefits catch up. Well under 50k miles according to basic analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k
I love EE's work, and hadn't seen that one so thanks for sharing. I understand the point.
My larger point was that it takes miles driven for the benefits of an EV to eventually overcome the initial financial and environmental investments compared to a similar ICE. The specifics vary a ton depending on a number of factors, but whether we're looking for financial benefits or the environmental benefits from an EV, the general theme is that the more you drive, the more benefit will be seen vs an ICE. If you drive a lot and/or keep your vehicles for a long time then the math probably works out in both financial and environmental cases. But if you drive very little (many MMMers), or you frequently replace your vehicles (like a rental company) then it's going to be harder to see a financial or environmental benefit from an EV.
in a vacuum yes but the car is now out there and available on the second hand market so society will experience these benefits long term. Also MMMers will buy used EVs as they already do.
Of course. However, the context of my original quote focused on rental companies buying new Teslas. They're not buying used, and they're not MMMers. From a business perspective, I'm not sure that they'll see much if any cost savings unless they plan to alter their model. Like I've said a few times already, I think lower depreciation might be a pretty significant component in the math for these rental agencies. More than charging costs or decreased maintenance. But that advantage might be eroded when they're throwing 20-30k Model 3s onto the used vehicle market every year with 25-30k miles. That's great for MMMers that might benefit from lower used EV prices, but increases depreciation.
If we're trying to maximize environmental impact right now, converting more vehicles to PHEVs will have broader impact (more miles driven with electricity) than going full EV on fewer cars.
I'm curious to see the long term depreciation for Model 3s -- I checked one of those online wholesale buy-my-car-now sites, they (carbuyerusa.com) offered more for my Model 3 Long Range (purchased March 2020) than I paid for it new.
More than charging costs or decreased maintenance. But that advantage might be eroded when they're throwing 20-30k Model 3s onto the used vehicle market every year with 25-30k miles. That's great for MMMers that might benefit from lower used EV prices, but increases depreciation.
I'm curious to see the long term depreciation for Model 3s -- I checked one of those online wholesale buy-my-car-now sites, they (carbuyerusa.com) offered more for my Model 3 Long Range (purchased March 2020) than I paid for it new.
I would just be careful trying to extrapolate the information, or rather, assigning it specifically to the model of your car. In general any used car has an inflated value right now, regardless of the make or powertrain.
If we're trying to maximize environmental impact right now, converting more vehicles to PHEVs will have broader impact (more miles driven with electricity) than going full EV on fewer cars.
That's only true if the equation shakes out (and the assumptions put into the variables are accurate.)
If we're trying to maximize environmental impact right now, converting more vehicles to PHEVs will have broader impact (more miles driven with electricity) than going full EV on fewer cars.
That's only true if the equation shakes out (and the assumptions put into the variables are accurate.)
The biggest factor in favor of PHEVs is that most manufacturers are constrained by the supply of batteries. You can build several PHEVs for each BEV you forgo. The second biggest is that they don't require fast-charging infrastructure.
The negative is, obviously, cost and complexity. You have to have two powertrains, and you can't skip ICE maintenance - although, judging by Prius' longevity, you can expect lower repair cost down the road.
If we're trying to maximize environmental impact right now, converting more vehicles to PHEVs will have broader impact (more miles driven with electricity) than going full EV on fewer cars.
That's only true if the equation shakes out (and the assumptions put into the variables are accurate.)
For example, if over the next year 5 million vehicles will be purchased that are either ICE, PHEV or EV.
PHEV environment impact is 1.0 Enviromental Improvement Units.
EV environment impact is 1.5 EIU
All ICE are 0.0 EIU. (Or negative...)
Obviously ideal is 5 million EV.
But if EV cost 15% more than PHEV (according to consumer appetites) and 25% more than ICE, then EVs will appeal to less consumers.
This is all worse than terrible back of the napkin math. One would hope Toyota and VW and Ford and GM are doing a little more concrete math... and market research (They likely only care about EIU as a selling feature.)
At any rate, if you can sell 50/50 PHEV/EV on 1 million units (the other 4 million go to ICE), you've managed 1.25 million EIU.
60/40 PHEV/EV => 1.2 m EIU. (But 40/60 PHEV/EV => 1.3m EIU)
But 60/40 PHEV/EV and you get 1.2 million units => 1.44m EIU so yeah if you are selling more PHEV/EV and less ICE, compared to just EV that aren't selling or taking away from ICE, it would be better.
That's an assumption though, not sure it's an accurate one.
100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.
*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.
100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.
*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.
baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries. sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.
100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.
*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.
baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries. sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.
100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.
*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.
baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries. sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.
BEVs were 2.5% of the total market in 1H 2021. Even a 10x increase gets us only to 1/4 of the market. I think you’re overly optimistic about how many people are willing to buy a pure EV; a PHEV is a much easier sell.
baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries. sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.
100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.
*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.
baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries. sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.
BEVs were 2.5% of the total market in 1H 2021. Even a 10x increase gets us only to 1/4 of the market. I think you’re overly optimistic about how many people are willing to buy a pure EV; a PHEV is a much easier sell.
Meanwhile if you order a Model 3 SR+ today, your estimated delivery is June 2022. People are increasingly willing to buy, but the supply shortages in 2021 are complicating the equation - it's not as simple as it seems on its face.
100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.
*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.
baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries. sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.
BEVs were 2.5% of the total market in 1H 2021. Even a 10x increase gets us only to 1/4 of the market. I think you’re overly optimistic about how many people are willing to buy a pure EV; a PHEV is a much easier sell.
Meanwhile if you order a Model 3 SR+ today, your estimated delivery is June 2022. People are increasingly willing to buy, but the supply shortages in 2021 are complicating the equation - it's not as simple as it seems on its face.
You really need to separate Tesla when talking about EVs. Tesla did a fantastic job building an aspirational EV brand. Most other EVs are lot poison (in non-Covid/supply chain weirdness times, every car is in high demand today). See all the posts on here for people buying Leafs and Bolts for insane prices because most consumers don’t want that.
100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.
*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.
baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries. sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.
BEVs were 2.5% of the total market in 1H 2021. Even a 10x increase gets us only to 1/4 of the market. I think you’re overly optimistic about how many people are willing to buy a pure EV; a PHEV is a much easier sell.
Meanwhile if you order a Model 3 SR+ today, your estimated delivery is June 2022. People are increasingly willing to buy, but the supply shortages in 2021 are complicating the equation - it's not as simple as it seems on its face.
You really need to separate Tesla when talking about EVs. Tesla did a fantastic job building an aspirational EV brand. Most other EVs are lot poison (in non-Covid/supply chain weirdness times, every car is in high demand today). See all the posts on here for people buying Leafs and Bolts for insane prices because most consumers don’t want that.
100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.
*PHEV doesn’t necessarily make sense for limited use sports car since they tend to focus on weight savings and drive low miles anyways, but PHEV sports cars are not unheard of.
baby stepping to PHEV is likely just to create more long term problems with vehicle waste vs putting pressure on innovative supply chain and more efficient batteries. sure short term this make 100% sense but long term you have alot of cars people dont want anymore that get destroyed or pushed to 3rd world countries.
BEVs were 2.5% of the total market in 1H 2021. Even a 10x increase gets us only to 1/4 of the market. I think you’re overly optimistic about how many people are willing to buy a pure EV; a PHEV is a much easier sell.
Meanwhile if you order a Model 3 SR+ today, your estimated delivery is June 2022. People are increasingly willing to buy, but the supply shortages in 2021 are complicating the equation - it's not as simple as it seems on its face.
You really need to separate Tesla when talking about EVs. Tesla did a fantastic job building an aspirational EV brand. Most other EVs are lot poison (in non-Covid/supply chain weirdness times, every car is in high demand today). See all the posts on here for people buying Leafs and Bolts for insane prices because most consumers don’t want that.
Tesla had 79.4% of the EV market in the US in 2020. (https://insideevs.com/news/487969/2020-us-electric-car-sales-tesla-share/)
To be clear, nearly 80% of the market is supply constrained by two to eight months and you think we should just ignore that as an irrelevant factor?
and you're missing the big picture - most of the time our older cars end up in 3rd world countries still polluting. So while it may make sense today to do this to decrease emissions faster short term does it really help long term? Having a supply chain issue to get BEVs on the road causes more people to solve those issues pushing more EVs to market long term and getting rid of combustion all together.
Do they want a Tesla because it’s an EV, or because Teslas are fashionable?
and you're missing the big picture - most of the time our older cars end up in 3rd world countries still polluting. So while it may make sense today to do this to decrease emissions faster short term does it really help long term? Having a supply chain issue to get BEVs on the road causes more people to solve those issues pushing more EVs to market long term and getting rid of combustion all together.
Same logic: we make fewer electrified cars by going full EV, thus making more gas cars. Those gas cars end up in the third world and continue polluting. Only they pollute 100% of the time, while PHEV pollute ~10% of the time.
100% agree with @Paper Chaser here. This has been my exact experience with my PHEV. For a variety of reasons, I’m not a candidate for a BEV, but I am very happy to do about 98% of my daily driving on battery, and preserve my ability to take longer trips on gas. And that’s in a PHEV with only 21 miles of range. I would like to see most if not all* new vehicles as PHEVs.
Do they want a Tesla because it’s an EV, or because Teslas are fashionable?
Or because it's the only brand that has access to the only usable nation-wide fast charging network, thus making moot the dreaded range anxiety concern.
Or a combination thereof.
Or do they want a Tesla because it's the best car you can get for the money.Tesla always end up at the real bottom of quality. I doubt that it is the best deal.
And the top for customer satisfaction.
I suggest you dig deeper into the qualify reports. It all minor stuff on the Model 3.
For the Wrangler, I have one, and I know your $19k difference isn’t like for like. When equipped the same, the PHEV Wrangler is actually a little cheaper than the pure gas model after the tax credit is considered. I think my Rubicon model would have been $2-3k more expensive if you went option by option versus ICE after the tax credit. Wrangler PHEVs are only available on the top three trim levels of the Wrangler, you’re comparing a high trim level to the cheapest lowest Wrangler with no power windows, door locks, etc. And again, almost all of my daily driving is done on battery power. I only use gas on long trips, where the most 3mpg doesn’t bother me since I don’t use any gas the rest of the time.
esla's Autopilot came in second place—a "distant second" according to Consumer Reports. The group says it saw "minor improvements in lane keeping performance" from Tesla's offering since the system was last evaluated in 2018.
Those minor improvements were enough for Autopilot to get the top spot in the "lane keeping and performance" category of CR's report. CR ranked Autopilot 9/10 for performance, while Super Cruise scored 8/10. Tesla also got top marks for Autopilot's ease of use.
...
GM took a safety-first approach in designing Super Cruise.
...
By contrast, Tesla has prioritized driver convenience and autonomy Editor's Note: of the car, not the driver.
...
So while winning the overall ranking is undoubtedly good for GM, Consumer Reports' results won't do anything to dampen the enthusiasm of Tesla fans who find aggressive driver monitoring systems annoying.
It's odd to me that GM seems like they are taking their sweet time with EVs. While they were briefly demonstrating competence with the Bolt EV, they've been slow to show up with everything since then. The Cadillac Lyriq should arrive soon, as well as ridiculous Hummers, and sometime next year, the Silverado EV. I have to wonder if they're working on something, anything mid-sized SUV-like (but also not Cadillac) like the Blazer.
They have solid driver-assist technology.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/10/report-tesla-autopilot-has-best-performance-gm-super-cruise-is-safest/Quoteesla's Autopilot came in second place—a "distant second" according to Consumer Reports. The group says it saw "minor improvements in lane keeping performance" from Tesla's offering since the system was last evaluated in 2018.
Those minor improvements were enough for Autopilot to get the top spot in the "lane keeping and performance" category of CR's report. CR ranked Autopilot 9/10 for performance, while Super Cruise scored 8/10. Tesla also got top marks for Autopilot's ease of use.
...
GM took a safety-first approach in designing Super Cruise.
...
By contrast, Tesla has prioritized driver convenience and autonomy Editor's Note: of the car, not the driver.
...
So while winning the overall ranking is undoubtedly good for GM, Consumer Reports' results won't do anything to dampen the enthusiasm of Tesla fans who find aggressive driver monitoring systems annoying.
It doesn't sound like Tesla has a clear lead in FSD, so much as they are perfectly fine enabling it, even if it deprioritizes safety. I think GM understands that things like recalls (d'oh, the Bolt!) and image are key in trying to sell new technology to existing car buyers. Tesla still has a seemingly unshakeable following in their fan base, despite some safety and quality control issues.
Of course, I hate getting dragged into the weeds, because I still believe the end game for EV conversion is healthy competition and consumer choice. (And also, in the weeds, people bicker back and forth over what is largely opinion and speculation.) So while I think Tesla has done great things, and makes very nice cars (even if I don't personally love their styling or interior design choices), I have to vote with my dollars against them as long as they have proprietary charging networks and touch-based controls where I want my buttons and knobs (and get off my lawn).
Tesla is doing something very important, though. They are making money selling just EVs. The big players have begrudgingly noticed this, and they are, at varying rates, including more EVs in their roadmaps. They are figuring out how to make money selling EVs. If nothing changed going forward, it could easily become "the big three", being Tesla, Ford and VW. But it's much too soon to tell who will execute well enough going forward, how much government will help or hinder adoption, and who will produce in sufficient quantity the popular breakaway hits of the next ten years.
Or do they want a Tesla because it's the best car you can get for the money.Tesla always end up at the real bottom of quality. I doubt that it is the best deal.
It's odd to me that GM seems like they are taking their sweet time with EVs. While they were briefly demonstrating competence with the Bolt EV, they've been slow to show up with everything since then. The Cadillac Lyriq should arrive soon, as well as ridiculous Hummers, and sometime next year, the Silverado EV. I have to wonder if they're working on something, anything mid-sized SUV-like (but also not Cadillac) like the Blazer.
It's odd to me that GM seems like they are taking their sweet time with EVs. While they were briefly demonstrating competence with the Bolt EV, they've been slow to show up with everything since then. The Cadillac Lyriq should arrive soon, as well as ridiculous Hummers, and sometime next year, the Silverado EV. I have to wonder if they're working on something, anything mid-sized SUV-like (but also not Cadillac) like the Blazer.
It just comes down to money. $/kwh is only now coming down enough to make financial sense for mature automakers. GM was paying $145/kwh for Bolt batteries:
(https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/JnV16/s2/bolt-battery-cost-lg-chem.jpg)
GM was losing money (some estimates say $4k loss) on every Bolt they sold:
https://www.hotcars.com/gm-admits-bolt-not-profitable/
It made more business sense to just keep cranking out Silverados and Buick CUVs with much better margins. If they had wanted to sell a lot of EVs, GM probably wouldn't have chosen a small hatchback (a rapidly shrinking market segment), and they would've made more than 20-30k of them per year. The Bolt existed to expand their EV knowledge while making them compliant with emissions/fuel economy regulations where applicable. It doesn't seem like they ever intended to sell very many of them or start some EV revolution.
It actually turns out that GM's predictions for $/kwh in that old slide above are right on track. Battery prices are now down to about $100/kwh, which is why you're seeing more EVs, in more desirable body types from GM as well as other automakers.
For the Wrangler, I have one, and I know your $19k difference isn’t like for like. When equipped the same, the PHEV Wrangler is actually a little cheaper than the pure gas model after the tax credit is considered. I think my Rubicon model would have been $2-3k more expensive if you went option by option versus ICE after the tax credit. Wrangler PHEVs are only available on the top three trim levels of the Wrangler, you’re comparing a high trim level to the cheapest lowest Wrangler with no power windows, door locks, etc. And again, almost all of my daily driving is done on battery power. I only use gas on long trips, where the most 3mpg doesn’t bother me since I don’t use any gas the rest of the time.
Even if they were the same price, I'd want 2.0L Wrangler. It's lighter weight (better for off roading), slightly less complicated, better highway mpgs, etc.
It makes sense if you daily drive your Wrangler or Pacifica (and in the Pacifica's case I can see it happening)... but I still stand by my conjecture that in the big picture. There's no reason to daily drive a gas powered vehicle. PHEV's are overall the worst of both worlds (but an acceptable stop gap)
PHEV in a 3rd world country is a gas car with extra battery and electric motor weight.
agreed add to it their FSD thats years ahead of the competition maybe a decade. And thats what really gives TSLA its value if they are first to market with FSD and get approval and sell it. You've got a really high income producing service to offer your competition.
agreed add to it their FSD thats years ahead of the competition maybe a decade. And thats what really gives TSLA its value if they are first to market with FSD and get approval and sell it. You've got a really high income producing service to offer your competition.
That is... an interesting, almost entirely unconnected to reality view of the state of Tesla's "I don't know the difference between a yellow light and the moon low in the sky" software.
I don't think self driving cars will be a reliable thing for decades, which basically means never. Geofenced, driver in the loop stuff, yes, but actual "You can go to sleep while your car drives you across country?" Nope.
PHEV in a 3rd world country is a gas car with extra battery and electric motor weight.
Absolutely not. You don't need expensive equipment to charge it - even a level 1 EVSE will do perfectly fine. Plus, people in third world countries are not universally poor. People buying cars fall on the upper end of the local income spectrum - they have means to charge cars. But they are also more sensitive to running costs, and ~75% lower cost to "fuel" a car is a more significant incentive than it is in the US.
It's not a theory, either - I come from one such country. The market for used 1st Gen Leafs is very active.
I had a professor that had written in the 80's a program that landed real fighter jets on real aircraft carriers with like 4k of memory in total to work with. No doubt that actual self-driving is a far, far more complex problem to solve, but decades more to possibly never with just how much more powerful and cheap our computers are now seems extremely pessimistic.agreed add to it their FSD thats years ahead of the competition maybe a decade. And thats what really gives TSLA its value if they are first to market with FSD and get approval and sell it. You've got a really high income producing service to offer your competition.
That is... an interesting, almost entirely unconnected to reality view of the state of Tesla's "I don't know the difference between a yellow light and the moon low in the sky" software.
I don't think self driving cars will be a reliable thing for decades, which basically means never. Geofenced, driver in the loop stuff, yes, but actual "You can go to sleep while your car drives you across country?" Nope.
I had a professor that had written in the 80's a program that landed real fighter jets on real aircraft carriers with like 4k of memory in total to work with.
No doubt that actual self-driving is a far, far more complex problem to solve, but decades more to possibly never with just how much more powerful and cheap our computers are now seems extremely pessimistic.
We pile, on top of that, huge amounts of complexity that nobody really understands, and at this point, I think we're past the point of diminishing returns on investment into computer tech, and into actual negative returns on investment, because of all the technical debt and complexity that is being carried along with. But that's another rant.
And the top for customer satisfaction.The objective quality of the product and the subjective satisfaction are often only marginally connected.
I suggest you dig deeper into the qualify reports. It all minor stuff on the Model 3.
It's odd to me that GM seems like they are taking their sweet time with EVs.Yes, that's strange. It may be because they mainly sell in the US afaik, and the US has an electric car sales rate of just 3%, compared to 12% in Europe.
touch-based controls where I want my buttons and knobsI am personally very sorry to say, but from what I have heard touch only will become standard everywhere.
Tesla is doing something very important, though. They are making money selling just EVsYes, and at the moment at least they are the only one (well, probably ignoring e.g. BYD, reports are always very western centric).
I had a professor that had written in the 80's a program that landed real fighter jets on real aircraft carriers with like 4k of memory in total to work with.The difference here is that the professor had a very clear case, with definable parameters.
12500 credit at dealer in the new bill should accelerate already frothy levels of orders for EVsWow! And here I thought the 6K in Germany were already insane. With nearly the double (in €) of that, you could build some damn fine bike infrastructure!
That’s not how those funds work.12500 credit at dealer in the new bill should accelerate already frothy levels of orders for EVsWow! And here I thought the 6K in Germany were already insane. With nearly the double (in €) of that, you could build some damn fine bike infrastructure!
Or a small gas powered car that has the same environmental impact as an electric SUV.
That’s not how those funds work.12500 credit at dealer in the new bill should accelerate already frothy levels of orders for EVsWow! And here I thought the 6K in Germany were already insane. With nearly the double (in €) of that, you could build some damn fine bike infrastructure!
Or a small gas powered car that has the same environmental impact as an electric SUV.
There was funding for cycling infrastructure in earlier versions of the bill - with the rapid changes (and more tweaks upcoming) I’ve lost track of what’s remained and what has changed. We will see once the ink starts to dry.
12500 credit at dealer in the new bill should accelerate already frothy levels of orders for EVsWow! And here I thought the 6K in Germany were already insane. With nearly the double (in €) of that, you could build some damn fine bike infrastructure!
Or a small gas powered car that has the same environmental impact as an electric SUV.
If it not dense enough for a bike road, why do you build a car road for 10 times money?12500 credit at dealer in the new bill should accelerate already frothy levels of orders for EVsWow! And here I thought the 6K in Germany were already insane. With nearly the double (in €) of that, you could build some damn fine bike infrastructure!
Or a small gas powered car that has the same environmental impact as an electric SUV.
Not necessarily. A lot of the US is either not nearly densely populated enough for it to make sense, or too densely populated for it to be viable unless cars were removed.
If it not dense enough for a bike road, why do you build a car road for 10 times money?12500 credit at dealer in the new bill should accelerate already frothy levels of orders for EVsWow! And here I thought the 6K in Germany were already insane. With nearly the double (in €) of that, you could build some damn fine bike infrastructure!
Or a small gas powered car that has the same environmental impact as an electric SUV.
Not necessarily. A lot of the US is either not nearly densely populated enough for it to make sense, or too densely populated for it to be viable unless cars were removed.
And if it is so dense, why do you build a car road that has 1/10th capacity of a bike road for the same space?
With a good bike infrastructure, you would eventually (when people switch to bikes) save money on road building/maintenance. Not to mention health costs, climate costs etc.
Bike infrastructure is most cost efficient transportation thing you can build.
Do either of these bills do anything for passenger train travel? I think it would be very nice to have some high speed train travel?
There are plans, but if they are included in this I have no clue.Do either of these bills do anything for passenger train travel? I think it would be very nice to have some high speed train travel?
You won't see it in the US any time soon, outside maybe some coastal corridors, where the stops are frequent enough that it's not hugely useful.
The cross country stuff where you'd want high speed is all freight rail, maintained to a 60mph or 90mph standard, and passenger traffic slots in between the freight, which has priority.
Also, unless it's electric, which the bulk of US rail isn't, high speed trains aren't particularly energy efficient either. It's fine if they're electric, but if you want to do 200+mph on diesel... oof.
There are plans, but if they are included in this I have no clue.Do either of these bills do anything for passenger train travel? I think it would be very nice to have some high speed train travel?
You won't see it in the US any time soon, outside maybe some coastal corridors, where the stops are frequent enough that it's not hugely useful.
The cross country stuff where you'd want high speed is all freight rail, maintained to a 60mph or 90mph standard, and passenger traffic slots in between the freight, which has priority.
Also, unless it's electric, which the bulk of US rail isn't, high speed trains aren't particularly energy efficient either. It's fine if they're electric, but if you want to do 200+mph on diesel... oof.
However, the notion that high speed rail is not viable in "dense" areas is simply wrong or did you mean the opposite, I am not sure. Either way: Ever heard of Japan?
The Shinkansen stops roughly every 30km while crossing both the density of Tokyo (where it might only be 14km I think on the smallest distance) and the sparsly populated mountains (where it might be 50-60km).
The average speed is 160km/h, and by that I mean travel time/distance from one end to the other, while not even having that much of a top speed compared to what could be possible, because of the very adverse geography.
Of course that means making a rail service that actually wants to move people. But if you do that, something like New York - Washington could do 200km/h on average.
Actually a service coast to coast is already a too long distance for trains (if they would be really used) because all the infrastructure is needed for the travel, while for airplane it's still only 2 airports.
There are massive problems with the concept of having bicycle-exclusive transportation infrastructure - excluding people who aren't able to ride bikes or walk, crippling transportation during inclement weather (good luck convincing the general public to ride a bike to work in a blizzard), removing access for trucks/shipping, emergency vehicles, etc.
So today I left the cave I hide out in. I went to search for food.
What did I see along the trail? I saw a large increase in gasoline prices. Unlike a lot of people, I always wonder why. I found this.
Why oil is pushing up pump prices
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries recently met and decided not to increase oil production as a way to build up supply and therefore lower prices amid the global economic recovery.
So, I thought about electric cars. You guys who own electric cars have regulated fuel prices. You will not see unseemly price hikes.
You can thumb your nose at those OPEC guys.
Everything in the economy has been said to follow the price of oil. We've all been at the whims of the oil barons.
You guys are showing a new shining path. I'm quite sure I'll be following that path on my nest vehicle purchase.
It's especially satisfying to own solar panels + an electric car. You generate your own power, so regardless of how high gas prices AND electricity prices go, you still fill up for free.
I barely notice what fuel prices are anymore, nor care. So long as fuel prices sit well above $2 a gallon it’s much cheaper for me to just use battery, and that’s before factoring the multiple ways I can charge for free. I drive a PHEV and fill up my six-gallon tank about once a month.
So, I thought about electric cars. You guys who own electric cars have regulated fuel prices. You will not see unseemly price hikes.
You can thumb your nose at those OPEC guys.
We have a Leaf and DH can charge for free at his job. We've charged it from home maybe 5 times in the year and a half we've owned it, and never used a paid chargerIt's especially satisfying to own solar panels + an electric car. You generate your own power, so regardless of how high gas prices AND electricity prices go, you still fill up for free.
It's been funny watching people finally realize what we've done out here. Volt and solar. Yeah. I don't know what gas prices are, sorry...
I have heard that here in Germany you often pay 70 cent per kWh on charging stations. (Household price is 30)
Which would make it (way) more expensive to fuel up there than to fuel up my 9 year old gas car, even with current high prices (which aren't that high if you factor in inflation, we had 10% higher nominal prices 10 years ago).
The majority of charging is done at home,But only because those who can't do it don't have an EV. Like half of all people, those who don't live in a single family home with a garage.
The majority of charging is done at home,But only because those who can't do it don't have an EV. Like half of all people, those who don't live in a single family home with a garage.
I highly doubt that there will be charging stations at every parking space in all streets. So I have no idea how it should work with only EVs in the future.
If chargers will still be more than 2 times more costly than the house electricity, than this is simply another tax on the poor.
If chargers will still be more than 2 times more costly than the house electricity, than this is simply another tax on the poor.
The majority of charging is done at home,But only because those who can't do it don't have an EV. Like half of all people, those who don't live in a single family home with a garage.
I highly doubt that there will be charging stations at every parking space in all streets. So I have no idea how it should work with only EVs in the future.
If chargers will still be more than 2 times more costly than the house electricity, than this is simply another tax on the poor.
I still don't get why there aren't higher sales on Plugin-Hybrid Electic Vehicles (PHEVs). They solve the range-anxiety problem by having a gas engine that kicks in when the batteries run out of juice, but for daily driving you almost never need a greater than 30-40 mile electric range.Price premium. Still need to maintain ICE components. Might as well get a full ICE Corolla for much cheaper with similar mileage and a less complicated system
Yeah, when the PHEV Toyota RAV4 Prime (if you can even find one) is $38.4k and a pure EV Volkswagen ID.4 is $40k you might as well go full EV at the price point.I still don't get why there aren't higher sales on Plugin-Hybrid Electic Vehicles (PHEVs). They solve the range-anxiety problem by having a gas engine that kicks in when the batteries run out of juice, but for daily driving you almost never need a greater than 30-40 mile electric range.Price premium. Still need to maintain ICE components. Might as well get a full ICE Corolla for much cheaper with similar mileage and a less complicated system
If chargers will still be more than 2 times more costly than the house electricity, than this is simply another tax on the poor.
If.
It doesn't seem logical that chargers will consistently cost 2x house electricity. Right now chargers in the US range from free to much more than house electricity, and house electricity varies widely in cost. I doubt USA is the only place where chargers are available at less than 2x of house electricity's cost. As the market matures, and more people use it, prices should come down anyway.
I will agree the price is temporarily high where you are. That's a problem to be solved; it doesn't have to be a permanent barrier.
Yeah, when the PHEV Toyota RAV4 Prime (if you can even find one) is $38.4k and a pure EV Volkswagen ID.4 is $40k you might as well go full EV at the price point.I still don't get why there aren't higher sales on Plugin-Hybrid Electic Vehicles (PHEVs). They solve the range-anxiety problem by having a gas engine that kicks in when the batteries run out of juice, but for daily driving you almost never need a greater than 30-40 mile electric range.Price premium. Still need to maintain ICE components. Might as well get a full ICE Corolla for much cheaper with similar mileage and a less complicated system
I walk to work (or homeoffice) and walk to the supermarket too. Also many workplaces don't even have parking spots. I don't live in the USA with the immensly overblown car infrastructure.The majority of charging is done at home,But only because those who can't do it don't have an EV. Like half of all people, those who don't live in a single family home with a garage.
I highly doubt that there will be charging stations at every parking space in all streets. So I have no idea how it should work with only EVs in the future.
If chargers will still be more than 2 times more costly than the house electricity, than this is simply another tax on the poor.
Workplace charging and general supermarket/shopping center parking lot charging would help a lot.
The big problem in the USA for going all electric is the smaller towns. Our town of 10,000 people has about 6 total chargers. Imagine if everyone went electric over the next couple years. Even if most charge at home, they would need to find space to build many many more charging stations. I don't know if the electric grid servicing our area could handle 5,000 vehicles charging at 20,000 watts each either. That is 100 MW.
The big problem in the USA for going all electric is the smaller towns. Our town of 10,000 people has about 6 total chargers. Imagine if everyone went electric over the next couple years. Even if most charge at home, they would need to find space to build many many more charging stations. I don't know if the electric grid servicing our area could handle 5,000 vehicles charging at 20,000 watts each either. That is 100 MW.
Can your town handle 5,000 vehicles filling up with gas simultaneously?
The big problem in the USA for going all electric is the smaller towns. Our town of 10,000 people has about 6 total chargers. Imagine if everyone went electric over the next couple years. Even if most charge at home, they would need to find space to build many many more charging stations. I don't know if the electric grid servicing our area could handle 5,000 vehicles charging at 20,000 watts each either. That is 100 MW.
Can your town handle 5,000 vehicles filling up with gas simultaneously?
Eh, your inexperience is showing. The grid can only handle so many kW before the amperage starts causing problems (lines heating, substations, etc.). Managing large power draws at a time is actually a huge issue for grid management (see the Brits' all turning their electric kettle on during a football commercial break). Power stations need to be at the ready if everyone starts charging their vehicle at 6pm. It's not just power generation capability- it's the ability for that power to get through the lines. You would need to build large amounts of expensive, local batteries to manage this.
It's not really analagous to gas stations at all because there you are limited by the station pump. The system is inherently supply side regulated. Electricity is demand side regulated, which has a lot of tricky components with renewables and large power draws. The only way currently to solve it is rolling blackouts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup
Eh, your inexperience is showing. The grid can only handle so many kW before the amperage starts causing problems (lines heating, substations, etc.). Managing large power draws at a time is actually a huge issue for grid management (see the Brits' all turning their electric kettle on during a football commercial break). Power stations need to be at the ready if everyone starts charging their vehicle at 6pm. It's not just power generation capability- it's the ability for that power to get through the lines. You would need to build large amounts of expensive, local batteries to manage this.
It's not really analagous to gas stations at all because there you are limited by the station pump. The system is inherently supply side regulated. Electricity is demand side regulated, which has a lot of tricky components with renewables and large power draws. The only way currently to solve it is rolling blackouts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup
Regarding the "free charge" at shops: supermarkets here in Germany are a much more cutthroat thing as in the US. Just look at your nearest ALDI. That is the price they have to compete with (and I would wager ALDI has a higher profit margin on tehir goods in the US than in Germany), in a very price sensitive country.
Dishing out at least 100K to build chargers AND paying the electricity - I think people can't even buy that much if they do a weeks worth of shopping to offset he cost.
The big problem in the USA for going all electric is the smaller towns. Our town of 10,000 people has about 6 total chargers. Imagine if everyone went electric over the next couple years. Even if most charge at home, they would need to find space to build many many more charging stations. I don't know if the electric grid servicing our area could handle 5,000 vehicles charging at 20,000 watts each either. That is 100 MW.
Can your town handle 5,000 vehicles filling up with gas simultaneously?
QuoteRegarding the "free charge" at shops: supermarkets here in Germany are a much more cutthroat thing as in the US. Just look at your nearest ALDI. That is the price they have to compete with (and I would wager ALDI has a higher profit margin on tehir goods in the US than in Germany), in a very price sensitive country.
Dishing out at least 100K to build chargers AND paying the electricity - I think people can't even buy that much if they do a weeks worth of shopping to offset he cost.
I don't think anyone is advocating for free level 3 fast charging at shops. But level 2 is so low cost that you may as well do it anywhere people park for 60 minutes or more.
The big problem in the USA for going all electric is the smaller towns. Our town of 10,000 people has about 6 total chargers. Imagine if everyone went electric over the next couple years. Even if most charge at home, they would need to find space to build many many more charging stations. I don't know if the electric grid servicing our area could handle 5,000 vehicles charging at 20,000 watts each either. That is 100 MW.
Can your town handle 5,000 vehicles filling up with gas simultaneously?
You’re too smart to be that flippant. How long does it take to fill 5,000 cars with gas? Now do EVs.
I don't know if the electric grid servicing our area could handle 5,000 vehicles charging at 20,000 watts each either. That is 100 MW.
Will this be as bad for electric cars? Will one be beholden to the dealer? Will independent mechanics and service people be able to work on electric cars now and in the future?
I think this has been mentioned, but a lot of you people seem to be the type to just bring it to the dealer without much concern about the cost. I'm just wondering if electric is the way to go for the type of people, for example, who nurse an old pickup along.
The average US driving is around 35 miles a day. With an EV, this works out to in the range of 10-12kWh/day average, though a bit more in the winter from pack and vehicle heating. That's around 500W average load, and if you've got things set up to spread the load out, it should end up around there. So, your 5000 vehicle, on average, would be closer to 2.5MW, not 100. There are a variety of ways to ballpark the usage estimates, but I've used several, and you end up requiring around 25% more electrical grid energy delivery to get all personal transportation over to EV miles in the US. Fleet use is going to drive that up a bit more, but they're also going to be a good bit more sensitive to power delivery and are on rate plans that separately pay for energy delivered and peak power capacity (demand charges - they're a royal pain if you're peaky, and things like peak shaver battery systems can pay for themselves in a right hurry if you're in that sort of use case).
It almost seems like the conversion of all cars from gasoline to electric isn't going to do that much for the environment if the total energy that had been required was only 25% of the electrical grid energy for a neighborhood (I assume you mean non industrial as well?). I had never run the numbers but I thought that gasoline energy use was a much larger figure than that. I am assuming that a gasoline car engine is about as efficient as generating the power from a coal/nat. gas/oil plant, converting that power to high voltage, running it across power lines, converting it back down to a lower voltage, running it through a charging station and then finally the small losses when charging a battery pack.
All the rest of our consumption are those ovens, air conditioners and i-phones?
The average US driving is around 35 miles a day. With an EV, this works out to in the range of 10-12kWh/day average, though a bit more in the winter from pack and vehicle heating. That's around 500W average load, and if you've got things set up to spread the load out, it should end up around there. So, your 5000 vehicle, on average, would be closer to 2.5MW, not 100. There are a variety of ways to ballpark the usage estimates, but I've used several, and you end up requiring around 25% more electrical grid energy delivery to get all personal transportation over to EV miles in the US. Fleet use is going to drive that up a bit more, but they're also going to be a good bit more sensitive to power delivery and are on rate plans that separately pay for energy delivered and peak power capacity (demand charges - they're a royal pain if you're peaky, and things like peak shaver battery systems can pay for themselves in a right hurry if you're in that sort of use case).
It almost seems like the conversion of all cars from gasoline to electric isn't going to do that much for the environment if the total energy that had been required was only 25% of the electrical grid energy for a neighborhood (I assume you mean non industrial as well?). I had never run the numbers but I thought that gasoline energy use was a much larger figure than that. I am assuming that a gasoline car engine is about as efficient as generating the power from a coal/nat. gas/oil plant, converting that power to high voltage, running it across power lines, converting it back down to a lower voltage, running it through a charging station and then finally the small losses when charging a battery pack.
All the rest of our consumption are those ovens, air conditioners and i-phones?
It almost seems like the conversion of all cars from gasoline to electric isn't going to do that much for the environment if the total energy that had been required was only 25% of the electrical grid energy for a neighborhood (I assume you mean non industrial as well?).
I had never run the numbers but I thought that gasoline energy use was a much larger figure than that.
I am assuming that a gasoline car engine is about as efficient as generating the power from a coal/nat. gas/oil plant, converting that power to high voltage, running it across power lines, converting it back down to a lower voltage, running it through a charging station and then finally the small losses when charging a battery pack.
I just read that only 5% of power is lost in transmission lines and distribution....I thought it was higher than that.
It does sound that if we get the recycling part of EV batteries down, it will be the way to go...especially if some of the fusion projects work out (I know they have always been a decade or two away for the past few decades but they seem to be getting very close).
As I noted earlier, electric vehicles use Domestic energy. The little money that electric vehicle owners spend on "fuel" does not go to crude oil suppliers who may not be on everyone's favorite list. There is a reason that Saudi Arabia is as rich as it is. Just think what could be done for people in the United States if all that oil money that has been exported stayed here to be spent here.
I don't own one, but maybe electric vehicle owners are patriots by default.
I guess you can apply words like independent and freedom,.......stuff you hear on the 4th of July.
I just read that only 5% of power is lost in transmission lines and distribution....I thought it was higher than that.
I am going to miss the cute design of old leaf but I miss driving an EV SO MUCH.
I think EVs will last much longer than gas cars because of the much fewer moving parts.
As evidenced on this forum, modern gas cars can easily last 20 years.
Even with expected battery degradation over time, they can last for several decades. My EV already has a wildly excessive range for 99% of my lifetime needs. Even with a 40% loss it’d cover my commuting easily. Unless the doors or some part falls off and isn’t made anymore, I doubt we’ll need to ever replace this vehicle.
Funny how so many people suddenly care about poor miners in Africa when five years ago they couldn’t give a s***. Yes that need to be fixed pronto, but that’s not what’s going to destroy Africa. It being too hot to work outside without dropping dead will.
but the real promise lately is the renewed development in LiFePO4 chemistry. That was more or less a "dead chemistry" a decade ago
I have been driving a 2004 Acura TL, a 2021 Mitsubishi RVR and 2009 Mercedes SL550 (it was my late father's and my stepmom kept it because my brothers don't want to see anyone driving it around town) the past 6 weeks. None of these cars has the torque in the low end as the 2015 Leaf (that I paid 18K CAN for in 2018).I am going to miss the cute design of old leaf but I miss driving an EV SO MUCH.
Preach it brother! (sister? I have no idea... insert the appropriate one there...)
I drove the ICE today to drop a load of metal scrap off with a scrapper, while also out getting the last groceries for dinner. The ICE was never a high performance vehicle (Honda Fit), but I really noticed the body roll in corners, how slow the acceleration is and such after having driven the EV for a few weeks since I last drove the ICE.
The Fit is a lot cuter than the EV, but nobody's currently selling a Fit-class EV in the states (VW can go sod off for not bringing the ID.3 here). Maybe someday Tesla will do a small, hot-hatch type EV.
I'll grant you that some of you folks have talked about the reliability and longevity of electric cars.
Still, I have a concern. Farmers are fighting John Deere over software. Farmers like to do things for themselves. Tractors have a lot of "proprietary" software and this makes it hard for farmers. I guess there are lawsuits over the issue.
Even internal combustion vehicles are having the same issue.
Will this be as bad for electric cars? Will one be beholden to the dealer? Will independent mechanics and service people be able to work on electric cars now and in the future?
I think this has been mentioned, but a lot of you people seem to be the type to just bring it to the dealer without much concern about the cost. I'm just wondering if electric is the way to go for the type of people, for example, who nurse an old pickup along.
I just read that only 5% of power is lost in transmission lines and distribution....I thought it was higher than that.
It does sound that if we get the recycling part of EV batteries down, it will be the way to go...especially if some of the fusion projects work out (I know they have always been a decade or two away for the past few decades but they seem to be getting very close).
In fairness, fast chargers cannot possibly price their services at retail electricity rate - the equipment is very expensive, utilization rate is low, and delivering higher amps is more expensive than leisurely using 3.3 or 7.7kW. Which is fine, we should really need them only on longer trips, the rest being covered by home/workplace charging. Now, the infrastructure for that is sorely lacking atm in the US, which gives homeowners the easiest path to EV ownership.
On the other side of that coin, commercial power is vastly less expensive than residential power (about half if I compare what our datacenter bills vs what my house gets billed).
I will not write off ICE. There's a purpose and reason for them (medium/long-haul cross country) but let's see what disruption the EVs bring in that segment.
I think we are in for some interesting times.
I will not write off ICE. There's a purpose and reason for them (medium/long-haul cross country) but let's see what disruption the EVs bring in that segment.
I think we are in for some interesting times.
I suspect fuel cells have the best chance at competing here within the next decade or two. We haven't seen them take off yet, but in a carbon free economy they make way more sense than batteries for long haul trucking. Plenty of US based trucking companies in the background evaluating them.
https://www.navistar.com/our-path-forward/hydrogen-fuel-cell
I think the F-150 Lightning will be THE barometer of EV success, both as a fleet and a personal vehicle. It will be interesting to see how it affects businesses, charging points, and grid load over time. Also, how it will feed the EV components recycling industry.
I will not write off ICE. There's a purpose and reason for them (medium/long-haul cross country) but let's see what disruption the EVs bring in that segment.
I think we are in for some interesting times.
Pretty much any company in the commercial or energy sector is focusing more on fuel cells in the medium to long term:
...
I think the F-150 Lightning will be THE barometer of EV success, both as a fleet and a personal vehicle. It will be interesting to see how it affects businesses, charging points, and grid load over time. Also, how it will feed the EV components recycling industry.
I will not write off ICE. There's a purpose and reason for them (medium/long-haul cross country) but let's see what disruption the EVs bring in that segment.
I think we are in for some interesting times.
agreed with the f150 its the most popular vehicle in this country. If Ford changes its production plans a 2nd time to ramp them even higher it will be a great sign. Still only planning to ramp to about 10% current sales in 4 years. Maybe its supply chain constraints.
I think the F-150 Lightning will be THE barometer of EV success, both as a fleet and a personal vehicle. It will be interesting to see how it affects businesses, charging points, and grid load over time. Also, how it will feed the EV components recycling industry.
I will not write off ICE. There's a purpose and reason for them (medium/long-haul cross country) but let's see what disruption the EVs bring in that segment.
I think we are in for some interesting times.
agreed with the f150 its the most popular vehicle in this country. If Ford changes its production plans a 2nd time to ramp them even higher it will be a great sign. Still only planning to ramp to about 10% current sales in 4 years. Maybe its supply chain constraints.
Global plugin vehicle registrations were up 98% in September 2021 compared to September 2020, scoring a record 685,000 units (or 10.2% share of the overall auto market, the first time the global market share reached two digits). That’s a significant 16% increase over the previous record, set in June, and expect the two final months of the year to also become record months.
Fully electric vehicles (BEVs) represented 75% of plugin registrations in September, above the year-to-date tally (68%). In total, there were some 512,000 registrations of BEVs, or 7.6% share of the overall auto market.
With the YTD tally now above 4.3 million units (and at a record 7% share), and knowing that the last months of the year are traditionally strong sellers, we should be seeing the plugin vehicle (PEV) market easily surpass 6 million units this year, with the 7 million unit mark being a true possibility!
For comparison sake, 2020 ended with 3.1 million units registered. Not bad, considering the current chip shortage, eh?
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/01/top-20-plugin-electric-vehicles-in-the-world-september-2021/QuoteGlobal plugin vehicle registrations were up 98% in September 2021 compared to September 2020, scoring a record 685,000 units (or 10.2% share of the overall auto market, the first time the global market share reached two digits). That’s a significant 16% increase over the previous record, set in June, and expect the two final months of the year to also become record months.
Fully electric vehicles (BEVs) represented 75% of plugin registrations in September, above the year-to-date tally (68%). In total, there were some 512,000 registrations of BEVs, or 7.6% share of the overall auto market.
With the YTD tally now above 4.3 million units (and at a record 7% share), and knowing that the last months of the year are traditionally strong sellers, we should be seeing the plugin vehicle (PEV) market easily surpass 6 million units this year, with the 7 million unit mark being a true possibility!
For comparison sake, 2020 ended with 3.1 million units registered. Not bad, considering the current chip shortage, eh?
Can't find a break out of U.S. sales just yet, but worldwide EVs made up 10% of new auto sales in September and should finish FY21 above 7%. That's a pretty quick ramp up from the ~2-2.5% market share plug-ins made up in 2019.
...
A couple years ago, I saw an article (?) showing that EV use rising at 50%/year ish had already been happening for years. It predicted that as % growth continued at that rate, shifts in national and global infrastructures as well as consumer sentiment would reach a tipping point where EVs would dominate - and that the time when ICE vehicles will get hard to sell was coming remarkably fast, probably mid to late 2020s.
These worldwide numbers seem to broadly suggest the article's predictions are coming true so far.
From January to June of 2021, EVs made up 2.4% of new vehicle registrations, according to Experian. That's not much, but it's more than double the same six months in 2020.
If countries/regions have to use coal fired electricity generation, for example, to charge cars (China?), perhaps they'd be better off staying with gasoline and diesel powered vehicles.
Has anyone seen a plan for upgrading electrical generation capacity to keep all the electric vehicles going?
My neighbour is a policy analyst for the federal government. He was meeting with representatives from electrical companies and they commented that they were nowhere near ready for large scale adoption of electrical vehicles. I remembered that back in 2006 or so I did a back of the envelope on how much electricity would be required to switch over to electrical vehicles - it looked like about a 50% increase in electrical generation. I have no idea if this is at all accurate today, though.
There's a bit of controversy in Ontario, because the provincial government is declining to provide subsidies for the purchase of electrical vehicles. Alongside my interest in electricity supply, I also wonder if we can eventually go with green electricity for electrical vehicles, or if we'll have to build more nuclear generating capacity. If countries/regions have to use coal fired electricity generation, for example, to charge cars (China?), perhaps they'd be better off staying with gasoline and diesel powered vehicles.
Assuming EV adoption continues to grow exponentially for another 5-10 years we're going to have some interesting times with infrastructure...
A Tesla model 3 SR has a 50kWh battery pack with about 250 mile range (roughly 5 miles per kWh). For reference, the average US house uses 1000kWh per month and average distance driven is 1200 miles per month. That means 240kWh per month per car. So about a 50% increase in residential power usage (assuming 2 commuters per household). The residential sector used about 40% of electricity sold in the US, so that means we’d need to increase grid capacity about 20% with current technology.
Has anyone seen a plan for upgrading electrical generation capacity to keep all the electric vehicles going?
My neighbour is a policy analyst for the federal government. He was meeting with representatives from electrical companies and they commented that they were nowhere near ready for large scale adoption of electrical vehicles. I remembered that back in 2006 or so I did a back of the envelope on how much electricity would be required to switch over to electrical vehicles - it looked like about a 50% increase in electrical generation. I have no idea if this is at all accurate today, though.
There's a bit of controversy in Ontario, because the provincial government is declining to provide subsidies for the purchase of electrical vehicles. Alongside my interest in electricity supply, I also wonder if we can eventually go with green electricity for electrical vehicles, or if we'll have to build more nuclear generating capacity. If countries/regions have to use coal fired electricity generation, for example, to charge cars (China?), perhaps they'd be better off staying with gasoline and diesel powered vehicles.
Assuming EV adoption continues to grow exponentially for another 5-10 years we're going to have some interesting times with infrastructure...
You got me curious. I don't live in Canada but have heard that Ontario has emission free electricity. So, I found this Wiki article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Power_Generation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Power_Generation)
Looks like You folks may be hit double. Electric cars may increase demand and a bunch of coal stations were shut down not too long ago. I'll bet they are looking at increasing capacity.
Then I found this paragraph and thought you can't make this stuff up.
In early December 2015, Ontario's Auditor General pointed out that OPG was importing wood products from Europe to burn at the Thunder Bay station "pushing the cost of the electricity it generates to 25 times higher than other biomass generators",[27] or $1,600 per MWh. Subsequently, Ontario's Development and Mines Minister Michael Gravelle stated that OPG was seeking a local company to produce the biomass fuel.[28]
Even I know Thunder Bay is at the lake head of Lake Superior. (been there) There's a lot of woods there. Europe is a long ways away.
Sorry for the diversion. Back to electric cars!
In one word: cost.
Even if you have large guests in your back yard it doesn’t mean it’s cheaper to log that than import sawn lumber from overseas. This is particularly true when labor costs, safety regulations and government subsidies are tossed into the pot.
It’s often cheaper to get Chinese wood here in the northeastern US than either local wood or timber from the larger forests out west (Washington state or BC). Doesn’t mean it’s the best thing to buy, just the reality of global supply chains.
In one word: cost.
Even if you have large guests in your back yard it doesn’t mean it’s cheaper to log that than import sawn lumber from overseas. This is particularly true when labor costs, safety regulations and government subsidies are tossed into the pot.
It’s often cheaper to get Chinese wood here in the northeastern US than either local wood or timber from the larger forests out west (Washington state or BC). Doesn’t mean it’s the best thing to buy, just the reality of global supply chains.
Yeah, but that's indicative of a huge problem. It would be cheaper to burn coal or gas. The idea behind green energy should be to go with the most cost effective option . . . but to go with the environmentally preferable one.
In one word: cost.
Even if you have large guests in your back yard it doesn’t mean it’s cheaper to log that than import sawn lumber from overseas. This is particularly true when labor costs, safety regulations and government subsidies are tossed into the pot.
It’s often cheaper to get Chinese wood here in the northeastern US than either local wood or timber from the larger forests out west (Washington state or BC). Doesn’t mean it’s the best thing to buy, just the reality of global supply chains.
Yeah, but that's indicative of a huge problem. It would be cheaper to burn coal or gas. The idea behind green energy should be to go with the most cost effective option . . . but to go with the environmentally preferable one.
Well a core problem is that we’ve done a poor job of factoring in the total cost, including environmental degrees sati on and CO2 emissions. For too long industry has successfully lobbied against such measures as “overly burdensome” and “job killers”, passing the very real costs onto everyone else.
The second major problem is the unequal global playing field, including labor costs and corporate taxes and liability.
Improve those and the free markets will rapidly gravitate towards the very outcomes we want in most cases.
A Tesla model 3 SR has a 50kWh battery pack with about 250 mile range (roughly 5 miles per kWh). For reference, the average US house uses 1000kWh per month and average distance driven is 1200 miles per month. That means 240kWh per month per car. So about a 50% increase in residential power usage (assuming 2 commuters per household). The residential sector used about 40% of electricity sold in the US, so that means we’d need to increase grid capacity about 20% with current technology.
On a system-wide level, cars drive about 3200 billion miles per year, so would need 640 GWh of electricity.
Commercial/heavy duty is a separate issue. Tesla reports its semi would go 0.5 miles per kWh, and about 300 billion miles were driven by semi trucks per year. So that’s 600 GWh of electricity, or 600/3800 GWh = about 15% increase to charge trucks.
This is just a shifting of energy from oil to electricity, not a true increase (and on a per unit energy level, likely a decrease due to the higher efficiency of motors vs engines).
In the southern US, each GW of solar panels installed produces on average 1600 GWh of energy per year. 1250 GWh/1600 = 780 MW of panels. For reference, the largest solar panel system in the US is about 500 MW. So this is not an unrealistic goal.
I think I did it from the top down. Something like this:
US electrical generating capacity = 1.2E12 W
US electrical energy = 1.2E12 J/sec * 86400 secs/day * 365 days/year = 3.78E19 Joules/year
Gasoline/diesel energy = 1.3E8 Joules/gallon
Gallons of diesel fuel per year = 44.6E9 gallons
Gallons of gasoline per year = 124E9 gallons
Petroleum fuels energy = (44.6E9 + 124E9) * 1.3E8 = 2.2E19 Joules/year
Then electrical cars are more efficient than gasoline/diesel engines. Gasoline engine is maybe 35% efficient. Electrical car is maybe 75% efficient. Include distribution losses, storage losses, vehicle cabin heater, blah blah blah, maybe we can say that electric vehicles use about 50% of the energy of internal combustion vehicles.
So peak electrical generating capacity is currently 3.78E19 Joules/year, this would have to increase by 1.1E19 Joules/year. Which is a big increase, but maybe manageable (at least outside of Texas :-p)... except for the capacity factor which ranges from 25% for solar up to 95% from nuclear.
So if we're doing a mass switch over to electrical vehicles, the electrical utilities better start thinking about how to build out more generating and distribution capacity. In Canada this is a *very* slow process with a huge regulatory burden before you even get a shovel in the ground.
We come out to roughly the same values (~35% increase). Even in Texas we have an issue with making more distribution lines. Apparently people are all for extra energy, as long as it doesn't affect their views/property values. So while solar and wind are booming here, distribution line building is stalling due to NIMBYs. That's why I'm relying on solar + battery for my house.
We come out to roughly the same values (~35% increase). Even in Texas we have an issue with making more distribution lines. Apparently people are all for extra energy, as long as it doesn't affect their views/property values. So while solar and wind are booming here, distribution line building is stalling due to NIMBYs. That's why I'm relying on solar + battery for my house.
Solar+storage is, like, the most Texas thing ever. Independence! Self-reliance! Rugged individualism! I don't need your stinking communist grid!
I wonder if anyone sells it like that?
We come out to roughly the same values (~35% increase). Even in Texas we have an issue with making more distribution lines. Apparently people are all for extra energy, as long as it doesn't affect their views/property values. So while solar and wind are booming here, distribution line building is stalling due to NIMBYs. That's why I'm relying on solar + battery for my house.
Solar+storage is, like, the most Texas thing ever. Independence! Self-reliance! Rugged individualism! I don't need your stinking communist grid!
I wonder if anyone sells it like that?
They probably don't like solar energy because it is an invention by the liberals in New Jersey and advanced as an technology by the socialist commies from Europa.
But it might actually help framing it that way, even if it is disgusting.
We come out to roughly the same values (~35% increase). Even in Texas we have an issue with making more distribution lines. Apparently people are all for extra energy, as long as it doesn't affect their views/property values. So while solar and wind are booming here, distribution line building is stalling due to NIMBYs. That's why I'm relying on solar + battery for my house.
Solar+storage is, like, the most Texas thing ever. Independence! Self-reliance! Rugged individualism! I don't need your stinking communist grid!
I wonder if anyone sells it like that?
They probably don't like solar energy because it is an invention by the liberals in New Jersey and advanced as an technology by the socialist commies from Europa.
But it might actually help framing it that way, even if it is disgusting.
Point of fact: Texas had the second-most solar capacity in the US behind California, and its growth is currently faster than CA’s. Those two states currently account for more than half of all solar energy
I'm wishy-washy on batteries. They're so expensive. We also already have a fairly beefy generator because we didn't want to be without power for too long post hurricane. I mean, panels are going on the house in 2 weeks - maybe I'll see how this works and defer deciding on the batteries.We come out to roughly the same values (~35% increase). Even in Texas we have an issue with making more distribution lines. Apparently people are all for extra energy, as long as it doesn't affect their views/property values. So while solar and wind are booming here, distribution line building is stalling due to NIMBYs. That's why I'm relying on solar + battery for my house.
Solar+storage is, like, the most Texas thing ever. Independence! Self-reliance! Rugged individualism! I don't need your stinking communist grid!
I wonder if anyone sells it like that?
They probably don't like solar energy because it is an invention by the liberals in New Jersey and advanced as an technology by the socialist commies from Europa.
But it might actually help framing it that way, even if it is disgusting.
Point of fact: Texas had the second-most solar capacity in the US behind California, and its growth is currently faster than CA’s. Those two states currently account for more than half of all solar energy
I hear you all. But Texas puts profit before ideology, at least for energy. Remember the governor yammering about putting extra fees on wind and solar because they “froze up” during the great freeze? Yeah that didn’t happen.
I think most people here think solar is untested (even though it’s been around for 30+ years) and unreliable. Batteries that would be practically sized for Texas houses remain beyond the reach of most households. FWIW it’s been 5 weeks since I ordered batteries and the utility is still in the process of approving installation. The solar panel is already installed and working for several months. First world problems!
I'm wishy-washy on batteries. They're so expensive. We also already have a fairly beefy generator because we didn't want to be without power for too long post hurricane. I mean, panels are going on the house in 2 weeks - maybe I'll see how this works and defer deciding on the batteries.We come out to roughly the same values (~35% increase). Even in Texas we have an issue with making more distribution lines. Apparently people are all for extra energy, as long as it doesn't affect their views/property values. So while solar and wind are booming here, distribution line building is stalling due to NIMBYs. That's why I'm relying on solar + battery for my house.
Solar+storage is, like, the most Texas thing ever. Independence! Self-reliance! Rugged individualism! I don't need your stinking communist grid!
I wonder if anyone sells it like that?
They probably don't like solar energy because it is an invention by the liberals in New Jersey and advanced as an technology by the socialist commies from Europa.
But it might actually help framing it that way, even if it is disgusting.
Point of fact: Texas had the second-most solar capacity in the US behind California, and its growth is currently faster than CA’s. Those two states currently account for more than half of all solar energy
I hear you all. But Texas puts profit before ideology, at least for energy. Remember the governor yammering about putting extra fees on wind and solar because they “froze up” during the great freeze? Yeah that didn’t happen.
I think most people here think solar is untested (even though it’s been around for 30+ years) and unreliable. Batteries that would be practically sized for Texas houses remain beyond the reach of most households. FWIW it’s been 5 weeks since I ordered batteries and the utility is still in the process of approving installation. The solar panel is already installed and working for several months. First world problems!
[
- SNIP -
I hear you all. But Texas puts profit before ideology, at least for energy. Remember the governor yammering about putting extra fees on wind and solar because they “froze up” during the great freeze? Yeah that didn’t happen.
I think most people here think solar is untested (even though it’s been around for 30+ years) and unreliable. Batteries that would be practically sized for Texas houses remain beyond the reach of most households. FWIW it’s been 5 weeks since I ordered batteries and the utility is still in the process of approving installation. The solar panel is already installed and working for several months. First world problems!
FWIW, the owner of a company that installed our panels said that he does more business with people he profiles as conservatives than liberals.Wonder how the customers profile themselves.
I guess I’m off two minds regarding how much of a bellwether the F150 Lightning will be
On one hand, if it does spectacularly well I agree it can be the moment where BEVs become mainstream that I think most of us hope for.
On the other hand if it flops I don’t think it need be the coffin nail that many are predicting. There’s a long list of why cars (ICE or BEV) fail to sell, and most can be distilled into: too much money relative to competition; design issues/safety recalls; unreliable.
Failure would dampen future enthusiasm for the next launch, but the pickup market is too big and too damn lucrative to be ignored.
[
I'm wishy-washy on batteries. They're so expensive. We also already have a fairly beefy generator because we didn't want to be without power for too long post hurricane. I mean, panels are going on the house in 2 weeks - maybe I'll see how this works and defer deciding on the batteries.
or if it's simply a sample bias, like in A) there are more conservatives around and B) those who can afford solar panels are generally more well-off and well-off tend to vote conservative (after all, the system works for them, so why change it?)FWIW, the owner of a company that installed our panels said that he does more business with people he profiles as conservatives than liberals.Wonder how the customers profile themselves.
Right - bought a 7400 running-watt generator in response to a pretty bad weather year. Not a small generator, but could have definitely gone bigger. Two week-plus outages within 4 months in our neighborhood. One was the first hurricane since 1989 to really hit us, other was a derecho (I think that is what they called it) that was even worse for our neighborhood than the hurricane, but with the damage area more limited was a shorter outage. Still sucked, but that was in January so at least it wasn't hot as hell in addition to the poor lighting at night and no fridge. Of course, since getting better prepared for this kind of thing, I've run the generator for all of an hour for real - way more aggregate time just testing it for 30 minute stretches approximately monthly.[
I'm wishy-washy on batteries. They're so expensive. We also already have a fairly beefy generator because we didn't want to be without power for too long post hurricane. I mean, panels are going on the house in 2 weeks - maybe I'll see how this works and defer deciding on the batteries.
If you have a grid-tied system, and unless your local power generation is incredibly unreliable (like losing power on a weekly basis) then a small generator is both more economical and has (ironically) a lower carbon footprint than a battery pack large enough to be comparable to the generator output and last for more than a day.
It’s a tough pill to swallow for those of us that want to be grid tied but hate the idea of burning fossil fuels during the rare power outages, but that’s the conclusion I’ve reached every time I’ve tried to work the numbers. Generators are cheap and reliable and can give you power for weeks. Batteries are expensive and resource intensive and even very large (and ver expensive) packs won’t last for more than a few days, particularly if you live in northern latitudes with short winter days.
or if it's simply a sample bias, like in A) there are more conservatives around and B) those who can afford solar panels are generally more well-off and well-off tend to vote conservative (after all, the system works for them, so why change it?)
[
I'm wishy-washy on batteries. They're so expensive. We also already have a fairly beefy generator because we didn't want to be without power for too long post hurricane. I mean, panels are going on the house in 2 weeks - maybe I'll see how this works and defer deciding on the batteries.
If you have a grid-tied system, and unless your local power generation is incredibly unreliable (like losing power on a weekly basis) then a small generator is both more economical and has (ironically) a lower carbon footprint than a battery pack large enough to be comparable to the generator output and last for more than a day.
Generators can be rebuilt. I think once batteries are gone they need to be replaced.
It’s a tough pill to swallow for those of us that want to be grid tied but hate the idea of burning fossil fuels during the rare power outages, but that’s the conclusion I’ve reached every time I’ve tried to work the numbers. Generators are cheap and reliable and can give you power for weeks. Batteries are expensive and resource intensive and even very large (and ver expensive) packs won’t last for more than a few days, particularly if you live in northern latitudes with short winter days.
What you described is only true for batteries without solar.
An appropriately sized solar and battery storage system can power you home indefinitely during prolonged power outages. Where as generator will eventually run out of fuel.
Batteries also have the benefit reducing your power bill by reducing grid energy use during peak periods.
An appropriately sized solar and battery storage system can power you home indefinitely during prolonged power outages. Where as generator will eventually run out of fuel.
An appropriately sized solar and battery storage system can power you home indefinitely during prolonged power outages. Where as generator will eventually run out of fuel
An appropriately sized solar and battery storage system can power you home indefinitely during prolonged power outages. Where as generator will eventually run out of fuel.
So, maybe the play is wait until it is vehicle replacement time and look for a used one with built-in "power your house" functionality. Then the battery is likely as large as you need it to be, and also not just powering your house in an outage or overnight depending how far you want to take this.
I think that might be a thing that is available on the used market in a decade or two. Probably a stupid idea - I've been having a lot of those lately.
So, maybe the play is wait until it is vehicle replacement time and look for a used one with built-in "power your house" functionality. Then the battery is likely as large as you need it to be, and also not just powering your house in an outage or overnight depending how far you want to take this.
I think that might be a thing that is available on the used market in a decade or two. Probably a stupid idea - I've been having a lot of those lately.
So, maybe the play is wait until it is vehicle replacement time and look for a used one with built-in "power your house" functionality. Then the battery is likely as large as you need it to be, and also not just powering your house in an outage or overnight depending how far you want to take this.
I think that might be a thing that is available on the used market in a decade or two. Probably a stupid idea - I've been having a lot of those lately.
The Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
So, maybe the play is wait until it is vehicle replacement time and look for a used one with built-in "power your house" functionality. Then the battery is likely as large as you need it to be, and also not just powering your house in an outage or overnight depending how far you want to take this.
I think that might be a thing that is available on the used market in a decade or two. Probably a stupid idea - I've been having a lot of those lately.
The Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
this is correct. i guess in theory if i were still commuting i could game my solar net generation system further by taking power from work back to my house to power my house at night and never pay for electricity again.
So, maybe the play is wait until it is vehicle replacement time and look for a used one with built-in "power your house" functionality. Then the battery is likely as large as you need it to be, and also not just powering your house in an outage or overnight depending how far you want to take this.
I think that might be a thing that is available on the used market in a decade or two. Probably a stupid idea - I've been having a lot of those lately.
The Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
this is correct. i guess in theory if i were still commuting i could game my solar net generation system further by taking power from work back to my house to power my house at night and never pay for electricity again.
I love the idea of transporting electricity via roads.
We have a free level-3 charger somewhere in this office complex. Haven't tried it yet because it doesn't look too convenient and I'd be a dick if I plugged my small-batter leaf in there and just left it all day. PAlthough today I had to park pretty far away anyway. But if I could power my home directly when I got home . . .So, maybe the play is wait until it is vehicle replacement time and look for a used one with built-in "power your house" functionality. Then the battery is likely as large as you need it to be, and also not just powering your house in an outage or overnight depending how far you want to take this.
I think that might be a thing that is available on the used market in a decade or two. Probably a stupid idea - I've been having a lot of those lately.
The Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
this is correct. i guess in theory if i were still commuting i could game my solar net generation system further by taking power from work back to my house to power my house at night and never pay for electricity again.
I love the idea of transporting electricity via roads.
super efficient right? haha just a mild loop hole that could benefit a commuter - commuting should be done away with but thats a different story.
An appropriately sized solar and battery storage system can power you home indefinitely during prolonged power outages. Where as generator will eventually run out of fuel.
Do you actually have any hands on knowledge with what "appropriately sized" is, or are you just handwaving here based on "Oh, yeah, solar and battery will let you run grid down indefinitely" theory? Your sentiment is exceedingly common among people who've never dealt with the realities of an off-grid power system.
The Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
QuoteThe Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
Just be aware, the v2h features is likely to be an optional purchase, not standard equipment, and will require additional electrical work at your home.
So it'll be interesting to see what is more effective. F150 V2H vs a smaller home battery.
QuoteThe Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
Just be aware, the v2h features is likely to be an optional purchase, not standard equipment, and will require additional electrical work at your home.
So it'll be interesting to see what is more effective. F150 V2H vs a smaller home battery.
i think it comes with the inverter - likely just need a disconnect
I'd vote for on-board inverter that can output to a 220V /20 amp locking plug. But then I already have my house set up for that and a cord that can handle it. And interlock to prevent killing a line-worker of course.
Shit - is my next car going to be a truck?I'd vote for on-board inverter that can output to a 220V /20 amp locking plug. But then I already have my house set up for that and a cord that can handle it. And interlock to prevent killing a line-worker of course.
That already exists, but 30 amps instead of 20 -- https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/content/dam/brand_ford/en_us/brand/trucks/f150/2020/Mediakit/CHUB01150_F150ProPower_SP_C113.pdf
Yes. Just adjust your usage patterns in an emergency. Typical worst day is 1x panel size. Average day is 4x panel size. Panels are cheap. 10kw of panels and a single power wall would allow a decent level of living during an extend power outage for most homes.
i think it comes with the inverter - likely just need a disconnect
An appropriately sized solar and battery storage system can power you home indefinitely during prolonged power outages. Where as generator will eventually run out of fuel.
Do you actually have any hands on knowledge with what "appropriately sized" is, or are you just handwaving here based on "Oh, yeah, solar and battery will let you run grid down indefinitely" theory? Your sentiment is exceedingly common among people who've never dealt with the realities of an off-grid power system.
I can give you some concrete data on that, at least where we live. My office has a 5kW nameplate system, in what started as an attempt to do exactly what you're talking about, and on a bad day, will generate less than 1kWh in the winter (inversions, so heavy thick clouds, often fog, no wind that I could use as an alternative). My office idles at about 2kWh/day, with the inverter idle draw, internet and property network radios, monitoring hardware, etc. If I'm actually working in there, I need 3.5kWh if I don't use any heat (or use propane heat), and a bit more for electrical heating (I've got a heated foot pad that helps a ton without having to heat the whole space up). My ~10kWh battery bank handles most of the year just fine, but to run through winter without a generator, I'd need closer to 50kWh (it's always cold when these happen, so effective capacity is rather lower than nameplate). I guarantee the 4-5 gallons a winter I run through my generator during those weeks is less impact, across the board, than a large battery bank that only gets significantly cycled a few times a year would be.
My house system is 15.9kW nameplate. Worst generation so far this year was 2.5kWh on one of those nasty winter inversion days. Idle draw on the house (pure electric house, local well, and most of our transportation energy comes from electric as well) is 12-15kWh/day from things like freezers (and Dishy, that Starlink terminal is power hungry and probably could stand a timer on it), plus whatever we use. Before you say, "Install a bigger system, yours is obviously undersized," it's produced 21MWh this year so far, on a home power consumption of about 16MWh. It is rather oversized already.
If you'd like to do the math from that and figure out how many hundreds of kWh we need to run those loads indefinitely grid down, you're welcome to, but a generator is an awful lot better solution than the sort of radically oversized solar one would need around here for year-round running. I also can't interconnect that much solar to the grid (we have a 25kVA transformer which limits, under local power company policies, us to 25kW nameplate panel), etc. Even my original system design, with 100kWh or so of lead, had a generator inlet port to handle extended winter running. It's just not feasible without it, in most climates.
It's a cute sentiment. It's just entirely wrong, in practice, for almost all areas. And it involves spending tens or hundreds of thousands of extra dollars compared to a generator.
An appropriately sized solar and battery storage system can power you home indefinitely during prolonged power outages. Where as generator will eventually run out of fuel.
Do you actually have any hands on knowledge with what "appropriately sized" is, or are you just handwaving here based on "Oh, yeah, solar and battery will let you run grid down indefinitely" theory? Your sentiment is exceedingly common among people who've never dealt with the realities of an off-grid power system.
I can give you some concrete data on that, at least where we live. My office has a 5kW nameplate system, in what started as an attempt to do exactly what you're talking about, and on a bad day, will generate less than 1kWh in the winter (inversions, so heavy thick clouds, often fog, no wind that I could use as an alternative). My office idles at about 2kWh/day, with the inverter idle draw, internet and property network radios, monitoring hardware, etc. If I'm actually working in there, I need 3.5kWh if I don't use any heat (or use propane heat), and a bit more for electrical heating (I've got a heated foot pad that helps a ton without having to heat the whole space up). My ~10kWh battery bank handles most of the year just fine, but to run through winter without a generator, I'd need closer to 50kWh (it's always cold when these happen, so effective capacity is rather lower than nameplate). I guarantee the 4-5 gallons a winter I run through my generator during those weeks is less impact, across the board, than a large battery bank that only gets significantly cycled a few times a year would be.
My house system is 15.9kW nameplate. Worst generation so far this year was 2.5kWh on one of those nasty winter inversion days. Idle draw on the house (pure electric house, local well, and most of our transportation energy comes from electric as well) is 12-15kWh/day from things like freezers (and Dishy, that Starlink terminal is power hungry and probably could stand a timer on it), plus whatever we use. Before you say, "Install a bigger system, yours is obviously undersized," it's produced 21MWh this year so far, on a home power consumption of about 16MWh. It is rather oversized already.
If you'd like to do the math from that and figure out how many hundreds of kWh we need to run those loads indefinitely grid down, you're welcome to, but a generator is an awful lot better solution than the sort of radically oversized solar one would need around here for year-round running. I also can't interconnect that much solar to the grid (we have a 25kVA transformer which limits, under local power company policies, us to 25kW nameplate panel), etc. Even my original system design, with 100kWh or so of lead, had a generator inlet port to handle extended winter running. It's just not feasible without it, in most climates.
It's a cute sentiment. It's just entirely wrong, in practice, for almost all areas. And it involves spending tens or hundreds of thousands of extra dollars compared to a generator.
Are you talking about a gasoline generator? I've started looking into a natural gas generator, but I haven't found too much info so far, other than what seems a ridiculously short operational life of about 3000 hours, and they're a lot quieter than a gasoline generator.
It seems to me natural gas should be lower maintenance than a gasoline generator - you don't need to worry about contaminated fuel and methane burns more cleanly than gasoline... On the other hand, who says the natural gas supply will be working if we're having extended power outages. And on the third hand, if there's no natural gas I can't run the furnace anyway.
Another question, when you're working on your Volt - did you find a safety course for disconnecting the power system?
Are you talking about a gasoline generator? I've started looking into a natural gas generator, but I haven't found too much info so far, other than what seems a ridiculously short operational life of about 3000 hours, and they're a lot quieter than a gasoline generator.
It seems to me natural gas should be lower maintenance than a gasoline generator - you don't need to worry about contaminated fuel and methane burns more cleanly than gasoline... On the other hand, who says the natural gas supply will be working if we're having extended power outages. And on the third hand, if there's no natural gas I can't run the furnace anyway.
Another question, when you're working on your Volt - did you find a safety course for disconnecting the power system?
Quite a few years ago when OPEC was playing games with America's fuel supply my cousin swapped his truck over to run on propane. He explained several benefits to me at the time 1) no road tax which lessened cost 2) longer engine longevity
This link says propane will give greater life to an engine. I assume you would have similar benefits with natural gas.
QuoteThe Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
Just be aware, the v2h features is likely to be an optional purchase, not standard equipment, and will require additional electrical work at your home.
So it'll be interesting to see what is more effective. F150 V2H vs a smaller home battery.
We come out to roughly the same values (~35% increase). Even in Texas we have an issue with making more distribution lines. Apparently people are all for extra energy, as long as it doesn't affect their views/property values. So while solar and wind are booming here, distribution line building is stalling due to NIMBYs. That's why I'm relying on solar + battery for my house.
Solar+storage is, like, the most Texas thing ever. Independence! Self-reliance! Rugged individualism! I don't need your stinking communist grid!
I wonder if anyone sells it like that?
We come out to roughly the same values (~35% increase). Even in Texas we have an issue with making more distribution lines. Apparently people are all for extra energy, as long as it doesn't affect their views/property values. So while solar and wind are booming here, distribution line building is stalling due to NIMBYs. That's why I'm relying on solar + battery for my house.
Solar+storage is, like, the most Texas thing ever. Independence! Self-reliance! Rugged individualism! I don't need your stinking communist grid!
I wonder if anyone sells it like that?
I have been in a series of conversations with left-leaning Texan friends and relatives. My attempts to persuade them to install solar panels on their roofs typically sound like, "You saw how last winter went, and you've learned that the people in power are not responding in any meaningful way. The COVID crisis was a chance for many of them to make statements to the effect that they would prefer you die to their pursuing any meaningful public policy." Then I ask them to install solar + storage.
So far, it hasn't worked.
...
Would solar have helped in Texas in that example? Honest question, I don’t know. Seems like storage would have helped for a short term, but in times of significant outages is solar really a reliable backup for inclement weather?
...
Would solar have helped in Texas in that example? Honest question, I don’t know. Seems like storage would have helped for a short term, but in times of significant outages is solar really a reliable backup for inclement weather?
I think you need to look at the utility of storage under (at least) to circumstances
1) normal day to day usage
2) serious emergency where normal life is disrupted.
If you are concerned about #2, then you need to look at what your no-shit-life and death power needs are. Like in a large scale post hurricane black out you dont need to size your storage so that you can run the cloths dryer/electric oven and plasma TV all at the same time for 10hr/day, and internet would likely be out so no working from home. In case #2 it would be good to have some refrigeration (non-issue in texas last winter), lights, cell phone charging, maybe some limited AC and medical devices.
...
Would solar have helped in Texas in that example? Honest question, I don’t know. Seems like storage would have helped for a short term, but in times of significant outages is solar really a reliable backup for inclement weather?
I think you need to look at the utility of storage under (at least) to circumstances
1) normal day to day usage
2) serious emergency where normal life is disrupted.
If you are concerned about #2, then you need to look at what your no-shit-life and death power needs are. Like in a large scale post hurricane black out you dont need to size your storage so that you can run the cloths dryer/electric oven and plasma TV all at the same time for 10hr/day, and internet would likely be out so no working from home. In case #2 it would be good to have some refrigeration (non-issue in texas last winter), lights, cell phone charging, maybe some limited AC and medical devices.
Understand all that. But the question remains, how long will storage work for? I don’t know about Texas, but here in Chicago my requirements are 1 HVAC, 2 sump pump, and potentially 3 refrigeration (seasonal) before all else. But how long can storage run 1 and 2? I don’t know the answer to that. If it’s a week, okay, great. If it’s 24 hours, well that probably isn’t sufficient as an emergency measure.
And frankly, if you are encouraging people to adopt solar/storage as an emergency measure I think it’s fair to understand that. I have a gas generator I can manually activate, I paid $400 (it was an open box return, retail was $800) and if I want to be truly effective, a manual switch and panel to back feed my system is probably another $500-1k. It takes 8gal every 11 hours at 50% capacity, so figure $52/day in gas (@$3/gal) to run it. That’s a small fraction of the cost of a solar/storage installation. I’ve looked into solar for my house, payback estimates range from 11-19 years. My solution assumes gas will be available, true.
...
Would solar have helped in Texas in that example? Honest question, I don’t know. Seems like storage would have helped for a short term, but in times of significant outages is solar really a reliable backup for inclement weather?
I think you need to look at the utility of storage under (at least) to circumstances
1) normal day to day usage
2) serious emergency where normal life is disrupted.
If you are concerned about #2, then you need to look at what your no-shit-life and death power needs are. Like in a large scale post hurricane black out you dont need to size your storage so that you can run the cloths dryer/electric oven and plasma TV all at the same time for 10hr/day, and internet would likely be out so no working from home. In case #2 it would be good to have some refrigeration (non-issue in texas last winter), lights, cell phone charging, maybe some limited AC and medical devices.
Understand all that. But the question remains, how long will storage work for? I don’t know about Texas, but here in Chicago my requirements are 1 HVAC, 2 sump pump, and potentially 3 refrigeration (seasonal) before all else. But how long can storage run 1 and 2? I don’t know the answer to that. If it’s a week, okay, great. If it’s 24 hours, well that probably isn’t sufficient as an emergency measure.
And frankly, if you are encouraging people to adopt solar/storage as an emergency measure I think it’s fair to understand that. I have a gas generator I can manually activate, I paid $400 (it was an open box return, retail was $800) and if I want to be truly effective, a manual switch and panel to back feed my system is probably another $500-1k. It takes 8gal every 11 hours at 50% capacity, so figure $52/day in gas (@$3/gal) to run it. That’s a small fraction of the cost of a solar/storage installation. I’ve looked into solar for my house, payback estimates range from 11-19 years. My solution assumes gas will be available, true.
Understand all that. But the question remains, how long will storage work for? I don’t know about Texas, but here in Chicago my requirements are 1 HVAC, 2 sump pump, and potentially 3 refrigeration (seasonal) before all else. But how long can storage run 1 and 2? I don’t know the answer to that. If it’s a week, okay, great. If it’s 24 hours, well that probably isn’t sufficient as an emergency measure.
And frankly, if you are encouraging people to adopt solar/storage as an emergency measure I think it’s fair to understand that. I have a gas generator I can manually activate, I paid $400 (it was an open box return, retail was $800) and if I want to be truly effective, a manual switch and panel to back feed my system is probably another $500-1k. It takes 8gal every 11 hours at 50% capacity, so figure $52/day in gas (@$3/gal) to run it. That’s a small fraction of the cost of a solar/storage installation. I’ve looked into solar for my house, payback estimates range from 11-19 years. My solution assumes gas will be available, true.
...
Would solar have helped in Texas in that example? Honest question, I don’t know. Seems like storage would have helped for a short term, but in times of significant outages is solar really a reliable backup for inclement weather?
I think you need to look at the utility of storage under (at least) to circumstances
1) normal day to day usage
2) serious emergency where normal life is disrupted.
If you are concerned about #2, then you need to look at what your no-shit-life and death power needs are. Like in a large scale post hurricane black out you dont need to size your storage so that you can run the cloths dryer/electric oven and plasma TV all at the same time for 10hr/day, and internet would likely be out so no working from home. In case #2 it would be good to have some refrigeration (non-issue in texas last winter), lights, cell phone charging, maybe some limited AC and medical devices.
Understand all that. But the question remains, how long will storage work for? I don’t know about Texas, but here in Chicago my requirements are 1 HVAC, 2 sump pump, and potentially 3 refrigeration (seasonal) before all else. But how long can storage run 1 and 2? I don’t know the answer to that. If it’s a week, okay, great. If it’s 24 hours, well that probably isn’t sufficient as an emergency measure.
And frankly, if you are encouraging people to adopt solar/storage as an emergency measure I think it’s fair to understand that. I have a gas generator I can manually activate, I paid $400 (it was an open box return, retail was $800) and if I want to be truly effective, a manual switch and panel to back feed my system is probably another $500-1k. It takes 8gal every 11 hours at 50% capacity, so figure $52/day in gas (@$3/gal) to run it. That’s a small fraction of the cost of a solar/storage installation. I’ve looked into solar for my house, payback estimates range from 11-19 years. My solution assumes gas will be available, true.
Understand all that. But the question remains, how long will storage work for? I don’t know about Texas, but here in Chicago my requirements are 1 HVAC, 2 sump pump, and potentially 3 refrigeration (seasonal) before all else. But how long can storage run 1 and 2? I don’t know the answer to that. If it’s a week, okay, great. If it’s 24 hours, well that probably isn’t sufficient as an emergency measure.
And frankly, if you are encouraging people to adopt solar/storage as an emergency measure I think it’s fair to understand that. I have a gas generator I can manually activate, I paid $400 (it was an open box return, retail was $800) and if I want to be truly effective, a manual switch and panel to back feed my system is probably another $500-1k. It takes 8gal every 11 hours at 50% capacity, so figure $52/day in gas (@$3/gal) to run it. That’s a small fraction of the cost of a solar/storage installation. I’ve looked into solar for my house, payback estimates range from 11-19 years. My solution assumes gas will be available, true.
sizing a battery backup is complex and requires that one know what their power consumption for critical components is, and then make several assumptions, including 1) how long a power-failure are you planning for, 2) your solar output capability (if any), i.e. will it coincide with a long-summer sunny day or do you size your battery backup to cover a power failure coinciding with stormy winter day(s) when output might be just a few kw all day), and 3) whether you want it to be automatic (requiring an AC inverter) so it works even when you are away, or if you are ok with a DC (manual) switch and selecting which circuits to power.
The Tesla-powerwall is the best known and marketed battery backup system. It's about $10k installed and as I understand it always takes the AC inverter approach (it switches to battery backup automatically when the grid goes down). A single power wall (v. 2) is 13kw. I believe a single power-wall is rated to provide 5kw continuous (though if you draw that much you';l run out of power in a matter of hours).
Whether that is "enough" for an individual depends on so many factors there can be no easy answer. Because I have a secondary heat source (hot-water registers via a boiler which burns heating oil) I can heat my whole house with roughly 300w of electricity needed to run the thermostat and the two electric pumps that push water through the registers. Add the fridge and a few lights and a 13kw power wall could power my emergency needs for about two days without any top-off from my panels. Problem is, a quick look at my PV generation from last January and there are several consecutive days when my power generation was < 3kw, so even with this bare-bones use I'd be wary of relying on it for an extended (e.g. 5+ days) power-outage, and we get those every few years when monster nor'easter storms roll through. I probably *could* get by, but I'd be anxiously watching the weather and praying for a few sunny hours to replenish my battery.
You can of course size-up the battery pack at additional cost. Many well-to-do homes around here which have power walls have more than one to cover such extreme (but increasing in frequency) weather events.
Or... you can get a portable generator which will give you similar output for under $1k (plus fuel) or an "instant on" stand alone generator hooked up to either the gas line or an auxiliary propane tank; those systems will set you back $3k-5k depending on the sizing.
That’s my point. It’s not an indictment of solar, it’s a questioning of if solar + storage is really a viable backup system. I don’t think it is, at least not cost effectively versus a generator.
So when @talltexan is miffed at why his fellow Texans won’t install solar + storage as a backup system, it’s because it isn’t a very good solution, and really not a very cost effective solution as far as a backup system goes.
...
Would solar have helped in Texas in that example? Honest question, I don’t know. Seems like storage would have helped for a short term, but in times of significant outages is solar really a reliable backup for inclement weather?
I think you need to look at the utility of storage under (at least) to circumstances
1) normal day to day usage
2) serious emergency where normal life is disrupted.
If you are concerned about #2, then you need to look at what your no-shit-life and death power needs are. Like in a large scale post hurricane black out you dont need to size your storage so that you can run the cloths dryer/electric oven and plasma TV all at the same time for 10hr/day, and internet would likely be out so no working from home. In case #2 it would be good to have some refrigeration (non-issue in texas last winter), lights, cell phone charging, maybe some limited AC and medical devices.
Understand all that. But the question remains, how long will storage work for? I don’t know about Texas, but here in Chicago my requirements are 1 HVAC, 2 sump pump, and potentially 3 refrigeration (seasonal) before all else. But how long can storage run 1 and 2? I don’t know the answer to that. If it’s a week, okay, great. If it’s 24 hours, well that probably isn’t sufficient as an emergency measure.
And frankly, if you are encouraging people to adopt solar/storage as an emergency measure I think it’s fair to understand that. I have a gas generator I can manually activate, I paid $400 (it was an open box return, retail was $800) and if I want to be truly effective, a manual switch and panel to back feed my system is probably another $500-1k. It takes 8gal every 11 hours at 50% capacity, so figure $52/day in gas (@$3/gal) to run it. That’s a small fraction of the cost of a solar/storage installation. I’ve looked into solar for my house, payback estimates range from 11-19 years. My solution assumes gas will be available, true.
Are you assuming the sun will not shine at all during the power outage, I understand that even on overcast days they will generate some power? This would seem to need to be an individual calculation. For me if power were taken out in the winter solar + storage would be fine, I have gas heat and if I were really worried about the gas supply I would get my fireplace in working order. Then for hurricanes in warmer months I would more than likely be getting good sun the day after the storm (provided the house is not damaged...). Sourcing 18gal of gas per day would take a lot of work for me and probably not be practical after a hurricane, and I would be paying highly inflated (gouging) prices.
That’s my point. It’s not an indictment of solar, it’s a questioning of if solar + storage is really a viable backup system. I don’t think it is, at least not cost effectively versus a generator.
So when @talltexan is miffed at why his fellow Texans won’t install solar + storage as a backup system, it’s because it isn’t a very good solution, and really not a very cost effective solution as far as a backup system goes.
Solar is half a separate question from battery back up economically as you may get paid for what you generate during normal times.
please decouple this idea that batteries and solar go hand in hand they solve to very different problems.
It just seems kind of funny that the people in the South are more worried about power outages in a land where they will almost never freeze to death.it’s the “almost” part that will get you.
It just seems kind of funny that the people in the South are more worried about power outages in a land where they will almost never freeze to death.
If the only goal is to get through a relatively short emergency, a generator is more cost effective, also no comparison. Batteries are too darn expensive.
If the emergency is longer - as in "ran out of gas, and no way to get more" longer, more Puerto Rico than Texas kind of thing - then solar+storage begins to shine. It may not cover all your needs, it may not be able to supply you with power through the worst stretches, but you will have some power sometimes. With a generator and no fuel, you won't have power at all.
That’s my point. It’s not an indictment of solar, it’s a questioning of if solar + storage is really a viable backup system. I don’t think it is, at least not cost effectively versus a generator.
So when @talltexan is miffed at why his fellow Texans won’t install solar + storage as a backup system, it’s because it isn’t a very good solution, and really not a very cost effective solution as far as a backup system goes.
Solar is half a separate question from battery back up economically as you may get paid for what you generate during normal times.
Sure, except I mentioned the payback for me was estimated at 11 years (without storage, just solar). That assumes I pay cash ($37k is the upfront cost after incentives). With a lease it costs me $6k over 20 years, and with a loan it costs me $300? All using Project Sunroof online. Again, that’s before any storage.
Compare that to a couple grand for a manual generator and panel, or $12-15k for a gas standby.
That’s my point. It’s not an indictment of solar, it’s a questioning of if solar + storage is really a viable backup system. I don’t think it is, at least not cost effectively versus a generator.
So when @talltexan is miffed at why his fellow Texans won’t install solar + storage as a backup system, it’s because it isn’t a very good solution, and really not a very cost effective solution as far as a backup system goes.
Solar is half a separate question from battery back up economically as you may get paid for what you generate during normal times.
Sure, except I mentioned the payback for me was estimated at 11 years (without storage, just solar). That assumes I pay cash ($37k is the upfront cost after incentives). With a lease it costs me $6k over 20 years, and with a loan it costs me $300? All using Project Sunroof online. Again, that’s before any storage.
Compare that to a couple grand for a manual generator and panel, or $12-15k for a gas standby.
you're not doing your cost side of your equation correctly i did the same thing for years. til i found a reddit thread on semi DIY. i had mine installed for 11k after incentives with 5 year payback. far better and mostly guaranteed compared to market returns.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SolarDIY/comments/d778sv/i_saved_16000_on_my_solar_install_by_buying/
followed this. 10kWh system installed for about 19k pre incentives. 11k after fed and local.
That’s my point. It’s not an indictment of solar, it’s a questioning of if solar + storage is really a viable backup system. I don’t think it is, at least not cost effectively versus a generator.
So when @talltexan is miffed at why his fellow Texans won’t install solar + storage as a backup system, it’s because it isn’t a very good solution, and really not a very cost effective solution as far as a backup system goes.
Solar is half a separate question from battery back up economically as you may get paid for what you generate during normal times.
Sure, except I mentioned the payback for me was estimated at 11 years (without storage, just solar). That assumes I pay cash ($37k is the upfront cost after incentives). With a lease it costs me $6k over 20 years, and with a loan it costs me $300? All using Project Sunroof online. Again, that’s before any storage.
Compare that to a couple grand for a manual generator and panel, or $12-15k for a gas standby.
you're not doing your cost side of your equation correctly i did the same thing for years. til i found a reddit thread on semi DIY. i had mine installed for 11k after incentives with 5 year payback. far better and mostly guaranteed compared to market returns.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SolarDIY/comments/d778sv/i_saved_16000_on_my_solar_install_by_buying/
followed this. 10kWh system installed for about 19k pre incentives. 11k after fed and local.
Probably true. Still a lot more expensive than the $400 I paid for a generator and $500-1k for a panel/switch. I actually plan on doing a custom switch install this spring, I’m going to add a 220v outlet for a car charger in my garage, so I’m going to install a dedicated panel outside for the (detached) garage, and just wire it so I can backfill my panel from the garage sub panel.
That’s my point. It’s not an indictment of solar, it’s a questioning of if solar + storage is really a viable backup system. I don’t think it is, at least not cost effectively versus a generator.
So when @talltexan is miffed at why his fellow Texans won’t install solar + storage as a backup system, it’s because it isn’t a very good solution, and really not a very cost effective solution as far as a backup system goes.
Solar is half a separate question from battery back up economically as you may get paid for what you generate during normal times.
Sure, except I mentioned the payback for me was estimated at 11 years (without storage, just solar). That assumes I pay cash ($37k is the upfront cost after incentives). With a lease it costs me $6k over 20 years, and with a loan it costs me $300? All using Project Sunroof online. Again, that’s before any storage.
Compare that to a couple grand for a manual generator and panel, or $12-15k for a gas standby.
you're not doing your cost side of your equation correctly i did the same thing for years. til i found a reddit thread on semi DIY. i had mine installed for 11k after incentives with 5 year payback. far better and mostly guaranteed compared to market returns.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SolarDIY/comments/d778sv/i_saved_16000_on_my_solar_install_by_buying/
followed this. 10kWh system installed for about 19k pre incentives. 11k after fed and local.
Probably true. Still a lot more expensive than the $400 I paid for a generator and $500-1k for a panel/switch. I actually plan on doing a custom switch install this spring, I’m going to add a 220v outlet for a car charger in my garage, so I’m going to install a dedicated panel outside for the (detached) garage, and just wire it so I can backfill my panel from the garage sub panel.
solar isnt a replacement to a generator its a money making machine on your roof stop comparing the 2 .
That’s my point. It’s not an indictment of solar, it’s a questioning of if solar + storage is really a viable backup system. I don’t think it is, at least not cost effectively versus a generator.
So when @talltexan is miffed at why his fellow Texans won’t install solar + storage as a backup system, it’s because it isn’t a very good solution, and really not a very cost effective solution as far as a backup system goes.
Solar is half a separate question from battery back up economically as you may get paid for what you generate during normal times.
Sure, except I mentioned the payback for me was estimated at 11 years (without storage, just solar). That assumes I pay cash ($37k is the upfront cost after incentives). With a lease it costs me $6k over 20 years, and with a loan it costs me $300? All using Project Sunroof online. Again, that’s before any storage.
Compare that to a couple grand for a manual generator and panel, or $12-15k for a gas standby.
you're not doing your cost side of your equation correctly i did the same thing for years. til i found a reddit thread on semi DIY. i had mine installed for 11k after incentives with 5 year payback. far better and mostly guaranteed compared to market returns.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SolarDIY/comments/d778sv/i_saved_16000_on_my_solar_install_by_buying/
followed this. 10kWh system installed for about 19k pre incentives. 11k after fed and local.
Probably true. Still a lot more expensive than the $400 I paid for a generator and $500-1k for a panel/switch. I actually plan on doing a custom switch install this spring, I’m going to add a 220v outlet for a car charger in my garage, so I’m going to install a dedicated panel outside for the (detached) garage, and just wire it so I can backfill my panel from the garage sub panel.
solar isnt a replacement to a generator its a money making machine on your roof stop comparing the 2 .
People are literally discussing using solar as power outage backup. A solar system is a different animal than solar+battery. Not understanding this is the exact problem that is being discussed.
Plus, roof top solar is literally the least efficient type of solar. It's actually one of the least efficient types of renewables. It makes sense right now because it is subsidized (I'm not complaining about that, I'm just pointing out that on a national level it isn't our best option). Solar+generator is another option that is money making but also grid backup. Or buying solar/wind credits and a generator backup. Or no solar but just battery backup. These can all be decoupled and applied as makes sense.
you're not doing your cost side of your equation correctly i did the same thing for years. til i found a reddit thread on semi DIY. i had mine installed for 11k after incentives with 5 year payback. far better and mostly guaranteed compared to market returns.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SolarDIY/comments/d778sv/i_saved_16000_on_my_solar_install_by_buying/
followed this. 10kWh system installed for about 19k pre incentives. 11k after fed and local.
Although the prices quoted are a bit insane, above $3 per watt before tax rebate. I got $2.45 through a local group purchase program. A neighbor got $2.75 just shopping around. The Reddit person got it down to $2.18, what looks like. But it's a different market in a different time.
If I got my system at $2.18, it would save me ~$1,450. Not nothing, and even assuming 10 hours on my part, it would make $145/hour. But not quite comparable to $16K off.
The marketed, automatic-standby setup, sure. But if you're willing to manually switch over to backup power, you could also use the pro-power 220V outlet. Someone linked upthread the version available on the F150 hybrid, and if I'm reading correctly it sounds like the Lightning can output even more power via this avenue.QuoteThe Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
Just be aware, the v2h features is likely to be an optional purchase, not standard equipment, and will require additional electrical work at your home.
So it'll be interesting to see what is more effective. F150 V2H vs a smaller home battery.
The V2H capability requires Ford's 80A "Charge Station Pro" which is included with Lightnings when the customer chooses the big "extended range" battery pack. It's optional for buyers who don't get the big pack.
https://www.carscoops.com/2021/05/how-the-new-ford-f-150-lightning-can-help-you-keep-the-lights-of-your-house-always-on/
They make it sound like no additional hardware would be needed:
https://www.motortrend.com/news/fords-charge-station-pro-first-vehicle-to-grid-charger/
"At launch the truck will come with a corded charger that can plug into a 110- or 240-volt socket for level 1 or 2 charging. F-150 Lightning models ordered with the extended-range battery will come standard with Ford Charge Station Pro, which is capable of charging at a rate of 19.2 kW—that's as much as double some Level 2 charger rates. This charger obviously must be professionally installed and includes the same safety hardware to prevent backcharging the grid and endangering line workers repairing storm damage. The details options for actually powering the grid via vehicle-to-grid charging may vary regionally."
The marketed, automatic-standby setup, sure. But if you're willing to manually switch over to backup power, you could also use the pro-power 220V outlet. Someone linked upthread the version available on the F150 hybrid, and if I'm reading correctly it sounds like the Lightning can output even more power via this avenue.QuoteThe Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
Just be aware, the v2h features is likely to be an optional purchase, not standard equipment, and will require additional electrical work at your home.
So it'll be interesting to see what is more effective. F150 V2H vs a smaller home battery.
The V2H capability requires Ford's 80A "Charge Station Pro" which is included with Lightnings when the customer chooses the big "extended range" battery pack. It's optional for buyers who don't get the big pack.
https://www.carscoops.com/2021/05/how-the-new-ford-f-150-lightning-can-help-you-keep-the-lights-of-your-house-always-on/
They make it sound like no additional hardware would be needed:
https://www.motortrend.com/news/fords-charge-station-pro-first-vehicle-to-grid-charger/
"At launch the truck will come with a corded charger that can plug into a 110- or 240-volt socket for level 1 or 2 charging. F-150 Lightning models ordered with the extended-range battery will come standard with Ford Charge Station Pro, which is capable of charging at a rate of 19.2 kW—that's as much as double some Level 2 charger rates. This charger obviously must be professionally installed and includes the same safety hardware to prevent backcharging the grid and endangering line workers repairing storm damage. The details options for actually powering the grid via vehicle-to-grid charging may vary regionally."
I may not be willing to install my own solar panels, or even do a very good shopping for them, but I sure as hell can move a truck and plug in an extension cord.
Why would they be considering "truck as standby generator" in that case? Or do they also own that many vehicles that you can just leave one at the second home for long periods?The marketed, automatic-standby setup, sure. But if you're willing to manually switch over to backup power, you could also use the pro-power 220V outlet. Someone linked upthread the version available on the F150 hybrid, and if I'm reading correctly it sounds like the Lightning can output even more power via this avenue.QuoteThe Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
Just be aware, the v2h features is likely to be an optional purchase, not standard equipment, and will require additional electrical work at your home.
So it'll be interesting to see what is more effective. F150 V2H vs a smaller home battery.
The V2H capability requires Ford's 80A "Charge Station Pro" which is included with Lightnings when the customer chooses the big "extended range" battery pack. It's optional for buyers who don't get the big pack.
https://www.carscoops.com/2021/05/how-the-new-ford-f-150-lightning-can-help-you-keep-the-lights-of-your-house-always-on/
They make it sound like no additional hardware would be needed:
https://www.motortrend.com/news/fords-charge-station-pro-first-vehicle-to-grid-charger/
"At launch the truck will come with a corded charger that can plug into a 110- or 240-volt socket for level 1 or 2 charging. F-150 Lightning models ordered with the extended-range battery will come standard with Ford Charge Station Pro, which is capable of charging at a rate of 19.2 kW—that's as much as double some Level 2 charger rates. This charger obviously must be professionally installed and includes the same safety hardware to prevent backcharging the grid and endangering line workers repairing storm damage. The details options for actually powering the grid via vehicle-to-grid charging may vary regionally."
I may not be willing to install my own solar panels, or even do a very good shopping for them, but I sure as hell can move a truck and plug in an extension cord.
If you’re home. Automatic standby is good for people who may not be home. Many of the people I know who have them have second homes far away where they spend a good amount of time, and they may not be around to move a truck and plug in a cord.
My ground mount (15.9kW) was $1.50/W pre-incentives. It did take me a lot of time to do, but half of that was figuring out what worked for my ground mount. I'm working with some other people on a metal-framework based design that ought to be similar cost, require some welding, and be an awful lot faster to install.
Why would they be considering "truck as standby generator" in that case? Or do they also own that many vehicles that you can just leave one at the second home for long periods?The marketed, automatic-standby setup, sure. But if you're willing to manually switch over to backup power, you could also use the pro-power 220V outlet. Someone linked upthread the version available on the F150 hybrid, and if I'm reading correctly it sounds like the Lightning can output even more power via this avenue.QuoteThe Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
Just be aware, the v2h features is likely to be an optional purchase, not standard equipment, and will require additional electrical work at your home.
So it'll be interesting to see what is more effective. F150 V2H vs a smaller home battery.
The V2H capability requires Ford's 80A "Charge Station Pro" which is included with Lightnings when the customer chooses the big "extended range" battery pack. It's optional for buyers who don't get the big pack.
https://www.carscoops.com/2021/05/how-the-new-ford-f-150-lightning-can-help-you-keep-the-lights-of-your-house-always-on/
They make it sound like no additional hardware would be needed:
https://www.motortrend.com/news/fords-charge-station-pro-first-vehicle-to-grid-charger/
"At launch the truck will come with a corded charger that can plug into a 110- or 240-volt socket for level 1 or 2 charging. F-150 Lightning models ordered with the extended-range battery will come standard with Ford Charge Station Pro, which is capable of charging at a rate of 19.2 kW—that's as much as double some Level 2 charger rates. This charger obviously must be professionally installed and includes the same safety hardware to prevent backcharging the grid and endangering line workers repairing storm damage. The details options for actually powering the grid via vehicle-to-grid charging may vary regionally."
I may not be willing to install my own solar panels, or even do a very good shopping for them, but I sure as hell can move a truck and plug in an extension cord.
If you’re home. Automatic standby is good for people who may not be home. Many of the people I know who have them have second homes far away where they spend a good amount of time, and they may not be around to move a truck and plug in a cord.
Also pretty sure that installing that 80A charger is the additional electrical work gooki is referencing. That's gotta be a new circuit for the vast majority of people who buy that, particularly if you're wiring such that it can also back up your house. But you don't have to have that if you're willing to treat the truck more like an under $1,000 gas generator vs. a $10,000 full-standby natural gas setup.
QuoteThe Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
Just be aware, the v2h features is likely to be an optional purchase, not standard equipment, and will require additional electrical work at your home.
So it'll be interesting to see what is more effective. F150 V2H vs a smaller home battery.
The V2H capability requires Ford's 80A "Charge Station Pro" which is included with Lightnings when the customer chooses the big "extended range" battery pack. It's optional for buyers who don't get the big pack.
https://www.carscoops.com/2021/05/how-the-new-ford-f-150-lightning-can-help-you-keep-the-lights-of-your-house-always-on/
They make it sound like no additional hardware would be needed:
https://www.motortrend.com/news/fords-charge-station-pro-first-vehicle-to-grid-charger/
"At launch the truck will come with a corded charger that can plug into a 110- or 240-volt socket for level 1 or 2 charging. F-150 Lightning models ordered with the extended-range battery will come standard with Ford Charge Station Pro, which is capable of charging at a rate of 19.2 kW—that's as much as double some Level 2 charger rates. This charger obviously must be professionally installed and includes the same safety hardware to prevent backcharging the grid and endangering line workers repairing storm damage. The details options for actually powering the grid via vehicle-to-grid charging may vary regionally."
That's awesome! Maybe it feels like it because it's all in my head, but extra expense of ground mount seem to be more than offset by its DIY-ness. I'm fine with digging and messing with circuits, but working on the roof above two stories... call me soft, but I'll pass.
cheaper to just run a 240v receptacle then and plug the truck into it.
The marketed, automatic-standby setup, sure. But if you're willing to manually switch over to backup power, you could also use the pro-power 220V outlet. Someone linked upthread the version available on the F150 hybrid, and if I'm reading correctly it sounds like the Lightning can output even more power via this avenue.QuoteThe Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
Just be aware, the v2h features is likely to be an optional purchase, not standard equipment, and will require additional electrical work at your home.
So it'll be interesting to see what is more effective. F150 V2H vs a smaller home battery.
The V2H capability requires Ford's 80A "Charge Station Pro" which is included with Lightnings when the customer chooses the big "extended range" battery pack. It's optional for buyers who don't get the big pack.
https://www.carscoops.com/2021/05/how-the-new-ford-f-150-lightning-can-help-you-keep-the-lights-of-your-house-always-on/
They make it sound like no additional hardware would be needed:
https://www.motortrend.com/news/fords-charge-station-pro-first-vehicle-to-grid-charger/
"At launch the truck will come with a corded charger that can plug into a 110- or 240-volt socket for level 1 or 2 charging. F-150 Lightning models ordered with the extended-range battery will come standard with Ford Charge Station Pro, which is capable of charging at a rate of 19.2 kW—that's as much as double some Level 2 charger rates. This charger obviously must be professionally installed and includes the same safety hardware to prevent backcharging the grid and endangering line workers repairing storm damage. The details options for actually powering the grid via vehicle-to-grid charging may vary regionally."
I may not be willing to install my own solar panels, or even do a very good shopping for them, but I sure as hell can move a truck and plug in an extension cord.
Avoid feedback to the grid - the low-tech solution is called an "interlock kit". Sliding plates that make it impossible for the breakers to be in an unsafe position. You cannot flip both the input from city breaker and the generator breaker into the connected position at the same time. Fancier version is called a transfer switch, which I'd assume is part of that home-integration part of the setup the F150 docs say you need.The marketed, automatic-standby setup, sure. But if you're willing to manually switch over to backup power, you could also use the pro-power 220V outlet. Someone linked upthread the version available on the F150 hybrid, and if I'm reading correctly it sounds like the Lightning can output even more power via this avenue.QuoteThe Ford F-150 hybrid currently has this capability. And the all electric Lightning can power your home for "up to" 3 days if it starts with a full charge.
Just be aware, the v2h features is likely to be an optional purchase, not standard equipment, and will require additional electrical work at your home.
So it'll be interesting to see what is more effective. F150 V2H vs a smaller home battery.
The V2H capability requires Ford's 80A "Charge Station Pro" which is included with Lightnings when the customer chooses the big "extended range" battery pack. It's optional for buyers who don't get the big pack.
https://www.carscoops.com/2021/05/how-the-new-ford-f-150-lightning-can-help-you-keep-the-lights-of-your-house-always-on/
They make it sound like no additional hardware would be needed:
https://www.motortrend.com/news/fords-charge-station-pro-first-vehicle-to-grid-charger/
"At launch the truck will come with a corded charger that can plug into a 110- or 240-volt socket for level 1 or 2 charging. F-150 Lightning models ordered with the extended-range battery will come standard with Ford Charge Station Pro, which is capable of charging at a rate of 19.2 kW—that's as much as double some Level 2 charger rates. This charger obviously must be professionally installed and includes the same safety hardware to prevent backcharging the grid and endangering line workers repairing storm damage. The details options for actually powering the grid via vehicle-to-grid charging may vary regionally."
I may not be willing to install my own solar panels, or even do a very good shopping for them, but I sure as hell can move a truck and plug in an extension cord.
Wouldn't you need some way to avoid back feeding the grid with this method? And some way to connect to your panel? Seems to me like you'd probably be doing some very similar electrical work either way.
The 80 amp charger is apparently included with the long range trucks, and will increase charging rates vs other options, so even if you don't plan to use it as a backup power source you might as well wire it up since it's already paid for and gives you faster charging. But why wouldn't you want that capability? At that point, the big question is, does it make sense to pay for the fancy charger as a stand alone option with the smaller battery? I think that's certainly a question worth asking. You don't necessarily need the faster charging to fully charge the smaller battery, and with less capacity it wouldn't last as long when needed as a backup power source.
I also learned today that Lucid offers similar V2G capability in their Air model, so it seems like that capability is likely to become increasingly common in EVs.
Why would someone do it this way with using the pro-power output vs. the full-automatic way? Because even if the equipment is included, you'd have to install the thing at the house, which is at minimum work that might be unnecessary, definitely requires permits even if you DIY, and if you don't DIY costs hundreds to thousands of dollars depending on your variables. I already have an EV, and thus a charging solution at the house, and a whole-house setup for plugging in a portable generator - if you don't have any way to even charge the truck you're buying yet, nor a generator input, then maybe the cost of installing this vs. something else is about the same or pretty close.
Didn't see that the 80-amp came standard with the extended-range battery. Thanks for pointing it out. Does that mean the equipment for the wall comes with in addition to the truck-side stuff? Because I'd think the wall equipment would be an "extra if you want it" thing while anything different about the truck itself needed to hook up with that would be what actually comes standard on the upgraded versions. The wall stuff probably costs several thousands of dollars by itself, and not everyone is going to want it, even those buying the extended range battery. Seems perfect as an optional add-on, assuming the truck you buy has what it needs to have.
One thing I'm not seeing in the specs, hopefully just because it is just something you'd assume on any EV - the standard L1&2 port on this thing? J-something. That would be a deal breaker for me given already set up for L1 charging at home, and the widely available free L2 chargers around us.
What I find most interesting in all this as a German is that so many people earnestly talk about power outage backup, and even more, that it is an actual advertising point.
Would not work here. I had exactly 1 time when a power outage lasted a bit more than a day, and that was when the local distribution shed burned down and the repairman ran out of spare parts by exactly one. All of the other 20 or so apartment buildings where up one after the other, most until midnight the first day (fire was late midday I think), 3 or so in early morning next day. Only we had to wait until early evening. So maybe 30 hours.
Every other outage except 1 was so short that your fridge had not time to get dangerously warm.
What I find most interesting in all this as a German is that so many people earnestly talk about power outage backup, and even more, that it is an actual advertising point.
Would not work here. I had exactly 1 time when a power outage lasted a bit more than a day, and that was when the local distribution shed burned down and the repairman ran out of spare parts by exactly one. All of the other 20 or so apartment buildings where up one after the other, most until midnight the first day (fire was late midday I think), 3 or so in early morning next day. Only we had to wait until early evening. So maybe 30 hours.
Every other outage except 1 was so short that your fridge had not time to get dangerously warm.
Re adoption of electric cars, the question of what to plug into for home charging is a barrier to some. Last weekend while attending Electrify Expo https://www.electrifyexpo.com/, I ran across a surprisingly cheap solution for people who have dryers in a location semi-accessible to their cars.
It's called SplitVolt. In layman's terms (all I can give ya!) it's basically a splitter that uses the dryer circuit to charge your EV when the dryer isn't on. You just plug it into the power outlet for the dryer, then plug the dryer and the car into it. Costs about $350.
https://www.splitvolt.com/
i'd say this is pretty common for where i live as well. our only Natural disaster is a tornado and if that hits us i dont think we care about power too much. My neighborhood is less than 20 years old at least the side i live on and all power cables are buried so we are very very rarely affected by any outtages. But every 10-15 years we'll probably get a bad enough ice storm that takes out lines way upstream of us and we'll have power out for 4-8 hours
Re adoption of electric cars, the question of what to plug into for home charging is a barrier to some. Last weekend while attending Electrify Expo https://www.electrifyexpo.com/, I ran across a surprisingly cheap solution for people who have dryers in a location semi-accessible to their cars.
It's called SplitVolt. In layman's terms (all I can give ya!) it's basically a splitter that uses the dryer circuit to charge your EV when the dryer isn't on. You just plug it into the power outlet for the dryer, then plug the dryer and the car into it. Costs about $350.
https://www.splitvolt.com/
$350 seems pretty steep... then I checked NM-B/3 prices... maybe it's not so bad. Still could run a line yourself cheaper probably, but not by too much. It'd be a much better long term solution though.
It's called SplitVolt. In layman's terms (all I can give ya!) it's basically a splitter that uses the dryer circuit to charge your EV when the dryer isn't on. You just plug it into the power outlet for the dryer, then plug the dryer and the car into it. Costs about $350.
https://www.splitvolt.com/
It's called SplitVolt. In layman's terms (all I can give ya!) it's basically a splitter that uses the dryer circuit to charge your EV when the dryer isn't on. You just plug it into the power outlet for the dryer, then plug the dryer and the car into it. Costs about $350.
https://www.splitvolt.com/
Also if you are able to take it when you travel, like you are going to be at a families house for a week you could still charge as quickly as at home.
Last month, EV share of new car sales in Germany was 30%, in France 23%.
Last month, EV share of new car sales in Germany was 30%, in France 23%.
Small countries less car to person ratios. Much easier to reach those numbers than the us. This is solely a supply chain issue at this point. If we could build the batteries the demand is there in the us. Esp now that trucks have hit the market. But I don't think they can ramp fast enough for demand short term. And the big 3 are very poorly estimating the demand once the trucks are here and tested and people feel the much better performance of an ev in a truck vs ice performance.
Places that subsidize EVs more, have higher sales of EVs. This holds when comparing between different countries, but also when comparing smaller regions within countries (state to state, province to province, etc).
There are supply chain issues with batteries, but even if those were resolved tomorrow I'm not sure you'd see OEMs cranking out as many EVs as possible. Although $/kWh has fallen a lot in recent years, batteries (and therefore EVs) are still more expensive to make than ICEs. That means higher prices, and/or smaller profit margins than ICEs for a couple more years. There's not much motivation for an OEM to send out tons of EVs with 8% profit when they're making 10% on the equivalent ICE. Time will bring $/kWh down enough over the next couple of years to make that gap disappear. It's a big reason why so many OEMs are targeting 2024-2025 for more widespread EV roll outs. They should have adequate supply by then, and they should also be more profitable by then. That's when legacy OEMs will actually start designing/making/selling EVs in earnest.
Last month, EV share of new car sales in Germany was 30%, in France 23%.
Small countries less car to person ratios. Much easier to reach those numbers than the us. This is solely a supply chain issue at this point. If we could build the batteries the demand is there in the us. Esp now that trucks have hit the market. But I don't think they can ramp fast enough for demand short term. And the big 3 are very poorly estimating the demand once the trucks are here and tested and people feel the much better performance of an ev in a truck vs ice performance.
With all due respect, it has nothing to do with sizes of countries. And neither France, nor Germany are small. Just these two are half the size of the US, and the dynamic of EV sales is similar in the rest of Western European countries.
The level of car ownership is a factor. EVs are a bigger share of a smaller (esp.after a Covid drop) market. But the absolute numbers, or size of markets, doesn't explain the difference fully. Americans were buying 50,000 EVs per month this year on average. Germans bought 50,000 in October, despite being outnumbered by Americans ~1:4.
Again, a much smaller Germany, alone, bought as many EVs as the US. Are they less affected by supply chain problems?
PS
American sales 2021 H1 (too lazy to find more recent data): https://evadoption.com/us-electric-vehicle-sales-report-1h-2021-now-available/
German October sales: https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/18/30-plugin-vehicle-share-in-german-auto-market/
Places that subsidize EVs more, have higher sales of EVs. This holds when comparing between different countries, but also when comparing smaller regions within countries (state to state, province to province, etc).
There are supply chain issues with batteries, but even if those were resolved tomorrow I'm not sure you'd see OEMs cranking out as many EVs as possible. Although $/kWh has fallen a lot in recent years, batteries (and therefore EVs) are still more expensive to make than ICEs. That means higher prices, and/or smaller profit margins than ICEs for a couple more years. There's not much motivation for an OEM to send out tons of EVs with 8% profit when they're making 10% on the equivalent ICE. Time will bring $/kWh down enough over the next couple of years to make that gap disappear. It's a big reason why so many OEMs are targeting 2024-2025 for more widespread EV roll outs. They should have adequate supply by then, and they should also be more profitable by then. That's when legacy OEMs will actually start designing/making/selling EVs in earnest.
Lots of other variables in play including incentives and distance to drive that make them far more appealing. These 2 countries buy less than 1/4 the cars the us buys annually. The also account for an insanely small amount of land area all things considered. Even the full eu is tiny. Oh and their gas costs are over double almost 2.5x the cost here.
The fact that 2 countries that are far smaller than the size of the us good the same population speaks to a density thing that doesn't exist here either.
At the end of the day though economics are economics and this is a supply chain issue today whether you believe it or not. If everyone wanted a new ev tomorrow where would it come from. It can't.
You also conveniently ignored my statement that the types of cars made so far favor cars Europe buys and not the us. Trucks and real SUVs are just beginning to roll off assembly lines.
- SNIP -
Oh, you mean size in terms of square kilometers, not millions of people. That makes more sense, but only to a point. Vast majority of driving happens within a fairly small radius, although that radius may be even smaller in the EU.
In the US, long-distance EV travel is not a problem, as long as you drive a Tesla. In the EU, long-distance EV travel is not a problem, period. Someone has been building up the infrastructure, it didn't grow by itself. And someone had foresight to enforce a common connector standard.
Yes, gas cost is absolutely a factor. It really sucks that our voters refuse to let externalities to be priced in.
Everyone is affected by supply chain problems. They are real. Yet we have 50K EV sales a month in big US, and 50K EV sales a month in small Germany. Again, hard to come to a conclusion that it is an accident, and had nothing to do with policies enacted years ago.
Yes, European manufacturers make cars that Europeans like, including EVs. Similarly, legacy American manufacturers have been make cars that Americans like, but excluding EVs (save, again, Tesla, which is blissfully unaffected by EV-related supply chain troubles). It was possible to make electric clown cars, Tesla Model X is proof positive. Legacy manufacturers simply refused. Have they not refused - or had our government had a foresight to force them - all the capacity that's slated to come online in 2024-2025 would be coming online now. Those 4 years wasted on one side of the pond, but not another - I wonder if they have a name attached to them or something....
The thing markets itself.
- SNIP -
Oh, you mean size in terms of square kilometers, not millions of people. That makes more sense, but only to a point. Vast majority of driving happens within a fairly small radius, although that radius may be even smaller in the EU.
In the US, long-distance EV travel is not a problem, as long as you drive a Tesla. In the EU, long-distance EV travel is not a problem, period. Someone has been building up the infrastructure, it didn't grow by itself. And someone had foresight to enforce a common connector standard.
Yes, gas cost is absolutely a factor. It really sucks that our voters refuse to let externalities to be priced in.
Everyone is affected by supply chain problems. They are real. Yet we have 50K EV sales a month in big US, and 50K EV sales a month in small Germany. Again, hard to come to a conclusion that it is an accident, and had nothing to do with policies enacted years ago.
Yes, European manufacturers make cars that Europeans like, including EVs. Similarly, legacy American manufacturers have been make cars that Americans like, but excluding EVs (save, again, Tesla, which is blissfully unaffected by EV-related supply chain troubles). It was possible to make electric clown cars, Tesla Model X is proof positive. Legacy manufacturers simply refused. Have they not refused - or had our government had a foresight to force them - all the capacity that's slated to come online in 2024-2025 would be coming online now. Those 4 years wasted on one side of the pond, but not another - I wonder if they have a name attached to them or something....
I don't think it is just Tesla making cool cars for Americans. I was entering the grocery store last week. I saw one of those new electric Mustangs in the parking lot. This thing was the epitome of the old muscle cars. It glistened even on the grey pre-Winter day. I was visualizing who the driver would be. I pictured Rapid Roy the Stock Car boy with tattoos, muscles and a cigarette dangling from his mouth.
On the way out of the grocery store, I was again admiring the car when the owner appeared. She was a friendly short little old lady.
The thing markets itself.
On the way out of the gorocery
This is only cool for a CUV. It’s one step away from being headed to soccer practice.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfqpbZtUDAL_I99Yf3B0KoBLq2LVFIPbpugg&usqp=CAU)
From what you’ve said @boarder42 it seems less that these European countries are subsidizing EVs and more that we have incentivized gasoline and driving over other forms of transit here in the United States.
From what you’ve said @boarder42 it seems less that these European countries are subsidizing EVs and more that we have incentivized gasoline and driving over other forms of transit here in the United States.
Just to take a single point of this . . . The price of gas in Canada is too cheap and subsidized by the government to the tune of about 18 billion dollars a year. But the prices in the US are insanely cheap. It would be interesting to see what the effect of just raising US prices to even 6$ per gallon (cheaper than what we pay) would be. Removing all gas related subsidies would likely drive prices much higher.
From what you’ve said @boarder42 it seems less that these European countries are subsidizing EVs and more that we have incentivized gasoline and driving over other forms of transit here in the United States.
Just to take a single point of this . . . The price of gas in Canada is too cheap and subsidized by the government to the tune of about 18 billion dollars a year. But the prices in the US are insanely cheap. It would be interesting to see what the effect of just raising US prices to even 6$ per gallon (cheaper than what we pay) would be. Removing all gas related subsidies would likely drive prices much higher.
Then we can stop the ~$20B in direct subsidies for fossil fuelsAre we (USA) seriously subsidizing fossil fuels more than EVs right now? Geez....
Then we can stop the ~$20B in direct subsidies for fossil fuelsAre we (USA) seriously subsidizing fossil fuels more than EVs right now? Geez....
Boy, you have no idea!Then we can stop the ~$20B in direct subsidies for fossil fuelsAre we (USA) seriously subsidizing fossil fuels more than EVs right now? Geez....
CUV - Cool Utility Vehicleor Cross Utility Vehicle?
Boy, you have no idea!Then we can stop the ~$20B in direct subsidies for fossil fuelsAre we (USA) seriously subsidizing fossil fuels more than EVs right now? Geez....
Don't even ask about health costs. And for that matter in the past: leaded fuel. IQ drops and higher crime rates from that. Expensive!!
...
Uh the Mustang Mach-E EV is pretty cool for what it is, but it’s a 5-door CUV type thing. In no way is it anywhere near as cool as an old Mustang.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSirxsPCFKlz6d3quAa27XvwB8gKq8QV9YL5Q&usqp=CAU)
This is cool.
This is only cool for a CUV. It’s one step away from being headed to soccer practice.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfqpbZtUDAL_I99Yf3B0KoBLq2LVFIPbpugg&usqp=CAU)
100% Saw the Mach-e on the road for the first time and numerous four letter words crossed my mind about how it looked nothing like a mustang (of any vintage). Am no car guy but it looks like any other large generic cross over.
CUVs look suspiciously like a different name for station wagon.
CUVs look suspiciously like a different name for station wagon.
CUV = jacked up hatchback.
And yes station wagons are cool.
CUV = jacked up hatchback.
And yes station wagons are cool.
this has kinda been my point about the adoption of EVs in the US CUVs are not the same as the SUVs and trucks people drive most commonly here. We now have the same body type EVs finally rolling off lines and it will accelerate adoption to those of europe where tiny EVs and these CUVs are already far more popular than the types of vehicles made in the US. i mean shoot there isnt even an all EV minivan available which is what i'd prefer to buy over the others.
what we find cool on these forums isnt the same as the general populations view of what kind of vehicle they "need"
CUV = jacked up hatchback.
And yes station wagons are cool.
this has kinda been my point about the adoption of EVs in the US CUVs are not the same as the SUVs and trucks people drive most commonly here. We now have the same body type EVs finally rolling off lines and it will accelerate adoption to those of europe where tiny EVs and these CUVs are already far more popular than the types of vehicles made in the US. i mean shoot there isnt even an all EV minivan available which is what i'd prefer to buy over the others.
what we find cool on these forums isnt the same as the general populations view of what kind of vehicle they "need"
I get what you mean about there not being a pickup truck until now, but I’m not sure I agree about the rest “…the SUVs and trucks that people most commonly drive around here”.
The American car landscape has shifted towards CUVs in a very big way, and that’s largely why we are seeing those as the first non-luxury sedans as BEVs. After the three pickups which hold the top three sales spots, the best-selling vehicles in the US right now are the Toyota Rav4 and Honda CR-V, then the c-labeled compact sedans (civic, Corolla and camery). There’s a big gap between sales of Toyota and Honda’s CRVs and any other full-size SUV. Mazda’s CR-5 also sits very high in vehicle sales.
CUV = jacked up hatchback.
And yes station wagons are cool.
this has kinda been my point about the adoption of EVs in the US CUVs are not the same as the SUVs and trucks people drive most commonly here. We now have the same body type EVs finally rolling off lines and it will accelerate adoption to those of europe where tiny EVs and these CUVs are already far more popular than the types of vehicles made in the US. i mean shoot there isnt even an all EV minivan available which is what i'd prefer to buy over the others.
what we find cool on these forums isnt the same as the general populations view of what kind of vehicle they "need"
I get what you mean about there not being a pickup truck until now, but I’m not sure I agree about the rest “…the SUVs and trucks that people most commonly drive around here”.
The American car landscape has shifted towards CUVs in a very big way, and that’s largely why we are seeing those as the first non-luxury sedans as BEVs. After the three pickups which hold the top three sales spots, the best-selling vehicles in the US right now are the Toyota Rav4 and Honda CR-V, then the c-labeled compact sedans (civic, Corolla and camery). There’s a big gap between sales of Toyota and Honda’s CRVs and any other full-size SUV. Mazda’s CR-5 also sits very high in vehicle sales.
CUV = jacked up hatchback.
And yes station wagons are cool.
this has kinda been my point about the adoption of EVs in the US CUVs are not the same as the SUVs and trucks people drive most commonly here. We now have the same body type EVs finally rolling off lines and it will accelerate adoption to those of europe where tiny EVs and these CUVs are already far more popular than the types of vehicles made in the US. i mean shoot there isnt even an all EV minivan available which is what i'd prefer to buy over the others.
what we find cool on these forums isnt the same as the general populations view of what kind of vehicle they "need"
I get what you mean about there not being a pickup truck until now, but I’m not sure I agree about the rest “…the SUVs and trucks that people most commonly drive around here”.
The American car landscape has shifted towards CUVs in a very big way, and that’s largely why we are seeing those as the first non-luxury sedans as BEVs. After the three pickups which hold the top three sales spots, the best-selling vehicles in the US right now are the Toyota Rav4 and Honda CR-V, then the c-labeled compact sedans (civic, Corolla and camery). There’s a big gap between sales of Toyota and Honda’s CRVs and any other full-size SUV. Mazda’s CR-5 also sits very high in vehicle sales.
I think what Boarder is saying is that up until now, many EVs were small hatchbacks or sedans which consumers have been shifting away from. These are great for Asian and European markets, but didn't have much appeal to AMerican buyers simply because of the form factor.
I'd also add that EVs in general didn't make much economic sense for OEMs during that time either, so they weren't necessarily interested in selling a bunch of them and losing money. Or, to think of it another way, trucks and CUVS tend to be the highest profit vehicles that most car companies offer. No reason to cut into those profits with loss leaders when you've got shareholders to answer to. Now, as $/kwh has continued to fall, EVs make more financial sense for OEMs so they're willing to sell more of them. That means they're beginning to offer EV CUVs and trucks which are likely to have stronger demand than the small hatches offered up to now.
Why ford hasnt quadrupled its 4 year goal for the f150 lightning is beyond me - set the goal force your people to figure out supply chain and battery production b/c the demand is clearly there.
Why ford hasnt quadrupled its 4 year goal for the f150 lightning is beyond me - set the goal force your people to figure out supply chain and battery production b/c the demand is clearly there.
Under promise and over deliver? If they can quadruple production they will sell the trucks, if they cant then they were honest about the availability time line and no one is pissed about the truck being late.
CUV - Cool Utility Vehicleor Cross Utility Vehicle?
100% Saw the Mach-e on the road for the first time and numerous four letter words crossed my mind about how it looked nothing like a mustang (of any vintage). Am no car guy but it looks like any other large generic cross over.
Maybe they hired the same guy who decided to make like five different Priuses.
i mean shoot there isnt even an all EV minivan available which is what i'd prefer to buy over the others.
what we find cool on these forums isnt the same as the general populations view of what kind of vehicle they "need"
there isnt even an all EV minivan available
chrysler.com/pacifica/hybrid.html
i mean shoot there isnt even an all EV minivan available which is what i'd prefer to buy over the others.
https://www.chrysler.com/pacifica/hybrid.html (https://www.chrysler.com/pacifica/hybrid.html)Quotewhat we find cool on these forums isnt the same as the general populations view of what kind of vehicle they "need"
Ain't that the truth...
Re: cool factor... I find it extremely uncool to deal with a stinky cancerogenic fluid and stinky cancerogenic belches from the tailpipe. Changing oil is also decidedly uncool.Going around corners is my favorite part about driving...
And then, what's cool about being second best at going fast as long as you don't have to turn? Even if going fast as long as you don't have to turn is your thing, Tesla is faster. So what is your cool car best at? Smoke and noise?
Why ford hasnt quadrupled its 4 year goal for the f150 lightning is beyond me - set the goal force your people to figure out supply chain and battery production b/c the demand is clearly there.
So what is your cool car best at? Smoke and noise?
there isnt even an all EV minivan available
chrysler.com/pacifica/hybrid.html
The Pacifica is a PHEV, not a full EV.
Why ford hasnt quadrupled its 4 year goal for the f150 lightning is beyond me - set the goal force your people to figure out supply chain and battery production b/c the demand is clearly there.
I think it depends on who they expect Lightning buyers to be. If lots of Lightning buyers are expected to be ICE F150 buyers, then it comes down to money. If early reports and pricing end up being true, the Lightning and it's ICE brother will have price parity. That's great for consumers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll have profit parity for Ford. I'm sure they don't want to cannibalize ICE F150 sales with lower profit vehicles. The math can change if Lightning buyers are coming from other makes/models though. Reservation holders are a mixed bag:
https://insideevs.com/news/547933/ford-f150-lightning-reservations-poll/
Businesses don't exist to satisfy demand, they exist to make profits. At some point, EVs may be more profitable than a similar ICE, but I don't think we'll be there for a couple more years. If you're Ford, and can choose between selling 50k EV F150s and 400k ICE F150s at higher profits, or try to meet demand and sell 150k EV F150s and 300k higher profit ICE F150s each year, it probably makes more sense to limit the supply of the EV to keep prices up and simultaneously keep cashing in on the higher profit ICE.
there isnt even an all EV minivan available
chrysler.com/pacifica/hybrid.html
The Pacifica is a PHEV, not a full EV.
Both PHEVs and BEVs are considered to be EVs, but not plugless hybrids, like the original Prius. It's an EV if it can drive on electricity alone.
yep i'm aware of the hybrid pacifica i guess i should have said full EV minivan. haha. But again how long have we had hybrid cars and there was no hybrid minivan. Maybe one of the most reasonable cars for the suburban dweller to have made into a PHEV came out like 2 years ago. And prior to that no regular Hybrids were even available. I know b/c i really wanted one when we got our odyssey a couple years ago.
Why ford hasnt quadrupled its 4 year goal for the f150 lightning is beyond me - set the goal force your people to figure out supply chain and battery production b/c the demand is clearly there.
I think it depends on who they expect Lightning buyers to be. If lots of Lightning buyers are expected to be ICE F150 buyers, then it comes down to money. If early reports and pricing end up being true, the Lightning and it's ICE brother will have price parity. That's great for consumers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll have profit parity for Ford. I'm sure they don't want to cannibalize ICE F150 sales with lower profit vehicles. The math can change if Lightning buyers are coming from other makes/models though. Reservation holders are a mixed bag:
https://insideevs.com/news/547933/ford-f150-lightning-reservations-poll/
Businesses don't exist to satisfy demand, they exist to make profits. At some point, EVs may be more profitable than a similar ICE, but I don't think we'll be there for a couple more years. If you're Ford, and can choose between selling 50k EV F150s and 400k ICE F150s at higher profits, or try to meet demand and sell 150k EV F150s and 300k higher profit ICE F150s each year, it probably makes more sense to limit the supply of the EV to keep prices up and simultaneously keep cashing in on the higher profit ICE.
This is probably true. but at the same time the Lightning buyers arent from the F150 pool which means its opening up a huge new market which maybe they are over looking? 56% of reservations as stated by ford are from people new to Ford and New to Battery also 11% are from TESLA. overwhelmingly the faster they get more quailty vehicles to market the more likely they grab more market share. just those 2 numbers mean they are tapping 67% of a market they don't have access to without this truck.
So what is your cool car best at? Smoke and noise?
Isn't smoke and noise important when trying to get the attention of everyone on the block? Last week I witnessed a college kid get a ticket for loud mufflers and aggressive driving on a college campus. Once duly ticketed, he promptly drove down the street and did it again, receiving yet another ticket... I was told by someone in our group that they went to HS with him and he gets alot of tickets. Rich kid syndrome.
Why ford hasnt quadrupled its 4 year goal for the f150 lightning is beyond me - set the goal force your people to figure out supply chain and battery production b/c the demand is clearly there.
I think it depends on who they expect Lightning buyers to be. If lots of Lightning buyers are expected to be ICE F150 buyers, then it comes down to money. If early reports and pricing end up being true, the Lightning and it's ICE brother will have price parity. That's great for consumers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll have profit parity for Ford. I'm sure they don't want to cannibalize ICE F150 sales with lower profit vehicles. The math can change if Lightning buyers are coming from other makes/models though. Reservation holders are a mixed bag:
https://insideevs.com/news/547933/ford-f150-lightning-reservations-poll/
Businesses don't exist to satisfy demand, they exist to make profits. At some point, EVs may be more profitable than a similar ICE, but I don't think we'll be there for a couple more years. If you're Ford, and can choose between selling 50k EV F150s and 400k ICE F150s at higher profits, or try to meet demand and sell 150k EV F150s and 300k higher profit ICE F150s each year, it probably makes more sense to limit the supply of the EV to keep prices up and simultaneously keep cashing in on the higher profit ICE.
This is probably true. but at the same time the Lightning buyers arent from the F150 pool which means its opening up a huge new market which maybe they are over looking? 56% of reservations as stated by ford are from people new to Ford and New to Battery also 11% are from TESLA. overwhelmingly the faster they get more quailty vehicles to market the more likely they grab more market share. just those 2 numbers mean they are tapping 67% of a market they don't have access to without this truck.
True, but that also means that they need to get the product right to make sure those new buyers have a good experience. The more mainstream a product becomes, the less likely it's buyers are to tolerate small quality issues like early adopters do. Tesla and current EV owners are the early adopter mold. The Lightning takes it a big step closer to mainstream. If they're not sure they can do it right, then they're probably right to keep production lower to maintain higher quality. I think the larger production ramp likely comes with the next generation of Lightning starting in 2025. Supply chains will be more ready, manufacturing/sales will be more mature, battery cost will continue to drop and demand doesn't seem to be waning at all.
Why ford hasnt quadrupled its 4 year goal for the f150 lightning is beyond me - set the goal force your people to figure out supply chain and battery production b/c the demand is clearly there.
I think it depends on who they expect Lightning buyers to be. If lots of Lightning buyers are expected to be ICE F150 buyers, then it comes down to money. If early reports and pricing end up being true, the Lightning and it's ICE brother will have price parity. That's great for consumers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll have profit parity for Ford. I'm sure they don't want to cannibalize ICE F150 sales with lower profit vehicles. The math can change if Lightning buyers are coming from other makes/models though. Reservation holders are a mixed bag:
https://insideevs.com/news/547933/ford-f150-lightning-reservations-poll/
Businesses don't exist to satisfy demand, they exist to make profits. At some point, EVs may be more profitable than a similar ICE, but I don't think we'll be there for a couple more years. If you're Ford, and can choose between selling 50k EV F150s and 400k ICE F150s at higher profits, or try to meet demand and sell 150k EV F150s and 300k higher profit ICE F150s each year, it probably makes more sense to limit the supply of the EV to keep prices up and simultaneously keep cashing in on the higher profit ICE.
This is probably true. but at the same time the Lightning buyers arent from the F150 pool which means its opening up a huge new market which maybe they are over looking? 56% of reservations as stated by ford are from people new to Ford and New to Battery also 11% are from TESLA. overwhelmingly the faster they get more quailty vehicles to market the more likely they grab more market share. just those 2 numbers mean they are tapping 67% of a market they don't have access to without this truck.
True, but that also means that they need to get the product right to make sure those new buyers have a good experience. The more mainstream a product becomes, the less likely it's buyers are to tolerate small quality issues like early adopters do. Tesla and current EV owners are the early adopter mold. The Lightning takes it a big step closer to mainstream. If they're not sure they can do it right, then they're probably right to keep production lower to maintain higher quality. I think the larger production ramp likely comes with the next generation of Lightning starting in 2025. Supply chains will be more ready, manufacturing/sales will be more mature, battery cost will continue to drop and demand doesn't seem to be waning at all.
it just seems crazy to me that its going to take that long IMO 2025 the market should be producing next to no new ICE vehicles except in special use cases. more like a 90/10 split in favor of EVs while currently ford's plans appear to be the exact opposite for the F150.
Also 300V battery pack in the first Gen is a big shortcoming for charge speeds and seems shortsighted for a good user experience.
it just seems crazy to me that its going to take that long IMO 2025 the market should be producing next to no new ICE vehicles except in special use cases. more like a 90/10 split in favor of EVs while currently ford's plans appear to be the exact opposite for the F150.
Also 300V battery pack in the first Gen is a big shortcoming for charge speeds and seems shortsighted for a good user experience.
Is there realistically that much capacity to build batteries out there to build ~13M EVs a year (~90% of ~15M cars sold)?
I'd also add that EVs in general didn't make much economic sense for OEMs during that time either, so they weren't necessarily interested in selling a bunch of them and losing money.
I'd also add that EVs in general didn't make much economic sense for OEMs during that time either, so they weren't necessarily interested in selling a bunch of them and losing money.
True. Same was true for European manufacturers. So true that Marchionne famously told people not to buy their 500e. They were dragged into making EVs kicking and screaming by EU policymakers.
There are three keys to EVs being popular: policy, policy, and policy.
yeah thats probably the old way and what has lead to current popularity - though the next decade will most be driven by economics as costs are plummeting with scale.
yeah thats probably the old way and what has lead to current popularity - though the next decade will most be driven by economics as costs are plummeting with scale.
...scale enabled by policy, policy, policy.
BTW, the current dominance of ICE-powered personal cars isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon, not a manifestation of pure market forces. It's a result of a series of policy decisions. Market forces functioned on top of them. It only looks natural to us because decisions were made decades ago.
Granted, life based on electric personal car wasn't in the cards - but life centered on walking, cycling, and transit very much was. Heck, the whole world, US included, lived like this. People could have decided to build on this, not flee to suburbs.
i mean the future of a less car centric society could center around suburbs and people working remotely. The idea of a central location for business to be done is dead for many many white collar jobs IMO. Companies have not yet succumb to this reality but workers are leaving for remote jobs.
I have no desire to live in an urban area. I live on a lake within 45 mins of an international airport. and 15 minutes from a local train station.
i mean the future of a less car centric society could center around suburbs and people working remotely. The idea of a central location for business to be done is dead for many many white collar jobs IMO. Companies have not yet succumb to this reality but workers are leaving for remote jobs.
I have no desire to live in an urban area. I live on a lake within 45 mins of an international airport. and 15 minutes from a local train station.
I fully share your preferences! We don't live on a lake, but are within 45 min from three international airports, 15 from the closest, and have wild turkeys in our backyard, not counting all other wildlife.
The question I can't avoid, though, is this: can 7.7 billions of humans live on this planet the way I do? And soon 8, 10, 15 billions? The answer seems to be no. In the end, something will have to give. But it's an entirely different topic.
That tends to not happen all at once, though. Prior to being modern in a post-industrial context, most societies have both a high birth and death rate. As medical tech availability, clean water, stable food supply, decent infrastructure, etc. become better the death rate drops but the birth rate lags behind and stays high - which of course leads to huge population growth. The birth rate will fall but requires societies to place value on equitable laws, allowing women to be literate en masse, pushing higher ed, access to non-stigmatized birth control, etc. It can take several generations or even hundreds of years for this gap between the death rate and birth rate to stabilize. The reasons are myriad but generally speaking it's hard to go from a largely rural pre-industrial society in which numerous children help out the family farm and household to a highly urbanized one in which both adults might be educated white collar professionals who voluntarily choose to reduce and/or delay childbearing as they balance careers and social lives. It just doesn't happen overnight.i mean the future of a less car centric society could center around suburbs and people working remotely. The idea of a central location for business to be done is dead for many many white collar jobs IMO. Companies have not yet succumb to this reality but workers are leaving for remote jobs.
I have no desire to live in an urban area. I live on a lake within 45 mins of an international airport. and 15 minutes from a local train station.
I fully share your preferences! We don't live on a lake, but are within 45 min from three international airports, 15 from the closest, and have wild turkeys in our backyard, not counting all other wildlife.
The question I can't avoid, though, is this: can 7.7 billions of humans live on this planet the way I do? And soon 8, 10, 15 billions? The answer seems to be no. In the end, something will have to give. But it's an entirely different topic.
well when societies become first world their birth rates drop and start to depopulate the planet. So maybe we don't get to those levels of humans? I mean at the end of the day 1 more human is a bigger issue than how the human lives. B/c a human not alive consuming nothing.
That tends to not happen all at once, though. Prior to being modern in a post-industrial context, most societies have both a high birth and death rate. As medical tech availability, clean water, stable food supply, decent infrastructure, etc. become better the death rate drops but the birth rate lags behind and stays high - which of course leads to huge population growth. The birth rate will fall but requires societies to place value on equitable laws, allowing women to be literate en masse, pushing higher ed, access to non-stigmatized birth control, etc. It can take several generations or even hundreds of years for this gap between the death rate and birth rate to stabilize. The reasons are myriad but generally speaking it's hard to go from a largely rural pre-industrial society in which numerous children help out the family farm and household to a highly urbanized one in which both adults might be educated white collar professionals who voluntarily choose to reduce and/or delay childbearing as they balance careers and social lives. It just doesn't happen overnight.i mean the future of a less car centric society could center around suburbs and people working remotely. The idea of a central location for business to be done is dead for many many white collar jobs IMO. Companies have not yet succumb to this reality but workers are leaving for remote jobs.
I have no desire to live in an urban area. I live on a lake within 45 mins of an international airport. and 15 minutes from a local train station.
I fully share your preferences! We don't live on a lake, but are within 45 min from three international airports, 15 from the closest, and have wild turkeys in our backyard, not counting all other wildlife.
The question I can't avoid, though, is this: can 7.7 billions of humans live on this planet the way I do? And soon 8, 10, 15 billions? The answer seems to be no. In the end, something will have to give. But it's an entirely different topic.
well when societies become first world their birth rates drop and start to depopulate the planet. So maybe we don't get to those levels of humans? I mean at the end of the day 1 more human is a bigger issue than how the human lives. B/c a human not alive consuming nothing.
In other words, many countries are improving in many ways but are still in stage 2 or 3 of the demographic transition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
Unless there is a catastrophic event(s), the world's population is going to be increasing naturally for decades, with higher and higher proportions of the populace joining the middle class and likely consuming at a higher rate.
i went on Rivians website yester day to price out a RT1 - with the larger battery pack it comes in around $85k. and may take a few years to get due to production capability and number or reservations at ~48k.
Ford Lightning is similar, ~15k a year to be made, 160k reservations, with realistic price similar to other existing ICE trucks
Cyber truck has 1.2 million "reservations" and no delivery dates or production numbers set, but at similar pricing to ford
hummer trucks can be had for $125k... thats too much
i want an electric truck and i would buy one, but i dont want to wait several years for the opportunity or spend over the median annual salary to get one.
That ford conversion they did on that old white truck to electric https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2021/11/02/all-electric-f-100-eluminator-concept.html
made me think that building or having one built may be the only want to get an electric truck sooner than later (maybe), but at quite the expense
I, for one, am not even going to read about what Musk thinks of things outside of areas of his expertise (which are many, but not all by any stretch). The guy is brilliant at what he applies himself to, but being the smartest guy in the room really gets into his head, and he starts to think that he's the smartest guy in any room. Which tends to lead to him being comically wrong. Two best known examples: Pravduh and underwater rescue. The guy didn't know that fact-checking sites existed. Like, how do you plan to solve a problem - however smart you are - if you didn't bother to learn the basic landscape of it? Same with him being an ass to people who ended up saving those trapped in that cave.
While he has certainly accomplished some impressive stuff, Musk's genius seems to be often overstated. He has had some hilariously stupid/bad ideas that have either failed or are doomed to failure . . . the hyperloop, Vegas loop, Tesla semi, etc.
While he has certainly accomplished some impressive stuff, Musk's genius seems to be often overstated. He has had some hilariously stupid/bad ideas that have either failed or are doomed to failure . . . the hyperloop, Vegas loop, Tesla semi, etc.
QuoteWhile he has certainly accomplished some impressive stuff, Musk's genius seems to be often overstated. He has had some hilariously stupid/bad ideas that have either failed or are doomed to failure . . . the hyperloop, Vegas loop, Tesla semi, etc.
Just out of interest why do you think the Tesla Semi will fail?
i went on Rivians website yester day to price out a RT1 - with the larger battery pack it comes in around $85k. and may take a few years to get due to production capability and number or reservations at ~48k.
Ford Lightning is similar, ~15k a year to be made, 160k reservations, with realistic price similar to other existing ICE trucks
Cyber truck has 1.2 million "reservations" and no delivery dates or production numbers set, but at similar pricing to ford
hummer trucks can be had for $125k... thats too much
i want an electric truck and i would buy one, but i dont want to wait several years for the opportunity or spend over the median annual salary to get one.
That ford conversion they did on that old white truck to electric https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2021/11/02/all-electric-f-100-eluminator-concept.html
made me think that building or having one built may be the only want to get an electric truck sooner than later (maybe), but at quite the expense
per specs cyber truck pricing is far cheaper than ford the middle tier tesla is outfitted like the lariat or platinum f150.
i plan to look into the ford crate engine a lot more once i retire. My dad has always wanted to restore an old car and it would be cool to make it an EV too.
QuoteWhile he has certainly accomplished some impressive stuff, Musk's genius seems to be often overstated. He has had some hilariously stupid/bad ideas that have either failed or are doomed to failure . . . the hyperloop, Vegas loop, Tesla semi, etc.
Just out of interest why do you think the Tesla Semi will fail?
and the hyperloop for that matter.
Except they do have them, just not in the quantities required.
QuoteWhile he has certainly accomplished some impressive stuff, Musk's genius seems to be often overstated. He has had some hilariously stupid/bad ideas that have either failed or are doomed to failure . . . the hyperloop, Vegas loop, Tesla semi, etc.
Just out of interest why do you think the Tesla Semi will fail?
and the hyperloop for that matter.
http://www.trainhistory.net/railway-history/atmospheric-railway/
You know Geroge Medhurst was the first one (on record, at least) to propose an idea like the hyerloop, right? Want to take a guess when he came up with that idea? Hint: it wasn't last century and it wasn't the century before that either.
But we're supposed to believe Elon Musk has the magic answer that he published ~10 years ago and *THIS* will achieve what was previously unachievable for the last 200+ years?
"Well there's your problem" have some very, ahem, long winded podcasts/videos and a few of them dive into Musk's claims...notably, Hyperloop and the regular Loop ("Tesla in tunnels").
https://assets.simpleviewcms.com/simpleview/image/upload/v1/clients/lasvegas/Posted_Agenda_Book_January_12_2021_BOD_e7eb6659-5ae4-49b5-b766-9112c080d7d4.pdf
The Boring Company will absolutely fall short of their contract for the Vegas Loop. The media isn't reporting on it because "WHOA TESLA IN TUNNELS IN VEGAS" or something stupid.
Musk (and the numbers) disagree with you:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2021/12/07/elon-musk-declining-birthrate-threatens-human-civilization/6414749001/
Except they do have them, just not in the quantities required.
Where are the Cybertrucks? LMAO
Musk (and the numbers) disagree with you:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2021/12/07/elon-musk-declining-birthrate-threatens-human-civilization/6414749001/
Musk is wrong. Global population is projected to increase through the end of this century. We'll add about two billion people in the next 30 years alone.
QuoteWhile he has certainly accomplished some impressive stuff, Musk's genius seems to be often overstated. He has had some hilariously stupid/bad ideas that have either failed or are doomed to failure . . . the hyperloop, Vegas loop, Tesla semi, etc.
Just out of interest why do you think the Tesla Semi will fail?
You're skipping the thermal efficiency numbers and abusing some of the rest.
My math is here: https://www.sevarg.net/2016/02/07/electric-long-haul-trucks/
They seemed feasible 5 years ago and still seem feasible.
Though you're still better off with a series hybrid.
^ Interesting analysis! One near term application for electric semis is drayage. The daily mileage is low and high torque electric motors are ideally suited to the application.
100% Saw the Mach-e on the road for the first time and numerous four letter words crossed my mind about how it looked nothing like a mustang (of any vintage). Am no car guy but it looks like any other large generic cross over.
I also don't understand why they gave it the Mustang name... it's so totally a different vehicle in every way. What's even more strange is that Ford continue to make the traditional Mustang. It's just confusing. Maybe they hired the same guy who decided to make like five different Priuses.
You're skipping the thermal efficiency numbers and abusing some of the rest.
My math is here: https://www.sevarg.net/2016/02/07/electric-long-haul-trucks/
They seemed feasible 5 years ago and still seem feasible.
Though you're still better off with a series hybrid.
You're skipping the thermal efficiency numbers and abusing some of the rest.
My math is here: https://www.sevarg.net/2016/02/07/electric-long-haul-trucks/
They seemed feasible 5 years ago and still seem feasible.
Though you're still better off with a series hybrid.
I definitely didn't include thermal efficiency into the back of the napkin style calculations that I was doing, and that does change things a fair bit. An electric motor is 85 - 90% efficient, and diesel is 30 - 35%, so an electric motor should be about 2.5 (83/33) times more efficient than I was using.
Gas side:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of fuel - 882
Max Cargo Capacity - 49,118
Musk Semi:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of real batteries available today - 35,280
Weight of magical super batteries that are twice as energy dense - 17,640
Max Cargo Capacity - 14,720 (batteries available today) or 32,360 lbs for magical super batteries.
This seems to be in the ballpark of the number that you were using on your website ~ 15,000 lbs for 700 mile range using available technology. This is much better, but I'd still argue that it doesn't seem likely to replace regular trucks any time soon.
You're skipping the thermal efficiency numbers and abusing some of the rest.
My math is here: https://www.sevarg.net/2016/02/07/electric-long-haul-trucks/
They seemed feasible 5 years ago and still seem feasible.
Though you're still better off with a series hybrid.
I definitely didn't include thermal efficiency into the back of the napkin style calculations that I was doing, and that does change things a fair bit. An electric motor is 85 - 90% efficient, and diesel is 30 - 35%, so an electric motor should be about 2.5 (83/33) times more efficient than I was using.
Gas side:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of fuel - 882
Max Cargo Capacity - 49,118
Musk Semi:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of real batteries available today - 35,280
Weight of magical super batteries that are twice as energy dense - 17,640
Max Cargo Capacity - 14,720 (batteries available today) or 32,360 lbs for magical super batteries.
This seems to be in the ballpark of the number that you were using on your website ~ 15,000 lbs for 700 mile range using available technology. This is much better, but I'd still argue that it doesn't seem likely to replace regular trucks any time soon.
I agree with your larger point, but I think it's worth pointing out that calculating the weight of an EV truck is not as simple as weight of an ICE truck + weight of batteries = weight of EV truck. The ICE truck has thousands of lbs of ICE stuff that the EV truck would not (engine, transmission, differentials, larger cooling system, fuel tanks, exhaust, etc). So the basic equation to find the weight of the BEV truck would be:
Weight of ICE truck - Weight of all ICE components + Weight of batteries and all EV components = total weight
The Model 3 long range has an 82kwh pack that weighs 1060lbs.
You're skipping the thermal efficiency numbers and abusing some of the rest.
My math is here: https://www.sevarg.net/2016/02/07/electric-long-haul-trucks/
They seemed feasible 5 years ago and still seem feasible.
Though you're still better off with a series hybrid.
I definitely didn't include thermal efficiency into the back of the napkin style calculations that I was doing, and that does change things a fair bit. An electric motor is 85 - 90% efficient, and diesel is 30 - 35%, so an electric motor should be about 2.5 (83/33) times more efficient than I was using.
Gas side:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of fuel - 882
Max Cargo Capacity - 49,118
Musk Semi:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of real batteries available today - 35,280
Weight of magical super batteries that are twice as energy dense - 17,640
Max Cargo Capacity - 14,720 (batteries available today) or 32,360 lbs for magical super batteries.
This seems to be in the ballpark of the number that you were using on your website ~ 15,000 lbs for 700 mile range using available technology. This is much better, but I'd still argue that it doesn't seem likely to replace regular trucks any time soon.
I agree with your larger point, but I think it's worth pointing out that calculating the weight of an EV truck is not as simple as weight of an ICE truck + weight of batteries = weight of EV truck. The ICE truck has thousands of lbs of ICE stuff that the EV truck would not (engine, transmission, differentials, larger cooling system, fuel tanks, exhaust, etc). So the basic equation to find the weight of the BEV truck would be:
Weight of ICE truck - Weight of all ICE components + Weight of batteries and all EV components = total weight
That, plus the whole "100x" gas vs batteries (how's it compare to diesel? ;) ) thing isn't the right way to approach the math either.
QuoteThe Model 3 long range has an 82kwh pack that weighs 1060lbs.
If we use that (which seems "real world" enough to me...), then the stated 35k lbs of batteries is 2700 kWh. Which is an exceedingly long ranged pack, even for a semi.
The 100x number is a casual "Get the point across" value, not something concrete. More concretely:
82kWh @ 3.5 mi/kWh is 287 miles. Do that at 30mpg on gas, you're at 9.5 gallons, or about 60 lb. Toss in 50lb for a gas tank, you're at 110lb for the same range, or about a practical weight difference of 9.6x - not 100x.
You're skipping the thermal efficiency numbers and abusing some of the rest.
My math is here: https://www.sevarg.net/2016/02/07/electric-long-haul-trucks/
They seemed feasible 5 years ago and still seem feasible.
Though you're still better off with a series hybrid.
I definitely didn't include thermal efficiency into the back of the napkin style calculations that I was doing, and that does change things a fair bit. An electric motor is 85 - 90% efficient, and diesel is 30 - 35%, so an electric motor should be about 2.5 (83/33) times more efficient than I was using.
Gas side:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of fuel - 882
Max Cargo Capacity - 49,118
Musk Semi:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of real batteries available today - 35,280
Weight of magical super batteries that are twice as energy dense - 17,640
Max Cargo Capacity - 14,720 (batteries available today) or 32,360 lbs for magical super batteries.
This seems to be in the ballpark of the number that you were using on your website ~ 15,000 lbs for 700 mile range using available technology. This is much better, but I'd still argue that it doesn't seem likely to replace regular trucks any time soon.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/29449/tesla-semi-prototype-spotted-hauling-75000-pound-load-through-northern-california
"The Tesla's driver told weigh station operators that "the truck is meeting or exceeding the range estimates" with an alleged 75,000-pound test payload of nine concrete blocks on their trailer."
Either they are breaking the laws of physics or your calculations are missing some vital information. The glaring one to me is the base weight of a diesel semi will be significantly higher due to a huge engine/transmission/cooling systems/large empty gas tanks that are not used on the tesla semi among other legacy heavy design decisions that semi manufacturers use because 'we've always done it that way'... The base dry weight without battery or fuel could easily be 10k+ lbs less on the tesla.
Here is a truck drivers perspective on how much the tesla weighs.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/01/how-much-does-the-tesla-semi-weigh/
I agree with your larger point, but I think it's worth pointing out that calculating the weight of an EV truck is not as simple as weight of an ICE truck + weight of batteries = weight of EV truck. The ICE truck has thousands of lbs of ICE stuff that the EV truck would not (engine, transmission, differentials, larger cooling system, fuel tanks, exhaust, etc). So the basic equation to find the weight of the BEV truck would be:
Weight of ICE truck - Weight of all ICE components + Weight of batteries and all EV components = total weight
That, plus the whole "100x" gas vs batteries (how's it compare to diesel? ;) ) thing isn't the right way to approach the math either.
Energy density of gas is 46 MJ/kg and diesel is 45 MJ/kg (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density)).QuoteThe Model 3 long range has an 82kwh pack that weighs 1060lbs.
If we use that (which seems "real world" enough to me...), then the stated 35k lbs of batteries is 2700 kWh. Which is an exceedingly long ranged pack, even for a semi.
The 100x number is a casual "Get the point across" value, not something concrete. More concretely:
82kWh @ 3.5 mi/kWh is 287 miles. Do that at 30mpg on gas, you're at 9.5 gallons, or about 60 lb. Toss in 50lb for a gas tank, you're at 110lb for the same range, or about a practical weight difference of 9.6x - not 100x.
Tesla Model 3 gets 130 mpg - https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41189.shtml (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41189.shtml). Dividing that by 2.5 (to account for thermal efficiency) that means that it would get around 52 mpg on gas.
The gas tank of a Toyota Corolla weighs about 25 lbs empty, and holds 11 gallons.
That would bump things up to about 20x practical weight difference.
But then there's another problem here. We're looking at this comparison based upon the short range of the battery pack. If we compare a full tank with battery packs, the difference becomes even greater.
25 lb (fuel tank) + 69.3 lbs (11 gallons gas) @ 52 mpg = 682 mile range for 94.3 lbs
vs
1060 lb for 287 = 682 mile range for 2,518 lbs
Of course, this gets worse if we consider real world conditions (batteries significantly underperform in cold weather - often 20% worse or more). But it seems that you're looking at more than 25x - not 9.6x.
Not laws of physics as much as legal ones. The legal weight limit for a semi truck on US roads is 80,000 lbs (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm). I'm confused how they're legally hauling 75,000 lbs . . . does the truck and bed weigh less than 5,000 lbs?
I agree with your larger point, but I think it's worth pointing out that calculating the weight of an EV truck is not as simple as weight of an ICE truck + weight of batteries = weight of EV truck. The ICE truck has thousands of lbs of ICE stuff that the EV truck would not (engine, transmission, differentials, larger cooling system, fuel tanks, exhaust, etc). So the basic equation to find the weight of the BEV truck would be:
Weight of ICE truck - Weight of all ICE components + Weight of batteries and all EV components = total weight
That, plus the whole "100x" gas vs batteries (how's it compare to diesel? ;) ) thing isn't the right way to approach the math either.
Energy density of gas is 46 MJ/kg and diesel is 45 MJ/kg (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density)).QuoteThe Model 3 long range has an 82kwh pack that weighs 1060lbs.
If we use that (which seems "real world" enough to me...), then the stated 35k lbs of batteries is 2700 kWh. Which is an exceedingly long ranged pack, even for a semi.
The 100x number is a casual "Get the point across" value, not something concrete. More concretely:
82kWh @ 3.5 mi/kWh is 287 miles. Do that at 30mpg on gas, you're at 9.5 gallons, or about 60 lb. Toss in 50lb for a gas tank, you're at 110lb for the same range, or about a practical weight difference of 9.6x - not 100x.
Tesla Model 3 gets 130 mpg - https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41189.shtml (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41189.shtml). Dividing that by 2.5 (to account for thermal efficiency) that means that it would get around 52 mpg on gas.
The gas tank of a Toyota Corolla weighs about 25 lbs empty, and holds 11 gallons.
That would bump things up to about 20x practical weight difference.
But then there's another problem here. We're looking at this comparison based upon the short range of the battery pack. If we compare a full tank with battery packs, the difference becomes even greater.
25 lb (fuel tank) + 69.3 lbs (11 gallons gas) @ 52 mpg = 682 mile range for 94.3 lbs
vs
1060 lb for 287 = 682 mile range for 2,518 lbs
Of course, this gets worse if we consider real world conditions (batteries significantly underperform in cold weather - often 20% worse or more). But it seems that you're looking at more than 25x - not 9.6x.
A couple things---
1) Show me all the gas cars out there that'll run 0-60 in 2 or 3 seconds and get 52mpg. It's more complicated than just running napkin numbers.
2) Diesel is ~12.7% heavier than gasoline. Use MJ/kg if you want, but you can't translate that directly to gallons.
Quote from: GuitarStvNot laws of physics as much as legal ones. The legal weight limit for a semi truck on US roads is 80,000 lbs (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm). I'm confused how they're legally hauling 75,000 lbs . . . does the truck and bed weigh less than 5,000 lbs?
3) Are you even reading your own links? From your source: " Federal law controls maximum gross vehicle weights and axle loads on the Interstate System. [...] The report also shows that in some instances, States have laws that allow sizes and weights on non-Interstate highways in excess of the current Federal truck size and weight limits. This is an expected finding, as State laws control maximum gross vehicle sizes and weights on non-Interstate highways, including the NHS."
In California, weights are among the most restrictive in the U.S. Nearby states such as Idaho, Oregon and Washington permit gross vehicle weights up to 105,500 pounds, while Arizona, Nevada and Utah allow a maximum gross weight of 129,000 pounds. (https://www.transportdive.com/news/truck-weight-california-gvw-port-congestion/610257/)
On reading of own links - that one with the 100x energy density's very next few sentences claim a 5x EV efficiency bonus, so should have been a 20x multiplier in the back of napkin math (although if we're comparing new diesel efficiency, we should be using 7-10 mpg figure instead of under 5 and a 2.5x EV efficiency bonus).
But with the known current weight-to-kWh ratio of model 3 battery pack, and what seems like an achievable < 2kWh / mile claim from Tesla, you've got pretty straightforward back of napkin math - 13K lbs for a 500 mile range, 18k for a 700 mile range. Reduce a bit with some weight reductions in the rest of the truck and the conclusion is inevitable - battery weight is hardly a deal-breaker. Charging speed / infrastructure is the real barrier.
On reading of own links - that one with the 100x energy density's very next few sentences claim a 5x EV efficiency bonus, so should have been a 20x multiplier in the back of napkin math (although if we're comparing new diesel efficiency, we should be using 7-10 mpg figure instead of under 5 and a 2.5x EV efficiency bonus).
But with the known current weight-to-kWh ratio of model 3 battery pack, and what seems like an achievable < 2kWh / mile claim from Tesla, you've got pretty straightforward back of napkin math - 13K lbs for a 500 mile range, 18k for a 700 mile range. Reduce a bit with some weight reductions in the rest of the truck and the conclusion is inevitable - battery weight is hardly a deal-breaker. Charging speed / infrastructure is the real barrier.
The 5x energy bonus is a comparison to gas cars (assuming a 15% energy conversion rate for gas). Diesel engines (like the ones used on most heavy goods vehicles) are a fair bit more efficient, so the comparison doesn't hold for them.
The comparison of range and battery packs of small cars to the energy use of heavy vehicles is problematic. The small cars get that range without towing anything heavy. You start towing heavy stuff and their range drops pretty significantly (https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a30121167/electric-car-towing-range/ (https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a30121167/electric-car-towing-range/)) so bigger batteries are required.
On reading of own links - that one with the 100x energy density's very next few sentences claim a 5x EV efficiency bonus, so should have been a 20x multiplier in the back of napkin math (although if we're comparing new diesel efficiency, we should be using 7-10 mpg figure instead of under 5 and a 2.5x EV efficiency bonus).
But with the known current weight-to-kWh ratio of model 3 battery pack, and what seems like an achievable < 2kWh / mile claim from Tesla, you've got pretty straightforward back of napkin math - 13K lbs for a 500 mile range, 18k for a 700 mile range. Reduce a bit with some weight reductions in the rest of the truck and the conclusion is inevitable - battery weight is hardly a deal-breaker. Charging speed / infrastructure is the real barrier.
The 5x energy bonus is a comparison to gas cars (assuming a 15% energy conversion rate for gas). Diesel engines (like the ones used on most heavy goods vehicles) are a fair bit more efficient, so the comparison doesn't hold for them.
The comparison of range and battery packs of small cars to the energy use of heavy vehicles is problematic. The small cars get that range without towing anything heavy. You start towing heavy stuff and their range drops pretty significantly (https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a30121167/electric-car-towing-range/ (https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a30121167/electric-car-towing-range/)) so bigger batteries are required.
Aero is more important than weight. You can't compare a small car towing a trailer with suboptimal aero to an optimized truck/trailer combination.
https://www.rvforum.net/threads/trailer-weight-vs-aerodynamics.62827/
I mentioned the 0-60 times because your math is ignoring the complete picture - you're conflating eMPG with mpg and hypothesizing that a gas Model S would thus get X mpg, and frankly it wouldn't. Traditional ICE vehicles are simply not capable of combining that level of power with that much efficiency.
It's more complicated than just inventing napkin numbers and making comparisons without context.
On reading of own links - that one with the 100x energy density's very next few sentences claim a 5x EV efficiency bonus, so should have been a 20x multiplier in the back of napkin math (although if we're comparing new diesel efficiency, we should be using 7-10 mpg figure instead of under 5 and a 2.5x EV efficiency bonus).
But with the known current weight-to-kWh ratio of model 3 battery pack, and what seems like an achievable < 2kWh / mile claim from Tesla, you've got pretty straightforward back of napkin math - 13K lbs for a 500 mile range, 18k for a 700 mile range. Reduce a bit with some weight reductions in the rest of the truck and the conclusion is inevitable - battery weight is hardly a deal-breaker. Charging speed / infrastructure is the real barrier.
The 5x energy bonus is a comparison to gas cars (assuming a 15% energy conversion rate for gas). Diesel engines (like the ones used on most heavy goods vehicles) are a fair bit more efficient, so the comparison doesn't hold for them.
The comparison of range and battery packs of small cars to the energy use of heavy vehicles is problematic. The small cars get that range without towing anything heavy. You start towing heavy stuff and their range drops pretty significantly (https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a30121167/electric-car-towing-range/ (https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a30121167/electric-car-towing-range/)) so bigger batteries are required.
Aero is more important than weight. You can't compare a small car towing a trailer with suboptimal aero to an optimized truck/trailer combination.
https://www.rvforum.net/threads/trailer-weight-vs-aerodynamics.62827/
I mentioned the 0-60 times because your math is ignoring the complete picture - you're conflating eMPG with mpg and hypothesizing that a gas Model S would thus get X mpg, and frankly it wouldn't. Traditional ICE vehicles are simply not capable of combining that level of power with that much efficiency.
It's more complicated than just inventing napkin numbers and making comparisons without context.
Now who's getting confused about diesel vs gas? Gas cars aren't great for fuel economy - agreed . . . but diesel tend to be a lot better (the diesel cycle is just much more efficient). There are 10 here (https://www.evanshalshaw.com/blog/top-10-most-economical-diesel-cars/ (https://www.evanshalshaw.com/blog/top-10-most-economical-diesel-cars/)) that get between 70 and 83 mpg with diesel engines . . . and that includes larger SUVs. The 52 mpg number that I used is probably actually a little low for diesel.
Are you going to address any piece of what I posted, or just continue making utterly irrelevant "comparisons"?
Are you going to address any piece of what I posted, or just continue making utterly irrelevant "comparisons"?
Not sure exactly what you're looking for?
I didn't hypothesize that a gas model S would get similar mileage to a model X so didn't address that as the comment didn't make any sense to me. I did post examples of modern diesel vehicles in a similar ballpark performance-wise to a Tesla model 3 that all get better gas mileage than what you seemed to be saying was unreasonable. The model 3 is the vehicle that we were comparing with. The model x is a sports car, and gets worse fuel economy . . . still not sure why that matters though. Maybe you could explain your reasoning a bit more?
So if I'm empty in a place like say Oregon, I will average 6 to 7 mpg, but in Florida it can be over 8mpg considering the flat terrain. Fully gloaded you will generally lose a mpg .
I average 6.7 loaded (the truck in profile picture) and 7.5 to 8 empty, although I rarely run far empty. And this is dependent on speed, terrain, weather, etc.
Depends on the truck engine/trans/rear gearing and the type of trailer. Our Volvo that pulls a flatbed gets 12 mpg bobtail(no trailer), 10mpg with trailer(deadhead) and around 6.5–7 loaded(48,000lbs payload grossing around 79,000lbs). Our Kenworth that pulls the same trailer type and weight gets around 7.5–8 loaded. And around the same deadhead.
The 5x energy bonus is a comparison to gas cars (assuming a 15% energy conversion rate for gas). Diesel engines (like the ones used on most heavy goods vehicles) are a fair bit more efficient, so the comparison doesn't hold for them.
In any case, I was specifically addressing your concerns regarding weight for towing and how a comparison between a sedan towing a trailer and a semi towing a trailer is not going to result in an accurate correlation. Discussion here: https://www.quora.com/What-s-the-miles-per-gallon-for-an-empty-tractor-trailer-versus-a-full-trailer-loadQuoteSo if I'm empty in a place like say Oregon, I will average 6 to 7 mpg, but in Florida it can be over 8mpg considering the flat terrain. Fully gloaded you will generally lose a mpg .QuoteI average 6.7 loaded (the truck in profile picture) and 7.5 to 8 empty, although I rarely run far empty. And this is dependent on speed, terrain, weather, etc.QuoteDepends on the truck engine/trans/rear gearing and the type of trailer. Our Volvo that pulls a flatbed gets 12 mpg bobtail(no trailer), 10mpg with trailer(deadhead) and around 6.5–7 loaded(48,000lbs payload grossing around 79,000lbs). Our Kenworth that pulls the same trailer type and weight gets around 7.5–8 loaded. And around the same deadhead.
The delta between empty to loaded is not nearly as significant as one might think.
Fair point on the article. The one with the driver certainly clarifies the estimates of each component estimating a 40k load/10k trailer and 25k truck(with battery). By your estimates of 65k for the truck with battery, the cement blocks and trailer together weigh 15k.I definitely didn't include thermal efficiency into the back of the napkin style calculations that I was doing, and that does change things a fair bit. An electric motor is 85 - 90% efficient, and diesel is 30 - 35%, so an electric motor should be about 2.5 (83/33) times more efficient than I was using.
Gas side:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of fuel - 882
Max Cargo Capacity - 49,118
Musk Semi:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of real batteries available today - 35,280
Weight of magical super batteries that are twice as energy dense - 17,640
Max Cargo Capacity - 14,720 (batteries available today) or 32,360 lbs for magical super batteries.
This seems to be in the ballpark of the number that you were using on your website ~ 15,000 lbs for 700 mile range using available technology. This is much better, but I'd still argue that it doesn't seem likely to replace regular trucks any time soon.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/29449/tesla-semi-prototype-spotted-hauling-75000-pound-load-through-northern-california
"The Tesla's driver told weigh station operators that "the truck is meeting or exceeding the range estimates" with an alleged 75,000-pound test payload of nine concrete blocks on their trailer."
Either they are breaking the laws of physics or your calculations are missing some vital information. The glaring one to me is the base weight of a diesel semi will be significantly higher due to a huge engine/transmission/cooling systems/large empty gas tanks that are not used on the tesla semi among other legacy heavy design decisions that semi manufacturers use because 'we've always done it that way'... The base dry weight without battery or fuel could easily be 10k+ lbs less on the tesla.
Here is a truck drivers perspective on how much the tesla weighs.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/01/how-much-does-the-tesla-semi-weigh/
Not laws of physics as much as legal ones. The legal weight limit for a semi truck on US roads is 80,000 lbs (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm)). I'm confused how they're legally hauling 75,000 lbs . . . does the truck and bed weigh less than 5,000 lbs?
Something seems weird there.
EDIT - I read the second article. So, the weight of the load is being guessed by the number of straps used to tie stuff down? I wouldn't place a lot of faith in that.
As an aside - I used to load and strap down flatbed trucks working a summer job in university (it was lumber, not concrete) but the number of straps used was generally determined by the rule of "looks about right" . . . not careful calculation of weight. :P
In any case, I was specifically addressing your concerns regarding weight for towing and how a comparison between a sedan towing a trailer and a semi towing a trailer is not going to result in an accurate correlation. Discussion here: https://www.quora.com/What-s-the-miles-per-gallon-for-an-empty-tractor-trailer-versus-a-full-trailer-loadQuoteSo if I'm empty in a place like say Oregon, I will average 6 to 7 mpg, but in Florida it can be over 8mpg considering the flat terrain. Fully gloaded you will generally lose a mpg .QuoteI average 6.7 loaded (the truck in profile picture) and 7.5 to 8 empty, although I rarely run far empty. And this is dependent on speed, terrain, weather, etc.QuoteDepends on the truck engine/trans/rear gearing and the type of trailer. Our Volvo that pulls a flatbed gets 12 mpg bobtail(no trailer), 10mpg with trailer(deadhead) and around 6.5–7 loaded(48,000lbs payload grossing around 79,000lbs). Our Kenworth that pulls the same trailer type and weight gets around 7.5–8 loaded. And around the same deadhead.
The delta between empty to loaded is not nearly as significant as one might think.
Yep. Totally agree. That's kinda why I was saying that comparing the little Tesla model 3 and then scaling up for a semi truck isn't very valid. It's not that Tesla's suck at towing . . . it's that heavier load puts very different power consumption requirements on the vehicle. You can compare a Tesla model 3 with a small car and draw conclusions from that, but the power draw is going to be very different when towing heavy cargo.
empty loaded loss
6.5 5.5 -0.153846154
7.75 6.7 -0.135483871
10 6.75 -0.325
7.75 7.75 0
average -0.153582506
Also, Considering the tesla doesn't have empty gas tanks, a huge engine/tranny and cooling system, what dry weight benefit can you give tesla without a battery? Your numbers have the dry weight of both at 30k. What is your weight estimates of this flatbed tesla and how far do you think it can go?
Also, Considering the tesla doesn't have empty gas tanks, a huge engine/tranny and cooling system, what dry weight benefit can you give tesla without a battery? Your numbers have the dry weight of both at 30k. What is your weight estimates of this flatbed tesla and how far do you think it can go?
No idea on the flatbed weight. There are just too many variables for me to even do back of the napkin calculations on.
My initial point was simply that the battery weight for these things is probably going to be significant enough to cut into cargo capacity when compared to fuel. And we haven't even really touched on what's going to happen with these things when they go to cold climates and lose 20 - 25% of their range right off the bat.
We're definitely going to need trucks of some sort in the future. I think it was Syonk who mentioned hybrid systems being a better immediate path forward (for a variety of reasons) and I agree with him. I also think that we probably need to build more rail (for both shipping and for people transportation) and stop looking to roads to save us - road shipment of goods should be used as a stop gap method of getting from rail yard to rail yard. Even with electric cars, the environmental costs of running heavy vehicles on roadways is significant.
Again, aero is more important than weight.
The link you posted claimed a 50% range drop with a Model X towing, but the real-world examples provided above indicate a 15.36% loss in range for a diesel truck. The presence and ensuing aero drag of a trailer is more significant than the weight. Increasing net weight for batteries is likely to have an insignificant impact on range.Code: [Select]empty loaded loss
6.5 5.5 -0.153846154
7.75 6.7 -0.135483871
10 6.75 -0.325
7.75 7.75 0
average -0.153582506
The 5x energy bonus is a comparison to gas cars (assuming a 15% energy conversion rate for gas). Diesel engines (like the ones used on most heavy goods vehicles) are a fair bit more efficient, so the comparison doesn't hold for them.
Please stop abusing handwaving rule of thumb numbers as though they're more accurate than order of magnitude. Napkin math is hard enough to get close if you're using the actual numbers for energy/power density, built examples, etc. You can find thermal efficiency curves for various engines, or back-calculate from various other data, and get a lot closer than "100x," "5x," etc. If you're not going to try to get the stuff you can get real numbers for accurate, you're likely to get within an order of magnitude, at best, which isn't very interesting.
I still wonder if there isn't some way to put the equivalent of an AC third rail into roads and offload much of that battery weight. I could see it working through transformer action (electromagnetic induction). It would be rectified on board and current would be supplied to the drive motors. Small batteries would still be needed to get the truck to it's final destination off the main highway (Interstate).
It would be a major infrastructure project to modify the roads, but you should have the advantages of today's freight haulers without pollution. You may be able to eliminate a lot of greenhouse gases depending on the initial supply of the AC.
Of course with magic batteries, the idea of offloading the batteries is totally void.
Agreed! As far as the 5x rule of thumb number, the post of mine that you quoted was advising not to use it at all in favour of better stuff. But I did use the 100x number comparing energy density of electric and diesel vehicles. So let's take a closer look at that 100x rule of thumb number and see if we can get a better value from good data rather than that simple rule of thumb:
100-265 Wh/kg - Energy density of lithium ion batteries (https://www.cei.washington.edu/education/science-of-solar/battery-technology/#:~:text=Compared%20to%20the%20other%20high,%2D670%20Wh%2FL). (https://www.cei.washington.edu/education/science-of-solar/battery-technology/#:~:text=Compared%20to%20the%20other%20high,%2D670%20Wh%2FL).))
45 MJ/kg - Energy density of Diesel (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density))
Using this handy dandy MJ to Wh converter (http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/mjwh.php#:~:text=W.h%E2%86%94mJ%201%20W.h%20%3D%203600000%20mJ (http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/mjwh.php#:~:text=W.h%E2%86%94mJ%201%20W.h%20%3D%203600000%20mJ)) - we see that Diesel has 12500 Wh/kg.
So, Diesel is actually 277.8x more energy dense than batteries - not 100x.
If we want to include calculation for thermal efficiency of the engine:
Lithium Ion Battery - 45 * .83 = 37.35
Diesel - 12500 * .33 = 4,125
The more accurate measure than the 100x rule of thumb (taking into account the difference in efficiency between electric vs diesel engines) works out to being 110.4 x.
277.8 - that's how many watt-hours are in 1 megajoule. Literally the conversion factor - the mistake made was dividing wh per kg diesel by MJ per kg diesel. You know, instead of the intended wh per kg diesel over wh per kg battery.Agreed! As far as the 5x rule of thumb number, the post of mine that you quoted was advising not to use it at all in favour of better stuff. But I did use the 100x number comparing energy density of electric and diesel vehicles. So let's take a closer look at that 100x rule of thumb number and see if we can get a better value from good data rather than that simple rule of thumb:
100-265 Wh/kg - Energy density of lithium ion batteries (https://www.cei.washington.edu/education/science-of-solar/battery-technology/#:~:text=Compared%20to%20the%20other%20high,%2D670%20Wh%2FL). (https://www.cei.washington.edu/education/science-of-solar/battery-technology/#:~:text=Compared%20to%20the%20other%20high,%2D670%20Wh%2FL).))
45 MJ/kg - Energy density of Diesel (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density))
Using this handy dandy MJ to Wh converter (http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/mjwh.php#:~:text=W.h%E2%86%94mJ%201%20W.h%20%3D%203600000%20mJ (http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/mjwh.php#:~:text=W.h%E2%86%94mJ%201%20W.h%20%3D%203600000%20mJ)) - we see that Diesel has 12500 Wh/kg.
So, Diesel is actually 277.8x more energy dense than batteries - not 100x.
If we want to include calculation for thermal efficiency of the engine:
Lithium Ion Battery - 45 * .83 = 37.35
Diesel - 12500 * .33 = 4,125
The more accurate measure than the 100x rule of thumb (taking into account the difference in efficiency between electric vs diesel engines) works out to being 110.4 x.
Diesel - 12,500 Wh/kg
Battery 1 - 100 Wh/kg
Battery 2 - 265 Wh/kg
12,500 / 100 = 125
12,500 / 265 = 47.16981132075472
Where are you getting 277.8x?
Agreed! As far as the 5x rule of thumb number, the post of mine that you quoted was advising not to use it at all in favour of better stuff. But I did use the 100x number comparing energy density of electric and diesel vehicles. So let's take a closer look at that 100x rule of thumb number and see if we can get a better value from good data rather than that simple rule of thumb:
100-265 Wh/kg - Energy density of lithium ion batteries (https://www.cei.washington.edu/education/science-of-solar/battery-technology/#:~:text=Compared%20to%20the%20other%20high,%2D670%20Wh%2FL). (https://www.cei.washington.edu/education/science-of-solar/battery-technology/#:~:text=Compared%20to%20the%20other%20high,%2D670%20Wh%2FL).))
45 MJ/kg - Energy density of Diesel (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density))
Using this handy dandy MJ to Wh converter (http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/mjwh.php#:~:text=W.h%E2%86%94mJ%201%20W.h%20%3D%203600000%20mJ (http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/mjwh.php#:~:text=W.h%E2%86%94mJ%201%20W.h%20%3D%203600000%20mJ)) - we see that Diesel has 12500 Wh/kg.
So, Diesel is actually 277.8x more energy dense than batteries - not 100x.
If we want to include calculation for thermal efficiency of the engine:
Lithium Ion Battery - 45 * .83 = 37.35
Diesel - 12500 * .33 = 4,125
The more accurate measure than the 100x rule of thumb (taking into account the difference in efficiency between electric vs diesel engines) works out to being 110.4 x.
Diesel - 12,500 Wh/kg
Battery 1 - 100 Wh/kg
Battery 2 - 265 Wh/kg
12,500 / 100 = 125
12,500 / 265 = 47.16981132075472
Where are you getting 277.8x?
I'm not sure what you're doing, but if you're coming up with an extra 30k lbs for a battery powered tractor, either you've done something wrong, or the entire trucking industry (including companies like Peterbilt) can't do math. Or it doesn't matter because most loads are volume limited and not weight limited. I don't know enough about the industry to argue convincingly one way or another.
Removing the entire diesel engine and cooling system, transmission, and drivetrain in place of electric motor modules and inverters saves quite a few literal tons of weight. You can probably save another thousand pounds or so on the braking system, as it only has to function as an emergency "Stop it once on a downhill" sort of system, with regen handling normal deceleration loads. Brake drums for trucks are not light (around 100 lb/hub), though you'll still need an air compressor for the trailer.
Anyway, I've nothing further of value to add to this conversation at this point.
Do you have any good numbers for comparison of weight of EVs and weight of diesel vehicles? I haven't really been able to find anything, but it does seem likely that there's significant weight savings to be had there.
Do you have any good numbers for comparison of weight of EVs and weight of diesel vehicles? I haven't really been able to find anything, but it does seem likely that there's significant weight savings to be had there.
Comparable categories (AWD and similar acceleration):
BMW M340d xDrive - 3957 lbs (https://www.ultimatespecs.com/car-specs/BMW/119385/BMW-G20-3-Series-M340d-xDrive.html)
Tesla Model 3 Long Range - 4250 lbs (https://www.autoblog.com/buy/2021-Tesla-Model+3-Long_Range__4dr_All_Wheel_Drive_Sedan/specs/)
"Well there's your problem" have some very, ahem, long winded podcasts/videos and a few of them dive into Musk's claims...notably, Hyperloop and the regular Loop ("Tesla in tunnels").
I bought a $9500 2015 nissan leaf 3.5 years ago and have put just shy of 40k miles on it(~80k miles total). Based on my charger kWh usage log and electricity rate for my house, I have paid ~$1350 in electricity to drive ~40k miles. That is about 3.3 cents per mile. The brake pads are still good due to regen braking and likely wont need replacing till 100k miles minimally. No oil changes or maintenance has been needed other than tires at about 60k. The battery has about 85% of its original capacity left based on leafspy reading data from the ODB II port and with the crazy used car prices right now, it is still worth around $8000-9000. I have found my BEV experiment to be a complete success and my goal is to purchase another BEV as soon as the car market normalizes again.
...I am excited to see what happens next. I see the PHEV as the soft introduction to BEVs. Once people realize that the 40mile range of the PHEV pack can be charged overnight each day and you never have to use the gas engine, their next vehicle will be a BEV to get away from the maintenance and additional complexities of the PHEV. If the traditional auto mfgs aren't doubing down efforts on BEVs all they are doing is priming their customer base to leave for a solid BEV platform in the future.
QuoteWhile he has certainly accomplished some impressive stuff, Musk's genius seems to be often overstated. He has had some hilariously stupid/bad ideas that have either failed or are doomed to failure . . . the hyperloop, Vegas loop, Tesla semi, etc.
Just out of interest why do you think the Tesla Semi will fail?
At the risk of thread derailment - OK. Musk is a very smart guy in certain areas, and I applaud his efforts at converting the country away from fossil fuel vehicles. That said, I think he's wrong on the Semi. It's a matter of weight, energy density, and the max that the roads can support.
The maximum total weight that you can run a semi truck in the US is 80,000 lbs (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm)).
The average weight of an unloaded semi is between 25,000 - 35,000 lbs (https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-a-semi-truck-weigh (https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-a-semi-truck-weigh)). Let's go with 30,000 as a middle point.
According to Musk, the semi will have a range of 621 miles (https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/tesla-semi-electric-truck-621-miles-range-elon-musk/ (https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/tesla-semi-electric-truck-621-miles-range-elon-musk/))
According to Peterbilt’s site (www.peterbilt.com), their trucks average of about 4.89 mpg, so 621 miles is about 127 gallons of fuel. At 7 lbs a gallon(https://www.tcsfuel.com/blog/the-weight-of-diesel-fuel/ (https://www.tcsfuel.com/blog/the-weight-of-diesel-fuel/)) that works out to 882 lbs.
Gasoline is about 100 times more energy dense than lithium ion batteries (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm)), so that means that about 88,200 lbs of battery will be needed. (We'll ignore the fact that Tesla is using less energy dense Lithium Ion Phosphate batteries for this calculation). We can already see a problem here. But you know what? Elon is a pretty smart guy and is working on the cutting edge of battery technology . . . so let's assume that he can use magic to double the energy density of his batteries. That's a pretty incredible feat. So we end up with 44,100 lbs of battery for the range that he quoted.
So we have some totals:
Max weight on the road - 80,000
Gas side:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of fuel - 882
Max Cargo Capacity - 49,118
Musk Semi:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of magical super batteries - 44,100
Max Cargo Capacity - 5,900
Seems like this can't work - Musk's truck wouldn't be able to tow enough cargo to make any sense.
btw. the biggest problem in electric cars propagation is still the production capacity. Fords F1-50 lightning is booked for the next 3 years of production.
Fortunately the biggest 2 producers - Tesla and BYD - seem to have less problems than Ford or VW.
btw. the biggest problem in electric cars propagation is still the production capacity. Fords F1-50 lightning is booked for the next 3 years of production.
Fortunately the biggest 2 producers - Tesla and BYD - seem to have less problems than Ford or VW.
I agree with your larger point, but I think it's worth pointing out that calculating the weight of an EV truck is not as simple as weight of an ICE truck + weight of batteries = weight of EV truck. The ICE truck has thousands of lbs of ICE stuff that the EV truck would not (engine, transmission, differentials, larger cooling system, fuel tanks, exhaust, etc). So the basic equation to find the weight of the BEV truck would be:
Weight of ICE truck - Weight of all ICE components + Weight of batteries and all EV components = total weight
That, plus the whole "100x" gas vs batteries (how's it compare to diesel? ;) ) thing isn't the right way to approach the math either.
Energy density of gas is 46 MJ/kg and diesel is 45 MJ/kg (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density)).QuoteThe Model 3 long range has an 82kwh pack that weighs 1060lbs.
If we use that (which seems "real world" enough to me...), then the stated 35k lbs of batteries is 2700 kWh. Which is an exceedingly long ranged pack, even for a semi.
The 100x number is a casual "Get the point across" value, not something concrete. More concretely:
82kWh @ 3.5 mi/kWh is 287 miles. Do that at 30mpg on gas, you're at 9.5 gallons, or about 60 lb. Toss in 50lb for a gas tank, you're at 110lb for the same range, or about a practical weight difference of 9.6x - not 100x.
Tesla Model 3 gets 130 mpg - https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41189.shtml (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/41189.shtml). Dividing that by 2.5 (to account for thermal efficiency) that means that it would get around 52 mpg on gas.
The gas tank of a Toyota Corolla weighs about 25 lbs empty, and holds 11 gallons.
That would bump things up to about 20x practical weight difference.
But then there's another problem here. We're looking at this comparison based upon the short range of the battery pack. If we compare a full tank with battery packs, the difference becomes even greater.
25 lb (fuel tank) + 69.3 lbs (11 gallons gas) @ 52 mpg = 682 mile range for 94.3 lbs
vs
1060 lb for 287 = 682 mile range for 2,518 lbs
Of course, this gets worse if we consider real world conditions (batteries significantly underperform in cold weather - often 20% worse or more). But it seems that you're looking at more than 25x - not 9.6x.
A couple things---
1) Show me all the gas cars out there that'll run 0-60 in 2 or 3 seconds and get 52mpg. It's more complicated than just running napkin numbers.
2) Diesel is ~12.7% heavier than gasoline. Use MJ/kg if you want, but you can't translate that directly to gallons.
1) I agree with this being more complicated than running back of napkin numbers . . . but I'm not sure why a 0-60 speed of 2 or 3 seconds is important in the discussion?
2) Fair point, thanks! We should bump up the weights I'm using for diesel by 12.7%.Quote from: GuitarStvNot laws of physics as much as legal ones. The legal weight limit for a semi truck on US roads is 80,000 lbs (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm). I'm confused how they're legally hauling 75,000 lbs . . . does the truck and bed weigh less than 5,000 lbs?
3) Are you even reading your own links? From your source: " Federal law controls maximum gross vehicle weights and axle loads on the Interstate System. [...] The report also shows that in some instances, States have laws that allow sizes and weights on non-Interstate highways in excess of the current Federal truck size and weight limits. This is an expected finding, as State laws control maximum gross vehicle sizes and weights on non-Interstate highways, including the NHS."
In California, weights are among the most restrictive in the U.S. Nearby states such as Idaho, Oregon and Washington permit gross vehicle weights up to 105,500 pounds, while Arizona, Nevada and Utah allow a maximum gross weight of 129,000 pounds. (https://www.transportdive.com/news/truck-weight-california-gvw-port-congestion/610257/)
I figured that a heavy goods truck would have to adhere to interstate highway limits to be of much use in the US. I hadn't really considered bypassing all the interstate highways and taking back roads in order to avoid weight limits. Does that seem particularly likely?
At any rate, we have no idea what the weight of the Tesla was in the link I was responding to. The guesstimate of 75,000 lbs seems to have been based upon number of straps used to hold down cargo and the average weight of a regular diesel truck.
QuoteWhile he has certainly accomplished some impressive stuff, Musk's genius seems to be often overstated. He has had some hilariously stupid/bad ideas that have either failed or are doomed to failure . . . the hyperloop, Vegas loop, Tesla semi, etc.
Just out of interest why do you think the Tesla Semi will fail?
At the risk of thread derailment - OK. Musk is a very smart guy in certain areas, and I applaud his efforts at converting the country away from fossil fuel vehicles. That said, I think he's wrong on the Semi. It's a matter of weight, energy density, and the max that the roads can support.
The maximum total weight that you can run a semi truck in the US is 80,000 lbs (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm)).
The average weight of an unloaded semi is between 25,000 - 35,000 lbs (https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-a-semi-truck-weigh (https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-a-semi-truck-weigh)). Let's go with 30,000 as a middle point.
According to Musk, the semi will have a range of 621 miles (https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/tesla-semi-electric-truck-621-miles-range-elon-musk/ (https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/tesla-semi-electric-truck-621-miles-range-elon-musk/))
According to Peterbilt’s site (www.peterbilt.com), their trucks average of about 4.89 mpg, so 621 miles is about 127 gallons of fuel. At 7 lbs a gallon(https://www.tcsfuel.com/blog/the-weight-of-diesel-fuel/ (https://www.tcsfuel.com/blog/the-weight-of-diesel-fuel/)) that works out to 882 lbs.
Gasoline is about 100 times more energy dense than lithium ion batteries (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm)), so that means that about 88,200 lbs of battery will be needed. (We'll ignore the fact that Tesla is using less energy dense Lithium Ion Phosphate batteries for this calculation). We can already see a problem here. But you know what? Elon is a pretty smart guy and is working on the cutting edge of battery technology . . . so let's assume that he can use magic to double the energy density of his batteries. That's a pretty incredible feat. So we end up with 44,100 lbs of battery for the range that he quoted.
So we have some totals:
Max weight on the road - 80,000
Gas side:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of fuel - 882
Max Cargo Capacity - 49,118
Musk Semi:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of magical super batteries - 44,100
Max Cargo Capacity - 5,900
Seems like this can't work - Musk's truck wouldn't be able to tow enough cargo to make any sense.
Sorry if it's already been mentioned but testing of the Tesla semi prototypes showed an energy consumption of 2kwh/mile. You need to reduce your estimated battery weight by an order of magnitude. I expect the short rage semi to be of similar weight to a diesel semi today, and the long range semi to have less than a 2,000lb weight penalty.
Except they do have them, just not in the quantities required.
Where are the Cybertrucks? LMAO
My response was to your comment about the batteries.
So I would say it’s probably about a year before we get to the 10 gigawatt hour annualized rate with the pilot plant. And this is just a pilot plant.
As was already given, Peterbilt's average mileage comes out to 4.89 miles per gallon. This means that your typical diesel truck gets 0.2045 gallons per mile.
Now, taking into account the thermal efficiency of diesel we're only actually transforming about 33% of that energy into actual energy used to move . . . so this is reduced to 4.125 kWh/mile.
I think your math is off.QuoteWhile he has certainly accomplished some impressive stuff, Musk's genius seems to be often overstated. He has had some hilariously stupid/bad ideas that have either failed or are doomed to failure . . . the hyperloop, Vegas loop, Tesla semi, etc.
Just out of interest why do you think the Tesla Semi will fail?
At the risk of thread derailment - OK. Musk is a very smart guy in certain areas, and I applaud his efforts at converting the country away from fossil fuel vehicles. That said, I think he's wrong on the Semi. It's a matter of weight, energy density, and the max that the roads can support.
The maximum total weight that you can run a semi truck in the US is 80,000 lbs (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm)).
The average weight of an unloaded semi is between 25,000 - 35,000 lbs (https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-a-semi-truck-weigh (https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-a-semi-truck-weigh)). Let's go with 30,000 as a middle point.
According to Musk, the semi will have a range of 621 miles (https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/tesla-semi-electric-truck-621-miles-range-elon-musk/ (https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/tesla-semi-electric-truck-621-miles-range-elon-musk/))
According to Peterbilt’s site (www.peterbilt.com), their trucks average of about 4.89 mpg, so 621 miles is about 127 gallons of fuel. At 7 lbs a gallon(https://www.tcsfuel.com/blog/the-weight-of-diesel-fuel/ (https://www.tcsfuel.com/blog/the-weight-of-diesel-fuel/)) that works out to 882 lbs.
Gasoline is about 100 times more energy dense than lithium ion batteries (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm)), so that means that about 88,200 lbs of battery will be needed. (We'll ignore the fact that Tesla is using less energy dense Lithium Ion Phosphate batteries for this calculation). We can already see a problem here. But you know what? Elon is a pretty smart guy and is working on the cutting edge of battery technology . . . so let's assume that he can use magic to double the energy density of his batteries. That's a pretty incredible feat. So we end up with 44,100 lbs of battery for the range that he quoted.
So we have some totals:
Max weight on the road - 80,000
Gas side:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of fuel - 882
Max Cargo Capacity - 49,118
Musk Semi:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of magical super batteries - 44,100
Max Cargo Capacity - 5,900
Seems like this can't work - Musk's truck wouldn't be able to tow enough cargo to make any sense.
Sorry if it's already been mentioned but testing of the Tesla semi prototypes showed an energy consumption of 2kwh/mile. You need to reduce your estimated battery weight by an order of magnitude. I expect the short rage semi to be of similar weight to a diesel semi today, and the long range semi to have less than a 2,000lb weight penalty.
Can you describe the test used to get the 2kWh/mile number you're quoting? My suspicion is that it does not test real world hauling numbers.
As was already given, Peterbilt's average mileage comes out to 4.89 miles per gallon. This means that your typical diesel truck gets 0.2045 gallons per mile.
We know that the energy density of diesel is 45 MJ/kg and that 0.2045 gallons is .66 kg (https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight (https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight)). So to go one average mile a diesel truck needs 29.7 MJ.
Converting, we get 12.5 kWh/mile (http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/mjwh.php#:~:text=W.h%E2%86%94mJ%201%20W.h%20%3D%203600000%20mJ (http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/mjwh.php#:~:text=W.h%E2%86%94mJ%201%20W.h%20%3D%203600000%20mJ)).
Now, taking into account the thermal efficiency of diesel we're only actually transforming about 33% of that energy into actual energy used to move . . . so this is reduced to 4.125 kWh/mile.
Please double check my math above on this, but the number that you're reporting appears to more than halve the energy needed to move a transport truck. I don't see how aerodynamics or weight difference could account for a change of the magnitude being claimed.
I think your math is off.
as was previously established
277.8 wh/kg = 1MJ/kg
45*277.8=12500 wh/kg density of diesel
0.66 kg of diesel per mile * 12500 = 8250 wh/mile * 0.33 effeciency = 2.7KwH/mile. Seems close enough to take into account aerodynamics and regen braking temporarily increasing battery effeciency beyond 100% during braking.
I don't see how aerodynamics or weight difference could account for a change of the magnitude being claimed.
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com (https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/278653/1-s2.0-S1877705813X00074/1-s2.0-S1877705813004621/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEP%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQCpyx3aL8qlWmvgAoMKQFrWYIgmDIXD8mq3ZUQPej3RHgIgFdPtn%2BYUfl8QDpv1JtPqaaGwwJ9Lve9KPcOlPuhmeEEqgwQI2P%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAEGgwwNTkwMDM1NDY4NjUiDEZHUE2pmsKYIzjtMirXA%2BUzW0xVjB6fREfzuXXypEvrV0sKw%2FtdBy61zUZef9V3KfrsstOQtaEGYHMHTc4wLoOde8i383vWRPtJSVxqPnf%2BEjbAdEMsYXNWf1irNmjNZEIuDSIT2je8EgEuT8pnbTCafjoME5yzfoQ3PePXr0ekx3euEtL2lPC7nRRCNUU45bIxnYaS9FSENTxyfwY2rT74eE6zbW8xtiFRc4jJ0L61akqkLs2t%2BrIhh%2F1Er8WbJnJp5ELVqJgp0q0JtHrcaEyxDVUkmBp6xKRiF9EkqDAM32X8kF1V28c19YLeAo73GhhQUA3Yxre2d6BEFemo91w2UefH%2B%2FzpJlHHVF5n%2FImZlQ0%2F4B3jedsV44yJdVT8mKd1epVQr37DQdNI%2FmIg3bJnZvPjNHzzucOS0lixdQTH%2FTxNZiFZBUOO5RtQe4oa08kyQ4BWslK6Ixu%2FsmHnfTAQGhrxG%2BBKaNeAqPCoH1Sqq4s2uF9tEtJ7QyszNHuXTAGWI12Vq402qTOcfXTsrSAwDy%2FKLAd75g7sm2cdTxU9ivBUs%2FogO%2BhEOGK7PNAyzvml0wRqMRStqfoeG%2BZbQjfHhlAyZISEjKQeZVOqY8qJm68EpfYYROVZvN0u%2FfnSFqmeKcgOnDDyqciNBjqlAd9UOXUUrAOKmxBnyqgYxvZLkrq0Yb50%2Bhmx7Xm7otqkEjZWrRrktYMyH20s0%2FPD7TddKcDiIZ%2FxhueQG67yWcSP53g0kIk9D6Cesz%2BtS7z03CBObnGBpGCUXlKR8dGxtzpTt7wR6ijkMgmgpUJplcAdCUVRL7D3TWmbMeFnlrbpfLJa%2FLdIgc8BvJFSKpFGuZdNal1YUONDgyGYpF4v3WU%2FJtO%2FjA%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20211209T154836Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTY6NW7B54Y%2F20211209%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=5d83b06937aa4fcd125e4e991b98cf03234f57f3057337949434941d4fbb9d80&hash=def16f1d0b5efcf66ab0d823e9ee4a58c4b2535d34663f04bf470a4066848c2d&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1877705813004621&tid=spdf-97f58129-241e-464a-80dc-5fe5b2013de6&sid=34ac2a37240ac2445c996c7-42c1a8a10ca7gxrqa&type=client):
Heavy commercial vehicles are considered aerodynamically inefficient compared to other ground vehicles due to their
un-streamlined body shapes. A large commercial vehicle travelling at 100 km/h consumes about approximately 52% of the
total fuel to provide power to overcome the aerodynamic drag [1].
It’s not hard to see that the aerodynamic efficiency of conventional box-shaped trucks is quite low. This efficiency is typically expressed via the drag coefficient Cd (a measure for how streamlined a body is irrespective of its size – lower is better), typically between 0.5 and 0.8 for heavy duty trucks (including the trailer).
[...]
The results? A drag value of 0.35 for the Tesla truck and 0.43 for the reference truck.
The coefficient of
aerodynamic drag for current heavy-duty vehicles with smooth-sided
van trailers is about 0.6 - 0.85, which is higher than the value found
for light-duty vehicles, which is normally about 0.3 to 0.4 [6]. The
higher values for heavy-duty vehicles are due to the fact that they are
equipped with large boxes (with larger frontal areas than light-duty
vehicles) to carry freight.
[...]
If the coefficient of aerodynamic drag is reduced
from the proposed EPA/NHTSA baseline coefficient of 0.69 to 0.48
(30% reduction from DOE baseline number) [12], a 13% FC savings
is achieved for the regional delivery truck during HHDDT mode.
(https://i.imgur.com/wBi2Gm0.png)
I think your math is off.QuoteWhile he has certainly accomplished some impressive stuff, Musk's genius seems to be often overstated. He has had some hilariously stupid/bad ideas that have either failed or are doomed to failure . . . the hyperloop, Vegas loop, Tesla semi, etc.
Just out of interest why do you think the Tesla Semi will fail?
At the risk of thread derailment - OK. Musk is a very smart guy in certain areas, and I applaud his efforts at converting the country away from fossil fuel vehicles. That said, I think he's wrong on the Semi. It's a matter of weight, energy density, and the max that the roads can support.
The maximum total weight that you can run a semi truck in the US is 80,000 lbs (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/index.htm)).
The average weight of an unloaded semi is between 25,000 - 35,000 lbs (https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-a-semi-truck-weigh (https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-a-semi-truck-weigh)). Let's go with 30,000 as a middle point.
According to Musk, the semi will have a range of 621 miles (https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/tesla-semi-electric-truck-621-miles-range-elon-musk/ (https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/tesla-semi-electric-truck-621-miles-range-elon-musk/))
According to Peterbilt’s site (www.peterbilt.com), their trucks average of about 4.89 mpg, so 621 miles is about 127 gallons of fuel. At 7 lbs a gallon(https://www.tcsfuel.com/blog/the-weight-of-diesel-fuel/ (https://www.tcsfuel.com/blog/the-weight-of-diesel-fuel/)) that works out to 882 lbs.
Gasoline is about 100 times more energy dense than lithium ion batteries (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm)), so that means that about 88,200 lbs of battery will be needed. (We'll ignore the fact that Tesla is using less energy dense Lithium Ion Phosphate batteries for this calculation). We can already see a problem here. But you know what? Elon is a pretty smart guy and is working on the cutting edge of battery technology . . . so let's assume that he can use magic to double the energy density of his batteries. That's a pretty incredible feat. So we end up with 44,100 lbs of battery for the range that he quoted.
So we have some totals:
Max weight on the road - 80,000
Gas side:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of fuel - 882
Max Cargo Capacity - 49,118
Musk Semi:
Weight of truck - 30,000
Weight of magical super batteries - 44,100
Max Cargo Capacity - 5,900
Seems like this can't work - Musk's truck wouldn't be able to tow enough cargo to make any sense.
Sorry if it's already been mentioned but testing of the Tesla semi prototypes showed an energy consumption of 2kwh/mile. You need to reduce your estimated battery weight by an order of magnitude. I expect the short rage semi to be of similar weight to a diesel semi today, and the long range semi to have less than a 2,000lb weight penalty.
Can you describe the test used to get the 2kWh/mile number you're quoting? My suspicion is that it does not test real world hauling numbers.
As was already given, Peterbilt's average mileage comes out to 4.89 miles per gallon. This means that your typical diesel truck gets 0.2045 gallons per mile.
We know that the energy density of diesel is 45 MJ/kg and that 0.2045 gallons is .66 kg (https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight (https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight)). So to go one average mile a diesel truck needs 29.7 MJ.
Converting, we get 12.5 kWh/mile (http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/mjwh.php#:~:text=W.h%E2%86%94mJ%201%20W.h%20%3D%203600000%20mJ (http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/mjwh.php#:~:text=W.h%E2%86%94mJ%201%20W.h%20%3D%203600000%20mJ)).
Now, taking into account the thermal efficiency of diesel we're only actually transforming about 33% of that energy into actual energy used to move . . . so this is reduced to 4.125 kWh/mile.
Please double check my math above on this, but the number that you're reporting appears to more than halve the energy needed to move a transport truck. I don't see how aerodynamics or weight difference could account for a change of the magnitude being claimed.
as was previously established
277.8 wh/kg = 1MJ/kg
45*277.8=12500 wh/kg density of diesel
0.66 kg of diesel per mile * 12500 = 8250 wh/mile * 0.33 effeciency = 2.7KwH/mile. Seems close enough to take into account aerodynamics and regen braking temporarily increasing battery effeciency beyond 100% during braking.
Can BEVs finally become popular in the US?
BEVs are already popular and becoming more popular by the day as shown by the sales numbers of Tesla with no active marketing department.
In 2018, just under a quarter million EVs were sold in the U.S. About 75% of those were from Tesla. In that same year, over 5.3 million total passenger cars were sold, and another nearly 12 million light trucks, just in the U.S.
I also think your estimate for diesel engine thermal efficiency is low here. Brake Thermal Efficiency between 43-46% is more likely these days:
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2019-01-0247/
Cutting edge diesel semis are over 55% thermal efficiency these days:
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10149714/supertruck-ii-team-reaches-brake-thermal-efficiency-goal
All of this goes back to my point on a previous page about Tesla Semi having hurdles to introduction. Diesel powertrains are getting lighter and more fuel efficient all the time, which makes the fuel savings benefits of a BEV semi smaller and weight disparity larger.
This article compares c/d numbers for traditional trucks, traditional aero-optimized trucks, and the Tesla semi, with a range of 0.35 to 0.8:Quote from: https://airshaper.com/cases/tesla-semi-truck-aerodynamics-analyzedIt’s not hard to see that the aerodynamic efficiency of conventional box-shaped trucks is quite low. This efficiency is typically expressed via the drag coefficient Cd (a measure for how streamlined a body is irrespective of its size – lower is better), typically between 0.5 and 0.8 for heavy duty trucks (including the trailer).
[...]
The results? A drag value of 0.35 for the Tesla truck and 0.43 for the reference truck.
Can BEVs finally become popular in the US?
BEVs are already popular and becoming more popular by the day as shown by the sales numbers of Tesla with no active marketing department.
Kind of depends on your definition of "popular." As 2021 comes to a close, we see companies like Toyota, GM, Stellantis/FCA, Ford selling 400-535k units per quarter. Hyundia/Honda sell about 350k each. Tesla sold about 80k units in their most recent quarter. To put it another way, out of about 12.8 million cars sold in the U.S. so far in 2021, about 340k were electric. That's about 2.7%.
Compare this to when I started the thread just over two years ago...In 2018, just under a quarter million EVs were sold in the U.S. About 75% of those were from Tesla. In that same year, over 5.3 million total passenger cars were sold, and another nearly 12 million light trucks, just in the U.S.
The numbers haven't changed all that much... yet. The percentage has nearly doubled in that time, but it's still a small percentage. And most EVs are still Tesla. On the flip side, Tesla is approaching 1 million sales annually on a global basis, so that gives you a good indicator of how many EVs a well-oiled manufacturer could expect to produce. We're probably 5-10 years away from those figures for the late-comers, like VW and Ford.
A total of 293,100 BEVs were delivered worldwide by the end of September
Uhhh, VW is the most advanced EV producing "legacy" automaker.
https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/press-releases/volkswagen-group-doubles-deliveries-of-pure-e-vehicles-in-third-quarter-7569
They delivered ~539k EVs from Jan-Sept 2021. They're probably going to do ~1m electric vehicle sales from their group of brands (VW, Audi, Porsche, Skoda, etc.) in 2021.
They announced recently they're investing/spending $52bn Euros on battery-powered EVs by 2026. Very odd to describe them as a late-comer.
Thanks for the correction @DarkandStormy! My mistake. I hadn't even looked at their numbers because I didn't expect them to be significant. (Ford's numbers are not!) But it was a bad assumption on my part.Yes and it also includes plug-in-hybrids. 293K BEV. From the article, US (BEV only) are 27,300 Jan-Sep, which is triple the same months in 2020. Much bigger in Europe.
I'm assuming that's 539k global EVs, but I wonder how many made it to the U.S. That number would have to be quite a bit smaller.
This article compares c/d numbers for traditional trucks, traditional aero-optimized trucks, and the Tesla semi, with a range of 0.35 to 0.8:Quote from: https://airshaper.com/cases/tesla-semi-truck-aerodynamics-analyzedIt’s not hard to see that the aerodynamic efficiency of conventional box-shaped trucks is quite low. This efficiency is typically expressed via the drag coefficient Cd (a measure for how streamlined a body is irrespective of its size – lower is better), typically between 0.5 and 0.8 for heavy duty trucks (including the trailer).
[...]
The results? A drag value of 0.35 for the Tesla truck and 0.43 for the reference truck.
The models used here appear to be European and not North American spec. The analysis done here involves flat-front, cabover style truck with large rear view mirrors compared to a Tesla truck without rear view mirrors. In the US, basically nobody uses a flat-front cabover anymore as the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in North American driving environments. Second, large, rear view mirrors create lots of drag. The conventional truck in the aero comparison has them, but the Tesla does not. In the US at least, those mirrors are required, and Tesla Semis testing in public have them:
So I'd wager that the typical new American semi cab like a Freightliner Cascadia is likely a bit better aerodynamically speaking than what they ran through their software. Simultaneously the Tesla will be less slippery in the real world, or at least locations where rear view cameras aren't legal. The biggest difference is likely the size of the cooling openings needed on an ICE truck vs an EV. Other than that, there's not much about the aero of the Tesla Semi that couldn't (and isn't) being duplicated on new ICE trucks.
NREL/CP-5400-64049. Posted with permission.
Presented at the SAE 2015 Commercial Vehicle
Engineering Congress (COMVEC), 6-8 October
2015, Rosemont, Illinois
a. The coefficient of
aerodynamic drag for current heavy-duty vehicles with smooth-sided
van trailers is about 0.6 - 0.85, which is higher than the value found
for light-duty vehicles, which is normally about 0.3 to 0.4 [6]. The
higher values for heavy-duty vehicles are due to the fact that they are
equipped with large boxes (with larger frontal areas than light-duty
vehicles) to carry freight.
This article compares c/d numbers for traditional trucks, traditional aero-optimized trucks, and the Tesla semi, with a range of 0.35 to 0.8:Quote from: https://airshaper.com/cases/tesla-semi-truck-aerodynamics-analyzedIt’s not hard to see that the aerodynamic efficiency of conventional box-shaped trucks is quite low. This efficiency is typically expressed via the drag coefficient Cd (a measure for how streamlined a body is irrespective of its size – lower is better), typically between 0.5 and 0.8 for heavy duty trucks (including the trailer).
[...]
The results? A drag value of 0.35 for the Tesla truck and 0.43 for the reference truck.
The models used here appear to be European and not North American spec. The analysis done here involves flat-front, cabover style truck with large rear view mirrors compared to a Tesla truck without rear view mirrors. In the US, basically nobody uses a flat-front cabover anymore as the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in North American driving environments. Second, large, rear view mirrors create lots of drag. The conventional truck in the aero comparison has them, but the Tesla does not. In the US at least, those mirrors are required, and Tesla Semis testing in public have them:
So I'd wager that the typical new American semi cab like a Freightliner Cascadia is likely a bit better aerodynamically speaking than what they ran through their software. Simultaneously the Tesla will be less slippery in the real world, or at least locations where rear view cameras aren't legal. The biggest difference is likely the size of the cooling openings needed on an ICE truck vs an EV. Other than that, there's not much about the aero of the Tesla Semi that couldn't (and isn't) being duplicated on new ICE trucks.
The eight page study that you appear to have ignored is dated 2015, which is not nearly old enough to be irrelevant.Quote from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/64049.pdfNREL/CP-5400-64049. Posted with permission.
Presented at the SAE 2015 Commercial Vehicle
Engineering Congress (COMVEC), 6-8 October
2015, Rosemont, Illinois
a. The coefficient of
aerodynamic drag for current heavy-duty vehicles with smooth-sided
van trailers is about 0.6 - 0.85, which is higher than the value found
for light-duty vehicles, which is normally about 0.3 to 0.4 [6]. The
higher values for heavy-duty vehicles are due to the fact that they are
equipped with large boxes (with larger frontal areas than light-duty
vehicles) to carry freight.
Uhhh, VW is the most advanced EV producing "legacy" automaker.No, not at all. They were late comer and still are. Their first electic car was shown (not sold) in September 2019. How many cars did Tesla sell that year again? How many has BYD sold?
https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/press-releases/volkswagen-group-doubles-deliveries-of-pure-e-vehicles-in-third-quarter-7569
They delivered ~539k EVs from Jan-Sept 2021. They're probably going to do ~1m electric vehicle sales from their group of brands (VW, Audi, Porsche, Skoda, etc.) in 2021.
They announced recently they're investing/spending $52bn Euros on battery-powered EVs by 2026. Very odd to describe them as a late-comer.
https://insideevs.com/news/553626/vw-increases-investments-in-emobility/
https://insideevs.com/news/553626/vw-increases-investments-in-emobility/
Ford seeing strong demand for BEV F-150: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/09/ford-stops-reservations-for-f-150-lightning-electric-pickup-because-of-demand-ceo-tells-cramer.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/09/ford-stops-reservations-for-f-150-lightning-electric-pickup-because-of-demand-ceo-tells-cramer.html)
Uhhh, VW is the most advanced EV producing "legacy" automaker.No, not at all. They were late comer and still are. Their first electic car was shown (not sold) in September 2019. How many cars did Tesla sell that year again? How many has BYD sold?
https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/press-releases/volkswagen-group-doubles-deliveries-of-pure-e-vehicles-in-third-quarter-7569
They delivered ~539k EVs from Jan-Sept 2021. They're probably going to do ~1m electric vehicle sales from their group of brands (VW, Audi, Porsche, Skoda, etc.) in 2021.
They announced recently they're investing/spending $52bn Euros on battery-powered EVs by 2026. Very odd to describe them as a late-comer.
Currently VW is 4th after BYD, Tesla and SGMV in e-cars sold.
Also there is currently an in-fight about how and where to produce e-cars. Because that means that production lines have to be refitted and thousands will lose their job.
Estimates are that VW will be where they should be today in 2025(!).
I don't think being a late comer needs to be seen as a negative necessarily. EVs were money losers until very recently, even for the early leaders. The legacy automakers weren't totally unaware of EVs, or incapable of engineering them. They were simply choosing to focus on more profitable products until the business case for EVs was stronger. Now that battery costs are around $100/kWh instead of $150 or $170 you see many of the legacy OEMs ramping up.
If we don't need a livable planet, we don't need to see latecomers in a negative light, either.
EVs were money losers, except for companies that knew how to make money out of them.
That is also why VW has an incredibly low rating on the stock exchange while Tesla is rated as a company sellling 10 times the cars they do today. Tesla is worth more than VW and several others together even though based on numbers of cars sold Tesla only is in the low single % of those companies.
Or in other words: "The Market" things Tesla as the forerunner will be the car market leader in 2030, leaving behind VW&Co. That is what latecomer means.
Maybe it's my lack in English, but I don't see "latecomer" as an always negative thing, I simply see it as a description that someone was too late.
Which is true of VW (and many others). 5 years ago (or even more), when they should have done the big investments, they prefered to laugh about Tesla.
That is also why VW has an incredibly low rating on the stock exchange while Tesla is rated as a company sellling 10 times the cars they do today. Tesla is worth more than VW and several others together even though based on numbers of cars sold Tesla only is in the low single % of those companies.
Or in other words: "The Market" things Tesla as the forerunner will be the car market leader in 2030, leaving behind VW&Co. That is what latecomer means.
But yeah when did anyone start making money on EVs? We don't have to go back all that far to see how Tesla was losing money. They had investments to make; I don't know the "per unit" profit margin and when it turned around, but it's not hard to see that EVs were harder to profit on, short of selling them as expensive status cars rather than mainstream, economical cars.
I still do not see VW as significant in the U.S. given those tiny sales figures. But they are now vehicles that people can test drive and buy, so that's a start.
VW is "Too late" for what specifically?
If we don't need a livable planet, we don't need to see latecomers in a negative light, either.
VW is "Too late" for what specifically?
VW is not *too* late. VW is *late* and has to play catch-up.
Again, I don't see what's controversial about this statement. It's just a description of reality. It doesn't mean that VW is not doing great things *at the moment*. It means that VW started doing great things *late*.
If we don't need a livable planet, we don't need to see latecomers in a negative light, either.
It remains an open question as to if "Industrial society, but with renewables and less carbon" is planet-compatible...
But yeah when did anyone start making money on EVs?
When did FB start to "make money"? When did Google start to "make money" on YouTube, which it acquired for an insane (at the moment) amount?
Yet both are financial successes far beyond what legacy automakers can dream of.
All the tools that Tesla/FB/Google used were available to legacy automakers. They made a decision not to use them. Too bad, for them and for us.
What I'm trying to say is that "make money" in the sense of being able to see an immediate per-unit profit is not the only way to "make money". Many of the most highly valued, insanely successful companies of today did not "make money" in the former sense for a long, long time. Yet they made a shit-ton of money in the end.
You're arguing a point I didn't make "Tesla doesn't know how to make money long-term", even though the discussion in play was "VW didn't know how to make money on EVs in the past, and are only able to do so now. In contrast to Tesla." (Except, there is no real contrast, because Tesla also lost money on EVs until recently - they are the same in that, and the previous comment about battery costs is still relevant.)
Then you're using software companies as examples, perhaps to argue about the valuation of Tesla. Well, there's a whole other thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/is-tesla-a-good-investment/) (at least) dedicated to that topic ;) It doesn't really play into the discussion of whether "EVs can finally become popular in the U.S.", unless you want to argue about exponential sales growth (which Tesla already has) turning single digit market share of EVs into double-digits (which will happen for EVs, if not necessarily for Tesla), but the debate is really about how long that will take.
Now - and it is an honest question - does VW "make money" on its ID line? Once we account for the investment in R&D, retooling of the factories, money it was forced to put into Electrify America, trial runs with earlier EVs, and the rest of the accompanying expenses? Or is its EV business being subsidized by the legacy business?
So, let's say I'm not a good world citizen. It's probably true.
As the world shifts to electrified transportation, it seems likely that they will sell less gasoline and diesel fuel.
During the early stages of the pandemic, they weren't selling a lot of gas. The price dropped precipitously.
With electrified transportation, I can see the distinct possibility of them once again selling less petroleum derived vehicle fuels.
Will this mean that there is a period of time that it may be quite cheap to keep the old beater running? I could avoid the high capital cost of a new electric vehicle. I envision quite the shift to electric vehicles. The old internal combustion vehicles will perhaps sell for little more than a song.
A cheap car with cheap fuel could be quite a nice thing. I'll be happy polluting the world as I travel in my old beater.
Will the price of gasoline become effectively lower in years to come? I could see the oil companies wanting to retain their customer base as long as possible.
I wish I had a crystal ball.
Thanks for doing what I was too lazy to do, @Paper Chaser. Interesting read.
I feel like the disagreement is mostly over semantics, and is not worth pushing forward. I 100% agree that they are not too late, and I'm actually very excited about what they are doing. I'd say that among legacy Western carmakers, they are second to only Tesla as it comes to EVs.
If we look only at the business side of things, if we set the whole CO2 in the atmosphere thing aside, then of course EVs never had a very strong case for them. Maybe they still don't. But I can't set it aside, and so companies making timely investments into EVs get massive bonus in my eyes.
And that's not only Tesla, btw. There is a whole host of Chinese carmakers that make EVs (cars and buses), and sell them in quantity.
… but the real savings is on maintenance, not fuel.
Will this mean that there is a period of time that it may be quite cheap to keep the old beater running? I could avoid the high capital cost of a new electric vehicle. I envision quite the shift to electric vehicles. The old internal combustion vehicles will perhaps sell for little more than a song.
A cheap car with cheap fuel could be quite a nice thing. I'll be happy polluting the world as I travel in my old beater.
… but the real savings is on maintenance, not fuel.
Unless you live in a country with significant fuel taxes. In fuel cost along my lease is 10x cheaper to drive per mile. In some congested cities in my country, a person could easily save $4,000 a year in fuel costs. Used Nissan Leafs start at $8,000 NZD (free car after 2 years sounds darn good).
I think that for the most part, the "save the planet" stuff is more marketing than guiding principal for these corporations. If these companies were truly interested in helping the environment, they'd be offering PHEVs left and right to get more miles driven with electricity per kWh of battery production.
EVs are policy driven as you know. The Chinese gov heavily incentivizes them, but don't be fooled into thinking that their motivations are focused on the good of the planet. They're dumping money into EVs and renewables to gain energy independence and pull back even with the US on a geo-political front. Being connected vehicles, they also give the Chinese gov an easy way to track their citizens:
https://www.engadget.com/2018-11-29-china-tracks-ev-data-drivers-locations.html
… but the real savings is on maintenance, not fuel.
Unless you live in a country with significant fuel taxes. In fuel cost along my lease is 10x cheaper to drive per mile. In some congested cities in my country, a person could easily save $4,000 a year in fuel costs. Used Nissan Leafs start at $8,000 NZD (free car after 2 years sounds darn good).
Sure, but this is a thread about EVs in the UNited States. It’s implied that we are discussing conditions within the US (and largely the continental US, as Hawai’i is it’s own beast with very high electric and fuel costs).
Saving $4k in fuel costs in a year in the US would be an edge case. National average for gasoline is just under $3.50. So ~1200 US gallons of fuel just to reach the $4k mark, and that would assume zero cost for charging a BEV (“free charging”). Obviously the math changes substantially if you are in a country with much higher fuel prices, like New Zealand
… but the real savings is on maintenance, not fuel.
Unless you live in a country with significant fuel taxes. In fuel cost along my lease is 10x cheaper to drive per mile. In some congested cities in my country, a person could easily save $4,000 a year in fuel costs. Used Nissan Leafs start at $8,000 NZD (free car after 2 years sounds darn good).
Sure, but this is a thread about EVs in the UNited States. It’s implied that we are discussing conditions within the US (and largely the continental US, as Hawai’i is it’s own beast with very high electric and fuel costs).
Saving $4k in fuel costs in a year in the US would be an edge case. National average for gasoline is just under $3.50. So ~1200 US gallons of fuel just to reach the $4k mark, and that would assume zero cost for charging a BEV (“free charging”). Obviously the math changes substantially if you are in a country with much higher fuel prices, like New Zealand
Unless you live in a country with significant fuel taxes. In fuel cost alone my Nissan Leaf is 10x cheaper to drive per mile. In some congested cities in my country, a person could easily save $4,000 a year in fuel costs. Used Nissan Leafs start at $8,000 NZD (free car after 2 years sounds darn good).
Unless you live in a country with significant fuel taxes. In fuel cost alone my Nissan Leaf is 10x cheaper to drive per mile. In some congested cities in my country, a person could easily save $4,000 a year in fuel costs. Used Nissan Leafs start at $8,000 NZD (free car after 2 years sounds darn good).
A good portion of the fuel tax in some regions of the USA goes to road construction/maintenance/policing so if we convert totally to electric, the money will need to be replaced by some tax on electric vehicles (since they weigh as much or more than gas vehicles and cause similar amounts of road wear).
So eventually the cost to drive an electric should go up.
A good portion of the fuel tax in some regions of the USA goes to road construction/maintenance/policing so if we convert totally to electric, the money will need to be replaced by some tax on electric vehicles (since they weigh as much or more than gas vehicles and cause similar amounts of road wear).
So eventually the cost to drive an electric should go up.
A) a separate tax on EVs is already widely used. I pay it at a time I renew registration.
B) gas tax has not been keeping up with inflation, and is a small fraction of gas price - 5% in my state. If EVs pay the same absolute value of road tax per mile driven, they are still far ahead on cost.
A) a separate tax on EVs is already widely used. I pay it at a time I renew registration.
B) gas tax has not been keeping up with inflation, and is a small fraction of gas price - 5% in my state. If EVs pay the same absolute value of road tax per mile driven, they are still far ahead on cost.
Washington state drivers currently pay 49.4 cents a gallon in state taxes and an additional 18.4% in federal taxes
A lot more than 5%
That is state tax but you are missing the 18.4% federal tax on gasoline, which EV users don't pay.
That is 550 gallons x $3 per gallon x 18.4% = $303
So ICE users are currently paying more for the roads in state+federal than EV users.
That is state tax but you are missing the 18.4% federal tax on gasoline, which EV users don't pay.
That is 550 gallons x $3 per gallon x 18.4% = $303
So ICE users are currently paying more for the roads in state+federal than EV users.
That is state tax but you are missing the 18.4% federal tax on gasoline, which EV users don't pay.
That is 550 gallons x $3 per gallon x 18.4% = $303
So ICE users are currently paying more for the roads in state+federal than EV users.
That is state tax but you are missing the 18.4% federal tax on gasoline, which EV users don't pay.
That is 550 gallons x $3 per gallon x 18.4% = $303
So ICE users are currently paying more for the roads in state+federal than EV users.
Running this math again with an extra $0.184/gal added moves the "break even" point (for 11k annual miles driven in WA) from 24mpg to 34mpg. So if the ICE driver gets 34mpg or better, they're paying less in state and federal fuel taxes than the EV owner pays in annual fees from the state. And again, fuel taxes are based on consumption so using less fuel by driving less or getting more efficient means the ICE owner pays less. The EV owner doesn't have that option.
We're more or less going from a situation where we're taxed by consumption to a situation where we're just paying a flat fee to use the roads. Think of it as a toll for using all of the roads rather than specific ones.
That is state tax but you are missing the 18.4% federal tax on gasoline, which EV users don't pay.
That is 550 gallons x $3 per gallon x 18.4% = $303
So ICE users are currently paying more for the roads in state+federal than EV users.
Running this math again with an extra $0.184/gal added moves the "break even" point (for 11k annual miles driven in WA) from 24mpg to 34mpg. So if the ICE driver gets 34mpg or better, they're paying less in state and federal fuel taxes than the EV owner pays in annual fees from the state. And again, fuel taxes are based on consumption so using less fuel by driving less or getting more efficient means the ICE owner pays less. The EV owner doesn't have that option.
We're more or less going from a situation where we're taxed by consumption to a situation where we're just paying a flat fee to use the roads. Think of it as a toll for using all of the roads rather than specific ones.
18.4 cents per gallon or is it a 18.4% federal tax per gallon (and what would that be on, the base wholesale price of gas?
Toyota is launching this next summer:
https://pressroom.toyota.com/revealed-the-all-new-all-electric-toyota-bz4x/ (https://pressroom.toyota.com/revealed-the-all-new-all-electric-toyota-bz4x/)
Looks pretty nice.
I just hope the libertarian thing doesn't catch on.
Once in a while I go to Chicago. Toll road after toll road. The gas seems to be about the same price too. The users of the roads pay for the roads. It seems like you pay and you pay and you pay. I guess one of the roads going into Chicago has been privatized and the toll is much higher.
Some other kind of tax may be better.
Toyota is launching this next summer:
https://pressroom.toyota.com/revealed-the-all-new-all-electric-toyota-bz4x/ (https://pressroom.toyota.com/revealed-the-all-new-all-electric-toyota-bz4x/)
Looks pretty nice.
Unless you live in a country with significant fuel taxes. In fuel cost alone my Nissan Leaf is 10x cheaper to drive per mile. In some congested cities in my country, a person could easily save $4,000 a year in fuel costs. Used Nissan Leafs start at $8,000 NZD (free car after 2 years sounds darn good).
A good portion of the fuel tax in some regions of the USA goes to road construction/maintenance/policing so if we convert totally to electric, the money will need to be replaced by some tax on electric vehicles (since they weigh as much or more than gas vehicles and cause similar amounts of road wear).
So eventually the cost to drive an electric should go up.
Toyota is launching this next summer:
https://pressroom.toyota.com/revealed-the-all-new-all-electric-toyota-bz4x/ (https://pressroom.toyota.com/revealed-the-all-new-all-electric-toyota-bz4x/)
Looks pretty nice.
But no mention of price or cargo space?
we expect a starting price in the high $30,000-range with loaded models cresting the $40,000 mark
Toyota is launching this next summer:
https://pressroom.toyota.com/revealed-the-all-new-all-electric-toyota-bz4x/ (https://pressroom.toyota.com/revealed-the-all-new-all-electric-toyota-bz4x/)
Looks pretty nice.
That car needs a mustache or something. Has a huge upper lip.
I've been thinking about this and all the discussions about alternative transportation, bikes, public transport etc.
One blindspot we have in this country seems to be around the idea of transportation having to be everything to everyone.
In this specific context, I'm thinking of the fact that we really only have one federal class (for consumer anyway) of automobile. Why don't we have a KEI car designation for inexpensive town cars that aren't highway capable? Obviously the modern equivalent would be the Neighborhood Electric vehicle (NEV). Some places allow them, some don't and the regulations are all over the map.
It seems to me having a smaller less-expensive class of vehicles for around town would be a boon in all sorts of ways. Folks of lower means could have access to more autonomy than public transit. Wealthier folks could have one or more in addition to their regular vehicle(s) for around town tasks. This would eventually feed a lower priced used market for people needing to get on the transportation ladder,etc.
And I don't know that we'd have to limit it to electric, a small gas KEI car type vehicle could probably be a step up for affordability and emissions. Meanwhile, I think most would be electric moving forward.
Perhaps the market would prove this a non-viable idea, but it seems if we had some sort of federal guidelines it would at least let it try, rather than excluding it from even being a possibility.
I've been thinking about this and all the discussions about alternative transportation, bikes, public transport etc.
One blindspot we have in this country seems to be around the idea of transportation having to be everything to everyone.
In this specific context, I'm thinking of the fact that we really only have one federal class (for consumer anyway) of automobile. Why don't we have a KEI car designation for inexpensive town cars that aren't highway capable? Obviously the modern equivalent would be the Neighborhood Electric vehicle (NEV). Some places allow them, some don't and the regulations are all over the map.
It seems to me having a smaller less-expensive class of vehicles for around town would be a boon in all sorts of ways. Folks of lower means could have access to more autonomy than public transit. Wealthier folks could have one or more in addition to their regular vehicle(s) for around town tasks. This would eventually feed a lower priced used market for people needing to get on the transportation ladder,etc.
And I don't know that we'd have to limit it to electric, a small gas KEI car type vehicle could probably be a step up for affordability and emissions. Meanwhile, I think most would be electric moving forward.
Perhaps the market would prove this a non-viable idea, but it seems if we had some sort of federal guidelines it would at least let it try, rather than excluding it from even being a possibility.
I've been thinking about this and all the discussions about alternative transportation, bikes, public transport etc.
One blindspot we have in this country seems to be around the idea of transportation having to be everything to everyone.
In this specific context, I'm thinking of the fact that we really only have one federal class (for consumer anyway) of automobile. Why don't we have a KEI car designation for inexpensive town cars that aren't highway capable? Obviously the modern equivalent would be the Neighborhood Electric vehicle (NEV). Some places allow them, some don't and the regulations are all over the map.
It seems to me having a smaller less-expensive class of vehicles for around town would be a boon in all sorts of ways. Folks of lower means could have access to more autonomy than public transit. Wealthier folks could have one or more in addition to their regular vehicle(s) for around town tasks. This would eventually feed a lower priced used market for people needing to get on the transportation ladder,etc.
And I don't know that we'd have to limit it to electric, a small gas KEI car type vehicle could probably be a step up for affordability and emissions. Meanwhile, I think most would be electric moving forward.
Perhaps the market would prove this a non-viable idea, but it seems if we had some sort of federal guidelines it would at least let it try, rather than excluding it from even being a possibility.
I've been thinking about this and all the discussions about alternative transportation, bikes, public transport etc.
One blindspot we have in this country seems to be around the idea of transportation having to be everything to everyone.
In this specific context, I'm thinking of the fact that we really only have one federal class (for consumer anyway) of automobile. Why don't we have a KEI car designation for inexpensive town cars that aren't highway capable? Obviously the modern equivalent would be the Neighborhood Electric vehicle (NEV). Some places allow them, some don't and the regulations are all over the map.
It seems to me having a smaller less-expensive class of vehicles for around town would be a boon in all sorts of ways. Folks of lower means could have access to more autonomy than public transit. Wealthier folks could have one or more in addition to their regular vehicle(s) for around town tasks. This would eventually feed a lower priced used market for people needing to get on the transportation ladder,etc.
And I don't know that we'd have to limit it to electric, a small gas KEI car type vehicle could probably be a step up for affordability and emissions. Meanwhile, I think most would be electric moving forward.
Perhaps the market would prove this a non-viable idea, but it seems if we had some sort of federal guidelines it would at least let it try, rather than excluding it from even being a possibility.
There will be low demand due to the lack of safety of those cars in collisions against regular cars that would presumably be on the same streets. If they were totally segregated, the inconvenience of having to switch back and forth would result in even lower demand.
We already have electric bikes, though, and we've accept a certain level of car vs. bike and car vs. car fatalities already. So I guess allowing tuk-tuks would probably be fine, just would have more tuk-tuk deaths.
I've been thinking about this and all the discussions about alternative transportation, bikes, public transport etc.
One blindspot we have in this country seems to be around the idea of transportation having to be everything to everyone.
In this specific context, I'm thinking of the fact that we really only have one federal class (for consumer anyway) of automobile. Why don't we have a KEI car designation for inexpensive town cars that aren't highway capable? Obviously the modern equivalent would be the Neighborhood Electric vehicle (NEV). Some places allow them, some don't and the regulations are all over the map.
It seems to me having a smaller less-expensive class of vehicles for around town would be a boon in all sorts of ways. Folks of lower means could have access to more autonomy than public transit. Wealthier folks could have one or more in addition to their regular vehicle(s) for around town tasks. This would eventually feed a lower priced used market for people needing to get on the transportation ladder,etc.
And I don't know that we'd have to limit it to electric, a small gas KEI car type vehicle could probably be a step up for affordability and emissions. Meanwhile, I think most would be electric moving forward.
Perhaps the market would prove this a non-viable idea, but it seems if we had some sort of federal guidelines it would at least let it try, rather than excluding it from even being a possibility.
There will be low demand due to the lack of safety of those cars in collisions against regular cars that would presumably be on the same streets. If they were totally segregated, the inconvenience of having to switch back and forth would result in even lower demand.
We already have electric bikes, though, and we've accept a certain level of car vs. bike and car vs. car fatalities already. So I guess allowing tuk-tuks would probably be fine, just would have more tuk-tuk deaths.
They wouldn't be segregated on low speed roads, but would be on higher speed. i.e. NEVs/KEIs/tuk-tuks would be restricted to roads say <35mph. The risk of fatality/serious injury is directly related to the speed in a collision. So yes, even one tuk-tuk death would be greater than today's zero tuk-tuk deaths, but that doesn't mean it would be any more and possibly less dangerous than standard motor vehicle travel.
Finally, to your first point, I don't think safety plays that large a role in people's decision making. Safety standards are largely forced by regulation. People would definitely buy cheaper less safe cars if we would let them. The economics would make or break it. If you could buy and legally drive a Wuling (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/success/gm-wuling-hong-guang-cabrio/index.html) in this country for say $8,000, I think they'd sell like hotcakes.
And I don't know that we'd have to limit it to electric, a small gas KEI car type vehicle could probably be a step up for affordability and emissions. Meanwhile, I think most would be electric moving forward.
First US delivery of the Hyundai Ioniq 5 was this week. And the embargo on reviews was lifted today so there are a ton that were just posted. Very favorable reception, as far as I can tell. Even my mother-in-law now wants one!
Why don't we have a KEI car designation for inexpensive town cars that aren't highway capable?KEI cars are fully highway capable. Why shouldn't they? They have about double the power of a 1960 car and those certainly used highways.
And I don't know that we'd have to limit it to electric, a small gas KEI car type vehicle could probably be a step up for affordability and emissions. Meanwhile, I think most would be electric moving forward.
Several ideas: would the average American fit in a Kei car?Yes. Albeit only 2 I am afraid. But in 90% of cases there aren't more people in a car anyway.
Many discussions about big vehicles with lots of airbags for their teens. Excessive worry within the parent group IMHO.Ah, yes, the typical "I drive my kid to school because there are so many cars bringing kids to school" thing.
First US delivery of the Hyundai Ioniq 5 was this week. And the embargo on reviews was lifted today so there are a ton that were just posted. Very favorable reception, as far as I can tell. Even my mother-in-law now wants one!
Just watched a review. It looks like a great product.
Also, our state allows many unconventional small vehicles to be registered as motorcycles. Running around town we have an late model Mahindra Jeep clone that is similar in size to a Suzuki Samurai. There are also a half dozen side-by-side ATV type vehicles running around on the streets. And there was a privately owned electric Cushman type meter reader type vehicle running around for a long time. I would like to see more of this. So in this case, perhaps being in a low regulation red state is an advantage.
Looks like Build Back Better is dead - no electric vehicle rebate?
Also, our state allows many unconventional small vehicles to be registered as motorcycles. Running around town we have an late model Mahindra Jeep clone that is similar in size to a Suzuki Samurai. There are also a half dozen side-by-side ATV type vehicles running around on the streets. And there was a privately owned electric Cushman type meter reader type vehicle running around for a long time. I would like to see more of this. So in this case, perhaps being in a low regulation red state is an advantage.
We have plenty of those. Just, I don't think a single one is registered for road use. It's just that nobody actually cares. I see all sorts of "clearly not intended for road" stuff on the roads - ATVs, dirtbikes without lighting, side by sides, haven't seen one of the Mahindra Roxors on the road, but I've seen one at a showroom and they look properly good, etc. It turns out registration on our daily driver was... well, mostly, I wasn't clear on a step or two I ought to have taken after buying it from a dealer, I thought they dealt with it, and we daily drove it for three years without registration. Not once did anyone say a thing about it.
And this is why we cannot have nice things like improved health coverage and a continuation of a program that cut child poverty in half. But sure, throw all that out because you don't like the EV tax credit.Looks like Build Back Better is dead - no electric vehicle rebate?
Good. Rich people didn't need free money to buy a $80,000 EV, not when there are people struggling with the current inflation and buying food.
Looks like Build Back Better is dead - no electric vehicle rebate?
Good. Rich people didn't need free money to buy a $80,000 EV, not when there are people struggling with the current inflation and buying food.
Looks like Build Back Better is dead - no electric vehicle rebate?
Good. Rich people didn't need free money to buy a $80,000 EV, not when there are people struggling with the current inflation and buying food.
And this is why we cannot have nice things like improved health coverage and a continuation of a program that cut child poverty in half. But sure, throw all that out because you don't like the EV tax credit.
Ford is trying. We'll see if they hit their production goals!
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/01/ford-will-boost-electric-f-150-production-to-150000-trucks-per-year/
Ford is trying. We'll see if they hit their production goals!
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/01/ford-will-boost-electric-f-150-production-to-150000-trucks-per-year/
Also the old German manufacturers will finally make a real go for the e-market. I don't think holding Tesla stocks through this year is a good idea. But then this was technically also true last year ;)Ford is trying. We'll see if they hit their production goals!
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/01/ford-will-boost-electric-f-150-production-to-150000-trucks-per-year/
Notably, the F-150 Lightning will beat Tesla's Cybertruck to market by quite a bit. If the Cybertruck ever exists, I don't think we see it until 2023 at the earliest. Ford is also tripling their production of the Mach-E (crossover type that competes against the Model Y from Tesla, for example).
Rivian started deliveries last quarter, but they're not going to be at the volume of Ford or Tesla. GM started (I think?) production/deliveries of the truck version of their electric Hummer.
Ford is trying. We'll see if they hit their production goals!
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/01/ford-will-boost-electric-f-150-production-to-150000-trucks-per-year/
Notably, the F-150 Lightning will beat Tesla's Cybertruck to market by quite a bit. If the Cybertruck ever exists, I don't think we see it until 2023 at the earliest. Ford is also tripling their production of the Mach-E (crossover type that competes against the Model Y from Tesla, for example).
Rivian started deliveries last quarter, but they're not going to be at the volume of Ford or Tesla. GM started (I think?) production/deliveries of the truck version of their electric Hummer.
Rivian started deliveries last quarter, but they're not going to be at the volume of Ford or Tesla.
That's the R1S (SUV) - they also have the R1T (truck): https://www.reddit.com/r/Rivian/comments/rf84wa/r1t_delivered_today_loved_it/Rivian started deliveries last quarter, but they're not going to be at the volume of Ford or Tesla.
Didn't they deliver to their execs only? https://www.autoblog.com/2021/12/20/rivian-r1s-deliveries/
And "not going to be the volume of Ford or Tesla" means... two.
*Ford Motor December Total U.S. Electrified Sales 12,284 Vehicles
*FORD SAYS DEC. ELECTRIFIED SALES +121% Y/Y
*Ford Motor December Total U.S. Ford Brand Sales 167,545 Vehicles
*FORD DEC. U.S. SALES 173,740, -17.1% Y/Y
Notable nameplates (full-year numbers):
-F-Series: 726,004 (-7.8%)
-Explorer: 219,871 (-2.8%)
-Mustang: 52,414 (-14.2%)
New vehicles:
-Mustang Mach-E: 27,140
-Bronco: 35,023
-Bronco Sport: 108,169
So Ford is losing ICE sales while gaining in EV sales. Makes sense they're accelerating/expanding their BEV production.
The 400 mile Silverado looks pretty promising. I still don't want a large truck. The formerly mid-size trucks are too big for my needs or wants. The Ford Maverick is closer as is the Hyundai Santa Cruz. The outgoing Nissan Frontier is a good size. The outgoing Honda Ridgeline is good.
Ultimately though I don't need a truck nor do I want to pay to own one. It is a specialized tool that I don't have alot of use for. An edge case use. I've gotten by very well with a trailer hitch for my entire driving life. This despite having hobbies that are typically assisted by owning trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHmzLs7RKp0
New vehicles have become so elaborate! Too elaborate? Late-90s might represent the sweet spot to me. Knobs for HVAC. AWD, Airbags and ABS. Nice aftermarket radio with AM/FM/CD/aux/Bluetooth/USB. I just want the interior noise control that the newer vehicles come with.
I'm beginning to think a late-90s level of tech plus competent electric drive is my goal.
The 400 mile Silverado looks pretty promising. I still don't want a large truck. The formerly mid-size trucks are too big for my needs or wants. The Ford Maverick is closer as is the Hyundai Santa Cruz. The outgoing Nissan Frontier is a good size. The outgoing Honda Ridgeline is good.
Ultimately though I don't need a truck nor do I want to pay to own one. It is a specialized tool that I don't have alot of use for. An edge case use. I've gotten by very well with a trailer hitch for my entire driving life. This despite having hobbies that are typically assisted by owning trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHmzLs7RKp0
New vehicles have become so elaborate! Too elaborate? Late-90s might represent the sweet spot to me. Knobs for HVAC. AWD, Airbags and ABS. Nice aftermarket radio with AM/FM/CD/aux/Bluetooth/USB. I just want the interior noise control that the newer vehicles come with.
I'm beginning to think a late-90s level of tech plus competent electric drive is my goal.
Small trucks used to be quite popular, i.e. the old Ranger, Chevy LUV, and even the old Dakota. Is it the customer who doesn't want them or the industry that just wants more return? If I got a truck, I'd veer towards the smaller size so I don't understand this.
The 400 mile Silverado looks pretty promising. I still don't want a large truck. The formerly mid-size trucks are too big for my needs or wants. The Ford Maverick is closer as is the Hyundai Santa Cruz. The outgoing Nissan Frontier is a good size. The outgoing Honda Ridgeline is good.
Ultimately though I don't need a truck nor do I want to pay to own one. It is a specialized tool that I don't have alot of use for. An edge case use. I've gotten by very well with a trailer hitch for my entire driving life. This despite having hobbies that are typically assisted by owning trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHmzLs7RKp0
New vehicles have become so elaborate! Too elaborate? Late-90s might represent the sweet spot to me. Knobs for HVAC. AWD, Airbags and ABS. Nice aftermarket radio with AM/FM/CD/aux/Bluetooth/USB. I just want the interior noise control that the newer vehicles come with.
I'm beginning to think a late-90s level of tech plus competent electric drive is my goal.
Small trucks used to be quite popular, i.e. the old Ranger, Chevy LUV, and even the old Dakota. Is it the customer who doesn't want them or the industry that just wants more return? If I got a truck, I'd veer towards the smaller size so I don't understand this.
My take: the smaller trucks had MSRPs that weren't that much smaller than the "half-ton"* class. That made it a relatively easy sales move to push the larger trucks given i) the american male's tendency to tie his self worth to the size of his vehicle and ii) our stupid tendency of wanting to cover edge-use cases ("but what if I DO suddenly need to move a 6,000lb trailer up a mountain, even though I never have?!")
*the half-ton / three-quarter ton / full ton pickup designations are largely meaningless now, as performance has increased across all truck classes. Even the smallest "half-ton" pickups today have a higher bed rating and tow rating than 3/4 ton pickups from the early 90s.
Truck prices are weird. Toyota Tacoma TRD Off Road comes with adaptive cruise control, optional manual transmission, and a 6,700lb tow rating.
To get the most equivalently equipped Ford Maverick you need to get the very highest Lariat trim (for the option to add adaptive cruise control) and pay for a tow package that will only get you 4,000lb of towing.
But you save $2,200 with the Maverick. If I get a truck it will be to actually tow stuff and I'll buy the Tacoma.
That’s because you’re comparing across size and price classes. The Ford analogy to the Taco is the Ranger, not the Maverick.
But what else did you add to the Maverick to increase the price to $33k?
But what else did you add to the Maverick to increase the price to $33k?
The Lariat trim level which is required to add adaptive cruise control but comes standard on the TRD OffRoad.
But the real game changer is the Maverick, but unfortunately Ford isn’t making an AWD Hybrid version which to me is short sighted.
But what else did you add to the Maverick to increase the price to $33k?
The Lariat trim level which is required to add adaptive cruise control but comes standard on the TRD OffRoad.
Though I've no idea who buys a 2WD truck.
Though I've no idea who buys a 2WD truck.
Though I've no idea who buys a 2WD truck.
In the FL flatland cities and suburbs around me: city/county departments, pest control, electrician, plumber, pool service mom-n-pops, and similar fleets (although they've transitioned to the Ford Transit Connect and Nissan NV200 minivan). Also seeing a lot of 2WD Tacomas, Rangers, Frontiers, and Chevy twins.
I would buy a Maverick, but I got my name in the queue for the Ford F-150 Lightning, because it ticks both the truck and EV boxes. (Even though I'm a Honda fanboy.)
Though I've no idea who buys a 2WD truck.
In the FL flatland cities and suburbs around me: city/county departments, pest control, electrician, plumber, pool service mom-n-pops, and similar fleets (although they've transitioned to the Ford Transit Connect and Nissan NV200 minivan). Also seeing a lot of 2WD Tacomas, Rangers, Frontiers, and Chevy twins.
I think it pretty much settles the case of electric truck feasibility, all back of the napkin calculations aside.
The T680E has a 65-mph top speed, which is the speed limit for semis in some states, and its estimated range checks in at 150 miles. That's low considering that some diesel-powered trucks are capable of making a 300-gallon tank last for about 2,000 miles.
Kenworth states that, in ideal conditions, the T680E's presumably massive battery pack can be fully charged in approximately three hours.
I'm not sure I can agree with that statement. "Feasible", but still for narrow use cases.
Though I've no idea who buys a 2WD truck.
In the FL flatland cities and suburbs around me: city/county departments, pest control, electrician, plumber, pool service mom-n-pops, and similar fleets (although they've transitioned to the Ford Transit Connect and Nissan NV200 minivan). Also seeing a lot of 2WD Tacomas, Rangers, Frontiers, and Chevy twins.
Yeah,... my initial thoughts to "who buys a 2WD truck" was - what advantage does AWD/4WD give if you live in a climate without [much] snow/ice and if you don't drive it on unimproved roads?
So... Most of California's populated areas (particularly SoCal), the gulf-coast and Florida/Georgia/SC. I'm guessing there's over 100MM people who live in such areas.
Even in areas that get a lot of snow, a 2WD truck will do fine with decent (snow) tires and some weight in the bed with no need to carry the extra weight and complexity of a 4WD system. I did my college years in a heavy "lake effect" snow region with a rusted out Ford Ranger with only 2WD and an open diff (1-tire-fryer) and it was a great. I miss that little truck.
In areas that get a lot of snow, 4WD will be “free” because whatever you pay up front to get it, you will absolutely make back on the backend when you sell it.
You’d have a hard time giving away a 2WD truck around these parts.
In areas that get a lot of snow, 4WD will be “free” because whatever you pay up front to get it, you will absolutely make back on the backend when you sell it.
You’d have a hard time giving away a 2WD truck around these parts.
Sounds like great places tobuyget free used 2WD trucks.
In areas that get a lot of snow, 4WD will be “free” because whatever you pay up front to get it, you will absolutely make back on the backend when you sell it.
You’d have a hard time giving away a 2WD truck around these parts.
Sounds like great places tobuyget free used 2WD trucks.
In areas that get a lot of snow, 4WD will be “free” because whatever you pay up front to get it, you will absolutely make back on the backend when you sell it.
You’d have a hard time giving away a 2WD truck around these parts.
Sounds like great places tobuyget free used 2WD trucks.
Even in areas that get a lot of snow, a 2WD truck will do fine with decent (snow) tires and some weight in the bed with no need to carry the extra weight and complexity of a 4WD system. I did my college years in a heavy "lake effect" snow region with a rusted out Ford Ranger with only 2WD and an open diff (1-tire-fryer) and it was a great. I miss that little truck.
The traction control on our 2017 Bolt EV with snow tires is incredible. Here in snowy BC just minutes away from a ski hill, I have tried all I can do to make it slip. Only when there is 6" of chopped up road snow does it struggle. Even on ice or really packed down snow, I can't get it to slip very easily. Really impressed. Better than our 2014 Outback.
I see two divergent stories:
- people who never even saw a 2WD truck in the snow say they are a bad deal, and you won't be able to sell one
- people who drove 2WD trucks in the snow say they perform well, and one even sold for more than it was bought
Good thing that I'm not in the market for a 2WD truck in snowy area. This is all very confusing.
I see two divergent stories:
- people who never even saw a 2WD truck in the snow say they are a bad deal, and you won't be able to sell one
- people who drove 2WD trucks in the snow say they perform well, and one even sold for more than it was bought
Good thing that I'm not in the market for a 2WD truck in snowy area. This is all very confusing.
I mean, yes, one person anecdotally was able to sell a 2WD truck for $200 more than he bought it once.
I hope the manufacturers understand the KISS principle.
I hope the manufacturers understand the KISS principle.
They don't and won't.
They understand "I can make a lot of money on the backend by logging all this driver locational/driving behavior and sending it over the manufacturer-paid cellular connection upstream for big data aggregation and analysis. Oh, yeah, and we can ship the vehicle broken and fix it later with OTA updates, and customers will think we're amazing for being able to not bother with QA before shipping the vehicle. But, looooook, Spotify!"
Great, sooooo amazing Tesla was able to fix the Consumer Reports Model 3 braking behavior over the air, after CR complained about how abysmal it was on Twitter.
Except, this means Tesla (1) shipped shitty brake controller firmware, and (2) since they were able to fix it more or less overnight, the fix was simple, and they're comfortable pushing absolutely critical vehicle control firmware (braking system behavior) without any serious testing.
I understand one can nerf a Bolt with fuse 31, you take out the cell radios and a few other things that don't really matter.
But for other vehicles, you'll want to remove the cell modem from it when you receive it.
I do not want my vehicles broadcasting constant telemetry upstream subject to some whimsical privacy policy that will be ignored and constantly changed by lawyers paid to write incomprehensible nonsense.
There's no reason that EVs need to have any of this rubbish, but Tesla has set the standard, everyone else is trying to play catch up, and as EVs are new development, they're likely to have all this crap.
But don't worry, soon, new vehicles will be able to detect that the driver (or... someone in the vehicle, whatever, sensors are hard) is maybe drunk and refuse to operate!
I'm honestly not sure what I'm going to do in 20 years. Just keep a 2020 era vehicle nerfed and running, I suppose.
Even in areas that get a lot of snow, a 2WD truck will do fine with decent (snow) tires and some weight in the bed with no need to carry the extra weight and complexity of a 4WD system. I did my college years in a heavy "lake effect" snow region with a rusted out Ford Ranger with only 2WD and an open diff (1-tire-fryer) and it was a great. I miss that little truck.
My experience as well. Decent tires and some common sense go a long way
I hope the manufacturers understand the KISS principle.
They don't and won't.
They understand "I can make a lot of money on the backend by logging all this driver locational/driving behavior and sending it over the manufacturer-paid cellular connection upstream for big data aggregation and analysis. Oh, yeah, and we can ship the vehicle broken and fix it later with OTA updates, and customers will think we're amazing for being able to not bother with QA before shipping the vehicle. But, looooook, Spotify!"
Great, sooooo amazing Tesla was able to fix the Consumer Reports Model 3 braking behavior over the air, after CR complained about how abysmal it was on Twitter.
Except, this means Tesla (1) shipped shitty brake controller firmware, and (2) since they were able to fix it more or less overnight, the fix was simple, and they're comfortable pushing absolutely critical vehicle control firmware (braking system behavior) without any serious testing.
I understand one can nerf a Bolt with fuse 31, you take out the cell radios and a few other things that don't really matter.
But for other vehicles, you'll want to remove the cell modem from it when you receive it.
I do not want my vehicles broadcasting constant telemetry upstream subject to some whimsical privacy policy that will be ignored and constantly changed by lawyers paid to write incomprehensible nonsense.
There's no reason that EVs need to have any of this rubbish, but Tesla has set the standard, everyone else is trying to play catch up, and as EVs are new development, they're likely to have all this crap.
But don't worry, soon, new vehicles will be able to detect that the driver (or... someone in the vehicle, whatever, sensors are hard) is maybe drunk and refuse to operate!
I'm honestly not sure what I'm going to do in 20 years. Just keep a 2020 era vehicle nerfed and running, I suppose.
I don’t disagree, but I wonder if the horse hasn’t already left the barn on this one. I just don’t see vehicles - ICE or BEV - not collecting georeferenced data every moment of every day and selling that to data-brokers. Cell-phone carriers have been doing this for a decade+ and are only accelerating what’s quantified and archived.
About the only hope (and it’s slim with today’s judiciary and legislature) would be a comprehensive data-privacy law far stronger than what the EU has on the books (which is still light-years ahead of the US).
I’m not holding my breath, and have all but given up what I can control in this realm.
I hope the manufacturers understand the KISS principle.
They don't and won't.
They understand "I can make a lot of money on the backend by logging all this driver locational/driving behavior and sending it over the manufacturer-paid cellular connection upstream for big data aggregation and analysis. Oh, yeah, and we can ship the vehicle broken and fix it later with OTA updates, and customers will think we're amazing for being able to not bother with QA before shipping the vehicle. But, looooook, Spotify!"
Great, sooooo amazing Tesla was able to fix the Consumer Reports Model 3 braking behavior over the air, after CR complained about how abysmal it was on Twitter.
Except, this means Tesla (1) shipped shitty brake controller firmware, and (2) since they were able to fix it more or less overnight, the fix was simple, and they're comfortable pushing absolutely critical vehicle control firmware (braking system behavior) without any serious testing.
I understand one can nerf a Bolt with fuse 31, you take out the cell radios and a few other things that don't really matter.
But for other vehicles, you'll want to remove the cell modem from it when you receive it.
I do not want my vehicles broadcasting constant telemetry upstream subject to some whimsical privacy policy that will be ignored and constantly changed by lawyers paid to write incomprehensible nonsense.
There's no reason that EVs need to have any of this rubbish, but Tesla has set the standard, everyone else is trying to play catch up, and as EVs are new development, they're likely to have all this crap.
But don't worry, soon, new vehicles will be able to detect that the driver (or... someone in the vehicle, whatever, sensors are hard) is maybe drunk and refuse to operate!
I'm honestly not sure what I'm going to do in 20 years. Just keep a 2020 era vehicle nerfed and running, I suppose.
I don’t disagree, but I wonder if the horse hasn’t already left the barn on this one. I just don’t see vehicles - ICE or BEV - not collecting georeferenced data every moment of every day and selling that to data-brokers. Cell-phone carriers have been doing this for a decade+ and are only accelerating what’s quantified and archived.
About the only hope (and it’s slim with today’s judiciary and legislature) would be a comprehensive data-privacy law far stronger than what the EU has on the books (which is still light-years ahead of the US).
I’m not holding my breath, and have all but given up what I can control in this realm.
I realize that the connected vehicles thing is still gaining traction, but GMs have had OnStar for like 2 decades now, and many others have gained that capability in some form or another over the last 10 years or so. And pretty much all of the connected vehicles in the last decade have used 3G cell frequency which is being phased out. Lots of these vehicles are just losing some aspects of connected functionality as they're no longer being supported.
I still contend that software and "sun setting" tech support are more likely to hinder modern EVs down the road than widespread mechanical or electrical problems.
There's no reason that EVs need to have any of this rubbish, but Tesla has set the standard, everyone else is trying to play catch up, and as EVs are new development, they're likely to have all this crap.
But don't worry, soon, new vehicles will be able to detect that the driver (or... someone in the vehicle, whatever, sensors are hard) is maybe drunk and refuse to operate!
I'm honestly not sure what I'm going to do in 20 years. Just keep a 2020 era vehicle nerfed and running, I suppose.
QuoteThere's no reason that EVs need to have any of this rubbish, but Tesla has set the standard, everyone else is trying to play catch up, and as EVs are new development, they're likely to have all this crap.
But don't worry, soon, new vehicles will be able to detect that the driver (or... someone in the vehicle, whatever, sensors are hard) is maybe drunk and refuse to operate!
I'm honestly not sure what I'm going to do in 20 years. Just keep a 2020 era vehicle nerfed and running, I suppose.
1. There's a legitimate reason Tesla want to know on aggregate where their vehicles go? So the can priorities super charger locations.
2. In 20 years time you'll have the choice of not owning a car, and have a self driving vehicle just show up when you need it.
I don’t disagree, but I wonder if the horse hasn’t already left the barn on this one. I just don’t see vehicles - ICE or BEV - not collecting georeferenced data every moment of every day and selling that to data-brokers. Cell-phone carriers have been doing this for a decade+ and are only accelerating what’s quantified and archived.
I’m not holding my breath, and have all but given up what I can control in this realm.
There must be some happy medium, though. I definitely do not want a carburetor, but I don't want the manufacturer to have complete control of my car, either.
1. There's a legitimate reason Tesla want to know on aggregate where their vehicles go? So the can priorities super charger locations.
2. In 20 years time you'll have the choice of not owning a car, and have a self driving vehicle just show up when you need it.
Actually, they have self driving cars now. Rich folks have had them for years and years. They come with this French gadget called a chauffeur.
Blurb on fusion - When / if they do the fusion thing, I'm thinking it may still have nuclear waste and may be no better than the molten salt Thorium types they're edging towards now. But, as long as it comes with the flying DeLorean, I'll be OK with it.
Quote2. In 20 years time you'll have the choice of not owning a car, and have a self driving vehicle just show up when you need it.
Bloody fucking nonsense. Step back out of the internet and check out the state of reality, in which "self driving cars" blunder about like drunken 16 year olds in their parents "borrowed" car. They don't understand the world around them, they don't navigate competently in it, and these are in the best possible conditions, not anything resembling winter, wind, cows on road, or any of the nearly infinite variety of other things that are, while not common, present in the driving experience. Remember that last year, a Tesla couldn't tell the difference between the moon low in the sky and a yellow light. My three year old is smarter than that. He also can tell that there are grey concrete pillars in the way, which a Tesla seems unable to figure out. The LIDAR based solutions seem more promising, but are quite expensive, and still can't manage basic driving feats like "unprotected left turns" without, again, waiting like a student driver for a mile of clear road both ways.
I expect some constrained environments will have some semi-autonomous stuff, like access controlled highways, but if you want to get anywhere with any reliability, humans will have to remain in the loop. The self driving companies have most succeeded in the useful task of proving just how hard the problem is, but that doesn't mean it's going to be easily solved.
Maybe we revisit this every five years until we both die and see who winds up being more “right”.
Well, my desktop is faster than the combined first Top-100 list of supercomputers... that never stops to amaze me.
I wonder what Uber will do. I think they should run out of money again sometime now (until they got another billion I am not aware of). I wonder if investors still believe that replacing drivers with Ai will happen in 2020 and Uber will start making a profit.
Well, my desktop is faster than the combined first Top-100 list of supercomputers... that never stops to amaze me.
- SNIP-
I am not sure what you want to say with this. The condition for Amazon to make profit was a certain market share so economies of scale (and people's laziness) would work for them.Well, my desktop is faster than the combined first Top-100 list of supercomputers... that never stops to amaze me.
I wonder what Uber will do. I think they should run out of money again sometime now (until they got another billion I am not aware of). I wonder if investors still believe that replacing drivers with Ai will happen in 2020 and Uber will start making a profit.
It took Amazon well over a decade before it made a profit.
I am not sure what you want to say with this. The condition for Amazon to make profit was a certain market share so economies of scale (and people's laziness) would work for them.Well, my desktop is faster than the combined first Top-100 list of supercomputers... that never stops to amaze me.
I wonder what Uber will do. I think they should run out of money again sometime now (until they got another billion I am not aware of). I wonder if investors still believe that replacing drivers with Ai will happen in 2020 and Uber will start making a profit.
It took Amazon well over a decade before it made a profit.
The condition for Uber to be able to be profitable is self-driving cars (and people's laziness to use a different service that has to break into the monopoly). As long they have to pay drivers, even on the hilarious low pay rates, they make a loss with every trip taken. In the range of billion(s) per year.
At the beginning investors put money into Uber with the promise they would own a huge part of a huge (worldwide) company that makes a shitton of profit starting at about 2020.
The company was created 2009, 13 years ago.
So what do you want to tell me with "It took Amazon well over a decade before it made a profit."
The condition for Uber to be able to be profitable is self-driving cars (and people's laziness to use a different service that has to break into the monopoly). As long they have to pay drivers, even on the hilarious low pay rates, they make a loss with every trip taken. In the range of billion(s) per year.
The condition for Uber to be able to be profitable is self-driving cars (and people's laziness to use a different service that has to break into the monopoly). As long they have to pay drivers, even on the hilarious low pay rates, they make a loss with every trip taken. In the range of billion(s) per year.
And at the point where they can fully automate and eliminate their drivers, they get to take on the costs of buying expensive vehicles (self driving tech isn't cheap), and then maintaining, insuring, and housing those vehicles across an entire fleet. They'll be burdened by costs that they currently shove onto their drivers. Who's going to fuel or charge or clean these robo taxis and where is that going to take place? I'm not sure how the math works for that phase of the company's existence any better than the current phase.
What if they carried more passengers per trip? And maybe they could have some set locations for pickup and drop off to make things simpler? And we could hide the direct cost of each trip by paying for at least some of it with taxes? Just spit-balling here. And since they'd only be going on set routes between these pickup and drop-off locations, we could work out some sort of super efficient road between the stops? I know it's a pie-in-the-sky concept, maybe some other country can do it first(and second and third...ad nauseum) to prove out it's effectiveness and people here can take note?
Tesla is introducing a feature called "assertive" style in which self-driving cars will intentionally break traffic laws such as failing to obey stop signs: https://gizmodo.com/teslas-assertive-mode-brings-rolling-stops-to-self-driv-1848331537
Does anyone still think this company is good for society?
Does anyone still think [Tesla] is good for society?
I think they've done good to get electric cars into the main stream. I remember the movie, "Who Killed The Electric Car?" Beancounters who run existing big companies like to have a steady cash flow. They do not like risk. Innovation today seems to come from abroad or small companies. Beancounters will squash new ideas. Sometimes, it takes a guy with an idea. However, that idea has to be sold and gain critical mass. I'll give Elon Musk credit for that.
However, now that the idea has gained critical mass such that even the beancounters who run American industry cannot stop it, it should be considered just another company.
We keep talking about SUVs, light trucks, and tractor trailers in this thread, but things seem to move faster in delivery van space (https://www.autoblog.com/2022/01/08/walmart-orders-5000-electric-delivery-vans-from-gms-brightdrop/):
Which makes sense - predictable, shorter routes and frequent starts/stops tend to work in favor of EVs.
Electric buses also seem to be underappreciated by EV fans, but they pop up in rather unlikely places (https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/04/there-are-now-1000-electric-buses-in-moscow/). Note overhead charging, seems practical. Not surprised that buses are overlooked, though - they are so uncool in public's eyes that it nearly impossible to make people pay attention.
Tesla is introducing a feature called "assertive" style in which self-driving cars will intentionally break traffic laws such as failing to obey stop signs: https://gizmodo.com/teslas-assertive-mode-brings-rolling-stops-to-self-driv-1848331537Which companies do you think are good for society?
Does anyone still think this company is good for society?
EV buses might not be the beacon of hope that EV fans want to highlight. To this point in their existence, the two prolific makers (Proterra and BYD) have both had some pretty widespread issues with quality, longevity, and parts availability:
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2021/09/08/mechanical-problems-with-early-electric-buses-plague-multiple-transit-agencies/
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2021/07/22/with-50-of-its-buses-inoperable-foothill-transit-searches-for-a-way-to-fix-its-fleet/
https://www.sustainable-bus.com/news/issues-electric-buses-byd-netherlands/
https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/report-examines-byds-failed-electric-bus-rollout-in-albuquerque/
This doesn't mean there isn't promise for EV buses, but early options have really struggled to live up to expectations or justify their higher price.
EV buses might not be the beacon of hope that EV fans want to highlight. To this point in their existence, the two prolific makers (Proterra and BYD) have both had some pretty widespread issues with quality, longevity, and parts availability:
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2021/09/08/mechanical-problems-with-early-electric-buses-plague-multiple-transit-agencies/
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2021/07/22/with-50-of-its-buses-inoperable-foothill-transit-searches-for-a-way-to-fix-its-fleet/
https://www.sustainable-bus.com/news/issues-electric-buses-byd-netherlands/
https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/report-examines-byds-failed-electric-bus-rollout-in-albuquerque/
This doesn't mean there isn't promise for EV buses, but early options have really struggled to live up to expectations or justify their higher price.
...or they may be. The first two articles point to problems with very early models. The last concentrates specifically on BYD and one specific case. It also contains several success stories - did you notice those?
Once the Tesla semi becomes widely available, it'll likely be more cost effective for local bus manufactures to buy them and transplant the power train into a bus body.
Local price for an electric bus is $750,000
Tesla semi $220,000
That $530,000 difference leaves a lot of room for a bus body, fit out, and profit.
Once the Tesla semi becomes widely available, it'll likely be more cost effective for local bus manufactures to buy them and transplant the power train into a bus body.I also have concerns as to time and price the Semi will be available at. But on top of that, it would then make sense for Tesla to make buses, not semis. Yet it doesn't. I doubt that's because it isn't aware of half a million extra per Semi just lying around.
Local price for an electric bus is $750,000
Tesla semi $220,000
That $530,000 difference leaves a lot of room for a bus body, fit out, and profit.
Maybe Tesla should think outside the box. There is a shortage of truck drivers. Tesla has enough money where it could diversify like a lot of company managers do with extra company money. It could train truck drivers and/or open a trucking company. Then, when it got it's act together with the electric semis, it would have a captive market with it's own trucking company.
Well, anyway, it's just a thought. I'm sure if anyone who worked for Musk talked to me I'd get a nasty look and "Who asked you?"
Companies that avoid breaking the law, as well as those who discourage their customers from breaking the law, especially when it concerns laws meant to protect others from physical harm, are better for society than those who do not.Tesla is introducing a feature called "assertive" style in which self-driving cars will intentionally break traffic laws such as failing to obey stop signs: https://gizmodo.com/teslas-assertive-mode-brings-rolling-stops-to-self-driv-1848331537Which companies do you think are good for society?
Does anyone still think this company is good for society?
Maybe Tesla should think outside the box. There is a shortage of truck drivers. Tesla has enough money where it could diversify like a lot of company managers do with extra company money. It could train truck drivers and/or open a trucking company. Then, when it got it's act together with the electric semis, it would have a captive market with it's own trucking company.
Well, anyway, it's just a thought. I'm sure if anyone who worked for Musk talked to me I'd get a nasty look and "Who asked you?"
...just following on your thought: how would Tesla overcome the obstacles that every other trucking company is experiencing right now? What would make them successful where others would fail?
The whole “rolling stop” thing is BS, and people who are pro-police reform should see right through it. It’s a technicality used as a pretext to stop people and search for other offenses.
Yes, if you are a pedant, the word “stop” on the stop sign literally means come to a halt. However, anyone with a brain and a driver’s license knows what a stop sign means is actually “pause here and ensure it is safe to proceed.” Most stop signs should in fact be replaced by yield signs. There was a three-way stop in my wife’s old neighborhood, where you could literally see a quarter mile in all three directions from the intersection. But cops used to love to park themselves in the daycare lot (thus empty and dark after hours) and pull people over for the “crime” of not coming to a complete stop even when they could see there were no cars anywhere near them. (No I never got nabbed).
Pretending to be outraged by a Tesla doing a rolling stop is ridiculous, a bit of pageantry. If the car determines (assuming it is capable of determining) that there are no other cars present, proceeding without a full stop is exactly the kind of benefit we should be expecting from automation. Not pretend outrage it doesn’t adhere to silly technicalities.
The whole “rolling stop” thing is BS, and people who are pro-police reform should see right through it. It’s a technicality used as a pretext to stop people and search for other offenses.This is not pretend outrage, nor pageantry, nor a technicality. As a cyclist and a pedestrian, I regularly encounter close calls with drivers who roll through stop signs and fail to see me approaching. When you come to a complete stop, you are able to pause and fully see your surroundings, including others who may be waiting to cross the road. Eye contact with the driver is helpful, but this is often not possible due to a car's tinted windows, or while walking at night.
Yes, if you are a pedant, the word “stop” on the stop sign literally means come to a halt. However, anyone with a brain and a driver’s license knows what a stop sign means is actually “pause here and ensure it is safe to proceed.” Most stop signs should in fact be replaced by yield signs. There was a three-way stop in my wife’s old neighborhood, where you could literally see a quarter mile in all three directions from the intersection. But cops used to love to park themselves in the daycare lot (thus empty and dark after hours) and pull people over for the “crime” of not coming to a complete stop even when they could see there were no cars anywhere near them. (No I never got nabbed).
Pretending to be outraged by a Tesla doing a rolling stop is ridiculous, a bit of pageantry. If the car determines (assuming it is capable of determining) that there are no other cars present, proceeding without a full stop is exactly the kind of benefit we should be expecting from automation. Not pretend outrage it doesn’t adhere to silly technicalities.
There is not a shortage of licensed truck drivers, there is a shortage of people willing to work in the industry conditions for the typical industry pay. To lazy to google but saw somewhere that there is something like 3-4 times the number of licensed drivers in Ca than there are people currently employed as a driver. The typical pay can be ok but the hourly rate is very low; ie lots of unpaid waiting around because drivers are paid by the job not by the hour.
Maybe Tesla should think outside the box. There is a shortage of truck drivers. Tesla has enough money where it could diversify like a lot of company managers do with extra company money. It could train truck drivers and/or open a trucking company. Then, when it got it's act together with the electric semis, it would have a captive market with it's own trucking company.
Well, anyway, it's just a thought. I'm sure if anyone who worked for Musk talked to me I'd get a nasty look and "Who asked you?"
...just following on your thought: how would Tesla overcome the obstacles that every other trucking company is experiencing right now? What would make them successful where others would fail?
There is not a shortage of licensed truck drivers, there is a shortage of people willing to work in the industry conditions for the typical industry pay. To lazy to google but saw somewhere that there is something like 3-4 times the number of licensed drivers in Ca than there are people currently employed as a driver. The typical pay can be ok but the hourly rate is very low; ie lots of unpaid waiting around because drivers are paid by the job not by the hour.
Companies that avoid breaking the law, as well as those who discourage their customers from breaking the law, especially when it concerns laws meant to protect others from physical harm, are better for society than those who do not.Tesla is introducing a feature called "assertive" style in which self-driving cars will intentionally break traffic laws such as failing to obey stop signs: https://gizmodo.com/teslas-assertive-mode-brings-rolling-stops-to-self-driv-1848331537Which companies do you think are good for society?
Does anyone still think this company is good for society?
When you are a company who makes products of the type that kill 40,000 people every year in our country alone, you have a heightened duty to ensure that your customers use that product in a safe manner. Any attempts to encourage your customers to use that product illegally amount to criminal conspiracy, or gross negligence at the very least.
Teslas with autopilot engaged from inception through Q2 2021 crash roughly once ever 4.4 million miles, per Tesla (https://t.co/q44lsk1BnK)Companies that avoid breaking the law, as well as those who discourage their customers from breaking the law, especially when it concerns laws meant to protect others from physical harm, are better for society than those who do not.Tesla is introducing a feature called "assertive" style in which self-driving cars will intentionally break traffic laws such as failing to obey stop signs: https://gizmodo.com/teslas-assertive-mode-brings-rolling-stops-to-self-driv-1848331537Which companies do you think are good for society?
Does anyone still think this company is good for society?
When you are a company who makes products of the type that kill 40,000 people every year in our country alone, you have a heightened duty to ensure that your customers use that product in a safe manner. Any attempts to encourage your customers to use that product illegally amount to criminal conspiracy, or gross negligence at the very least.
soulpatchmike - your conclusion may be right but I am not 100% confident on the reasoning. No doubt teslas are very safe on a per mile driven basis but you can rack up a lot of miles at freeway speeds where there are few unexpected or difficult to detect or difficult to plan for events around you. Low speed around pedestrians is totally different than highway driving. Yes ultimately self-driving cars will probably be a lot safer than human drivers in all or nearly all conditions.
5191 for all age groups
100M/5191=1 crash for every 19264 miles on average
I don't have a self driving Tesla, but wonder about those stats that they're collecting. Does the average Tesla driver put the car in self-driving mode during the most difficult driving conditions (heavy rain/snow/sleet/ice and busy city driving) or do they tend to take control during those periods? If the latter, it could be skewing the data to read somewhat safer than it otherwise would.
Well Tesla drivers without any FSD features enabled are crashing once every 1.2M miles which is still less than half as often as other vehicles. Must just be the type of person that buys a Tesla driver is less likely to crash in general. FSD in whatever form, simple active monitoring, FSD on highway is 4 times less likely to crash no matter when it is enabled good or bad weather. Unless Tesla are straight up not counting crashes, the data supports these findings.I don't have a self driving Tesla, but wonder about those stats that they're collecting. Does the average Tesla driver put the car in self-driving mode during the most difficult driving conditions (heavy rain/snow/sleet/ice and busy city driving) or do they tend to take control during those periods? If the latter, it could be skewing the data to read somewhat safer than it otherwise would.
Exactly this. Autopilot (which is not actually autopilot) is intended to be used like fancy cruise control to reduce driver fatigue in easy driving situations. Their more advanced Full Self Driving (which is not actually self driving) has had an increasing number of pretty visible failures at pretty basic driving situations. The public failures are increasing scrutiny from lawmakers and governments:
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-01-11/dmv-message-to-legislatures-ontesla-full-self-driving-safety-its-not-our-job
If Tesla actually has to report their data to CA government like other autonomous driving companies do, we'll get a better picture of their safety record, how it compares to other autonomous tech, and what situations it's struggling with instead of some opaque info that comes from Tesla and cannot be verified.
Well Tesla drivers without any FSD features enabled are crashing once every 1.2M miles which is still less than half as often as other vehicles. Must just be the type of person that buys a Tesla driver is less likely to crash in general. FSD in whatever form, simple active monitoring, FSD on highway is 4 times less likely to crash no matter when it is enabled good or bad weather. Unless Tesla are straight up not counting crashes, the data supports these findings.I don't have a self driving Tesla, but wonder about those stats that they're collecting. Does the average Tesla driver put the car in self-driving mode during the most difficult driving conditions (heavy rain/snow/sleet/ice and busy city driving) or do they tend to take control during those periods? If the latter, it could be skewing the data to read somewhat safer than it otherwise would.
Exactly this. Autopilot (which is not actually autopilot) is intended to be used like fancy cruise control to reduce driver fatigue in easy driving situations. Their more advanced Full Self Driving (which is not actually self driving) has had an increasing number of pretty visible failures at pretty basic driving situations. The public failures are increasing scrutiny from lawmakers and governments:
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-01-11/dmv-message-to-legislatures-ontesla-full-self-driving-safety-its-not-our-job
If Tesla actually has to report their data to CA government like other autonomous driving companies do, we'll get a better picture of their safety record, how it compares to other autonomous tech, and what situations it's struggling with instead of some opaque info that comes from Tesla and cannot be verified.
It is doubtful that the beta FSD that can drive anywhere has any data released on it yet. No different than waymo and others that are driving around in beta vehicles with a driver behind the wheel...I thought we were just talking about the rolling stop feature on the beta FSD that currently requires an attentive driver.
Well Tesla drivers without any FSD features enabled are crashing once every 1.2M miles which is still less than half as often as other vehicles. Must just be the type of person that buys a Tesla driver is less likely to crash in general.
Also, regarding Tesla's "famous" quality control, seems nothing has changed.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/43876/tesla-model-3-owner-discovers-car-was-delivered-missing-a-brake-pad
The car was delivered without a brake pad, the owner sent a video of the noise to the service center since service appointments were many weeks out, and was told "It's normal," and Tesla can't, apparently, get the parts to fix a defectively delivered car. So, business as usual for them, and one of many reasons I'll never own one of that particular brand.
What car brands would you own? Serious question.
VW knowingly cheated and broke a whole slew of laws with their emissions software.
Seems most car companies have done excessively crappy things (often to the level of criminality) every couple decades. Money and corruption…
https://electrek.co/2022/01/16/bp-claims-ev-charging-stations-on-the-cusp-of-being-more-profitable-than-gas-pumps/
The death knell of ICE is nigh, although how much that'll remain true as competition heats up is an open question. The $/kwh rate at an EA station as a non-member is 3.5x my home $/kwh price. Even as a member, it is 2.5x my home price. I know businesses, especially spikey high-draw businesses pay via a very different rate schedule than households do, but I'm having a tough time thinking that if every gas station in the US was instead an EV station, that those multiples would be sustainable.
https://electrek.co/2022/01/16/bp-claims-ev-charging-stations-on-the-cusp-of-being-more-profitable-than-gas-pumps/
The death knell of ICE is nigh, although how much that'll remain true as competition heats up is an open question. The $/kwh rate at an EA station as a non-member is 3.5x my home $/kwh price. Even as a member, it is 2.5x my home price. I know businesses, especially spikey high-draw businesses pay via a very different rate schedule than households do, but I'm having a tough time thinking that if every gas station in the US was instead an EV station, that those multiples would be sustainable.
there is no reason for every gas station in the US to exist anymore - Fast EV charging is only necessary for long trips the other charging will happen at home. The landscape of all of this is changing. Its why quick trip has been heavily beefing up its food options to play in that convience fast food space even more.
https://electrek.co/2022/01/16/bp-claims-ev-charging-stations-on-the-cusp-of-being-more-profitable-than-gas-pumps/
The death knell of ICE is nigh, although how much that'll remain true as competition heats up is an open question. The $/kwh rate at an EA station as a non-member is 3.5x my home $/kwh price. Even as a member, it is 2.5x my home price. I know businesses, especially spikey high-draw businesses pay via a very different rate schedule than households do, but I'm having a tough time thinking that if every gas station in the US was instead an EV station, that those multiples would be sustainable.
there is no reason for every gas station in the US to exist anymore - Fast EV charging is only necessary for long trips the other charging will happen at home. The landscape of all of this is changing. Its why quick trip has been heavily beefing up its food options to play in that convience fast food space even more.
For a long time these places have made more on their sales of items other than fuel. There have been a lot of gas stations that have already closed in recent years. I think the chains have run them off.
As one member argues here, there are some good reasons for some businesses to start offering "free 1 hour charging!" to attract customers - at ~$1 in electricity charges you get a captive audience to spend more money at your business. And we're already seeing a lot of restaurants, inns and breweries do just this. Whether this trend continues to expand... I have no idea. It does seem to be unique to EV charging though.
As one member argues here, there are some good reasons for some businesses to start offering "free 1 hour charging!" to attract customers - at ~$1 in electricity charges you get a captive audience to spend more money at your business. And we're already seeing a lot of restaurants, inns and breweries do just this. Whether this trend continues to expand... I have no idea. It does seem to be unique to EV charging though.
It makes even more sense for hotels. Which is why "Tesla destination charger" is a thing. It may become a competitive disadvantage to not have a way to charge a car in the near future.
I wonder if they will be installing charging stations at freeway rest stops. It seems an ideal way to collect revenue for some states. They already have the vehicle volume.This is happening in Ontario - at least in the planning stages.
I wonder if they will be installing charging stations at freeway rest stops. It seems an ideal way to collect revenue for some states. They already have the vehicle volume.
We were driving through Ohio, and every rest stop on that road had Level 3 chargers.
Strong Q4 for Tesla, but Elon also confirmed there will be no Cybertruck, Semi, or Roadster for at least another year (surprising zero people). So, good that they're making money and scaling production of 3/Y, but bad that they continue to delay products they've been promising/hyping for years now, and that would help expand into new markets while appealing to new demographics:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/tesla-hits-record-5-5b-profit-but-musk-says-no-cybertruck-semi-or-roadster-in-2022/ar-AATb7x5
Sounds like 1 step forward, but also one step back for EVs becoming popular in the US
Strong Q4 for Tesla, but Elon also confirmed there will be no Cybertruck, Semi, or Roadster for at least another year (surprising zero people). So, good that they're making money and scaling production of 3/Y, but bad that they continue to delay products they've been promising/hyping for years now, and that would help expand into new markets while appealing to new demographics:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/tesla-hits-record-5-5b-profit-but-musk-says-no-cybertruck-semi-or-roadster-in-2022/ar-AATb7x5
Sounds like 1 step forward, but also one step back for EVs becoming popular in the US
Strong Q4 for Tesla, but Elon also confirmed there will be no Cybertruck, Semi, or Roadster for at least another year (surprising zero people). So, good that they're making money and scaling production of 3/Y, but bad that they continue to delay products they've been promising/hyping for years now, and that would help expand into new markets while appealing to new demographics:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/tesla-hits-record-5-5b-profit-but-musk-says-no-cybertruck-semi-or-roadster-in-2022/ar-AATb7x5
Sounds like 1 step forward, but also one step back for EVs becoming popular in the US
Strong Q4 for Tesla, but Elon also confirmed there will be no Cybertruck, Semi, or Roadster for at least another year (surprising zero people). So, good that they're making money and scaling production of 3/Y, but bad that they continue to delay products they've been promising/hyping for years now, and that would help expand into new markets while appealing to new demographics:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/tesla-hits-record-5-5b-profit-but-musk-says-no-cybertruck-semi-or-roadster-in-2022/ar-AATb7x5
Sounds like 1 step forward, but also one step back for EVs becoming popular in the US
If they grow 50% and sell ~1.4M vehicles in 2022 without launching a new vehicle haven't they have done more than enough to support EVs being popular in the US?
Ford, RAM and GM sell a collective total of ~950M light, medium, and heavy-duty trucks annually in the US. Why try and ramp CT, which has a max demand of about 250-300k/year globally in the middle of supply chain constraints when they are maximizing the efficiencies of the assembly processes they already have to sell 500k more vehicles this year? The semi only has max sales demand of ~25k units per year and the roadster less than 1k units per year.
I'll keep saying it until I see production vehicles- I don't think they can get the Cybertruck to pass DOE safety standards without significant redesign. I think they bit off more than they could chew. I suspect that the high profit 3/Y ramp up is a convenience in that it buys them more time to figure it out.
Strong Q4 for Tesla, but Elon also confirmed there will be no Cybertruck, Semi, or Roadster for at least another year (surprising zero people). So, good that they're making money and scaling production of 3/Y, but bad that they continue to delay products they've been promising/hyping for years now, and that would help expand into new markets while appealing to new demographics:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/tesla-hits-record-5-5b-profit-but-musk-says-no-cybertruck-semi-or-roadster-in-2022/ar-AATb7x5
Sounds like 1 step forward, but also one step back for EVs becoming popular in the US
I don't see the Cybertruck being delayed as being relevant to EV popularity -- it wasn't exactly something designed to appeal to the majority of the population. Check out the preorders for the F150 Lightning -- they've preordered way more than they can make anytime soon. Rivian is allegedly ramping up production, the Silverado EV is a few years out, etc.
I'll keep saying it until I see production vehicles- I don't think they can get the Cybertruck to pass DOE safety standards without significant redesign. I think they bit off more than they could chew. I suspect that the high profit 3/Y ramp up is a convenience in that it buys them more time to figure it out.
That's my feeling, too.
Plus, not every legacy industry is as lazy as the space side of legacy aerospace, which Musk ate for breakfast. It's easy to stereotype trucks as a space where nothing happens, which I'm guilty of doing myself. But it is, in fact, a space of constant innovation, even if incremental. It is also insanely competitive (again, unlike the space side of legacy aerospace), with tens of millions of picky customers vs a handful of government agencies.
I give Must credit for the early push for electrification of trucks, and I wish him success - but I'm not confident that success in this space is assured for him. And I wish success to every other company working of EV trucks in equal measure.
Strong Q4 for Tesla, but Elon also confirmed there will be no Cybertruck, Semi, or Roadster for at least another year (surprising zero people). So, good that they're making money and scaling production of 3/Y, but bad that they continue to delay products they've been promising/hyping for years now, and that would help expand into new markets while appealing to new demographics:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/tesla-hits-record-5-5b-profit-but-musk-says-no-cybertruck-semi-or-roadster-in-2022/ar-AATb7x5
Sounds like 1 step forward, but also one step back for EVs becoming popular in the US
I don't see the Cybertruck being delayed as being relevant to EV popularity -- it wasn't exactly something designed to appeal to the majority of the population. Check out the preorders for the F150 Lightning -- they've preordered way more than they can make anytime soon. Rivian is allegedly ramping up production, the Silverado EV is a few years out, etc.
Balogna. Why the low price point? And your examples of lightening and Rivian only support the market demand for EV pickups. The Cybertruck has some qualities that have both of those vehicles beat... if the ever make it.
The Model 3 costs only $35k, yet most cost $50k. Because that's their real price point.
The Cybertruck costs only $40k... yet... it is not going to sell for $40k. Not a chance. Tesla delays their product releases, and sells almost exclusively higher trim levels of their products. That's just how they operate.
I can't see inside Elon's mind, but I'm not sure if he cleverly made the outrageous Cybertruck design and believed everyone would love it, or just wanted to shake things up. In theory, a million people or more are ready to buy one0 (at the initial advertised price.) But that's based on $100 reservations, 0.25% of the cheapest theoretical purchase price. Will be curious to see what they really sell for, how many are made, and how many people end up buying them. Especially when there's competition including roughly $40k-50k Ford Lightning trucks (and similar) available as an alternative.
But I don't think it's popular because it was designed to be mainstream/popular. I think it's just popular to get in line for something wild and new. And yes, there's pent-up demand for EV pickups. I just think if the Cybertruck has genuine intention to appeal to the mainstream, they might not have "rocked the boat" so much with the design. I also think Tesla is largely a status brand. The reservation is a bit like asking someone if they want to get in line for a wicked new Maserati that beats other luxury touring cars but it's just $40,000 and you just have to put $100 in now. A lot of people would think that's pretty cool, but then when it is actually available, at the $40k price point, there's only one color, with plastic wheel covers, most of the features omitted, and also it's several years later than promised... and you can get a Jaguar for $50k in any color you want with a pretty nice package, or cough up $60k and get the Maserati you were promised... what are you going do? Not all 1.3M people will make all those concessions.
0 https://insideevs.com/news/549919/tesla-80-billion-cybertruck-reservations/
Strong Q4 for Tesla, but Elon also confirmed there will be no Cybertruck, Semi, or Roadster for at least another year (surprising zero people). So, good that they're making money and scaling production of 3/Y, but bad that they continue to delay products they've been promising/hyping for years now, and that would help expand into new markets while appealing to new demographics:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/tesla-hits-record-5-5b-profit-but-musk-says-no-cybertruck-semi-or-roadster-in-2022/ar-AATb7x5
Sounds like 1 step forward, but also one step back for EVs becoming popular in the US
I don't see the Cybertruck being delayed as being relevant to EV popularity -- it wasn't exactly something designed to appeal to the majority of the population. Check out the preorders for the F150 Lightning -- they've preordered way more than they can make anytime soon. Rivian is allegedly ramping up production, the Silverado EV is a few years out, etc.
Balogna. Why the low price point? And your examples of lightening and Rivian only support the market demand for EV pickups. The Cybertruck has some qualities that have both of those vehicles beat... if the ever make it.
My point is that there is a market demand for pickups regardless of whether or not the Cybertruck exists.
The Cybertruck is $40k just like the F150 Lightning Pro is $39,xxx*.
*but they all sold out already so you can't buy one anyway
Why launch new products when you are supply chain constrained on the models that are still in ramp up?
Why launch new products when you are supply chain constrained on the models that are still in ramp up?
Why release new models? Because the competition is? Ford is supply constrained and launching new EVs while ramping existing models. Same is true for GM, VW, Toyota/Subaru, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, Rivian, etc. And that's just the US. Tons of cheaper EVs in Europe undercutting them on price and China is an entirely different ballgame. Those companies have EV versions of CUVs, pickup trucks, hatchbacks and luxury/performance cars at various price points currently in production or to be released in the next 12 months. They have minivans and delivery trucks lined up for 12-24 months after that for additional segments.
Why release new models? Maybe because they said they would? The biggest advantage that Tesla has had with early adopters was being first to market in their segments. They're losing that by not delivering the products that they've hyped (and taken lots of money for) for multiple years now without a definite time frame. And when the highest profile EV company's stuff seems more like fantasy than reality, it makes all EVs seem less realistic and feasible for mainstream people. If you want to be the dominant leader in a new industry, you have to actually lead with new vehicles in new segments.
Why launch new products when you are supply chain constrained on the models that are still in ramp up?
Why release new models? Because the competition is? Ford is supply constrained and launching new EVs while ramping existing models. Same is true for GM, VW, Toyota/Subaru, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, Rivian, etc. And that's just the US. Tons of cheaper EVs in Europe undercutting them on price and China is an entirely different ballgame. Those companies have EV versions of CUVs, pickup trucks, hatchbacks and luxury/performance cars at various price points currently in production or to be released in the next 12 months. They have minivans and delivery trucks lined up for 12-24 months after that for additional segments.
Why release new models? Maybe because they said they would? The biggest advantage that Tesla has had with early adopters was being first to market in their segments. They're losing that by not delivering the products that they've hyped (and taken lots of money for) for multiple years now without a definite time frame. And when the highest profile EV company's stuff seems more like fantasy than reality, it makes all EVs seem less realistic and feasible for mainstream people. If you want to be the dominant leader in a new industry, you have to actually lead with new vehicles in new segments.
I need to make some notes for evaluating new EV investments:
-Cheaper and less profitable is better. Don't worry, they will make it up with volume.
-Getting to market first predicts success. I need to look into Rivian a bit closer, the Ford Lightning and CT are already DOA.
-50%+ YOY growth of both earnings and revenue is not enough unless it includes new products in new segments.
The biggest advantage that Tesla has had with early adopters was being first to market in their segments. They're losing that by not delivering the products that they've hyped (and taken lots of money for) for multiple years now without a definite time frame.
The biggest advantage that Tesla has had with early adopters was being first to market in their segments. They're losing that by not delivering the products that they've hyped (and taken lots of money for) for multiple years now without a definite time frame.
I would argue that their biggest advantage in the Supercharger network, and that stays regardless of the number of models.
There's more than one path to success. I have my doubts (expressed above) as to the viability of Cybertruck, but I also don't think it says much if at all about success of Tesla as a company. People learned to expect all sorts of weirdness from Musk.
I'm not really discussing the viability of Tesla as a company, or an investment. The topic of this thread is widespread EV adoption. The Supercharger network might help that if they open it up to non-Teslas in the US and it's the best available option (based on a combination of price, availability and reliability). Right now the Supercharger network is just good for widespread adoption of Teslas. And they make 2 sedans and 2 CUVs, all of them more expensive than the average new vehicle. Some more than double that price. That's not enough diversity in products or customer demographics to lead to widespread, mainstream adoption.
VW CEO - "Diess pointed out in the staff meeting that Tesla plans to employ 7,000 workers at its Berlin plant, and estimates it will take just 10 hours to produce each car. At VW’s electric car factory in Zwickau—which employed nearly 9,000 people as of last December—it typically takes workers 30 hours to assemble a car, and the CEO said he wanted to cut down production time to 20 hours next year."
If other manufacturers are spending ~20% more on labor(7000 vs 9000) and produce half to a third as many vehicles(10 hour build vs 20-30hrs) with those labor dollars, that is the most significant strategic advantage a company can have. I am not holding my breath that Ford and GM are anymore efficient than VW in building EVs. How many years will it take VW and other manufacturers to catch up? Maybe that is the determining factor for when electric cars can finally become popular in the US.
It's just that... you know, with the subventions Germany pays for an EV buyer, you could give them an electric bike instead and build at least 10m of superduper cycling path. Enough, if you add all the cars together, to easily double the current overland bike infrastructure.
It's just that... you know, with the subventions Germany pays for an EV buyer, you could give them an electric bike instead and build at least 10m of superduper cycling path. Enough, if you add all the cars together, to easily double the current overland bike infrastructure.
I know this is the ev post, but I wanted to lift up what you just said here, because while I am cheering the increase in ev production and sales, I feel like there are just so many far better solutions to climate change than switching all the cars out. Making alternative forms of transportation simpler, safer, and more enjoyable seems like low hanging fruit (she says as America continues to eye roll at biking infrastructure in most of the country, or worse, respond in an openly hostile fashion)
However, this is a thread about EV popularity in the US...
However, this is a thread about EV popularity in the US...
A surprisingly large number of bicycles available today are electric vehicles.
It's pretty clear to me that
- if we leave it to market forces alone, EVs will not come soon enough
- subsidizing EVs is not the most efficient way to cut GHGE from transportation
- more efficient ways to cut GHGE from transportation are not politically feasible
Conclusion: don't look up, it will not do you any good.
It's pretty clear to me that
- if we leave it to market forces alone, EVs will not come soon enough
- subsidizing EVs is not the most efficient way to cut GHGE from transportation
- more efficient ways to cut GHGE from transportation are not politically feasible
Conclusion: don't look up, it will not do you any good.
I would add: don’t let perfect prevent progress.
The light truck market might be the toughest but to crack because there is such fierce competition AND because it’s a segment where most owners don’t rank fuel Efficency or environmental concerns very high in their list. So you’ve got to make a truck that is as capable as the next crop of ICE pickups *and* is price competitive while maintaining or exceeding reliability. Fall short in any of those metrics and the eMPG score of 80+ is largely meaningless.
Tesla is introducing a feature called "assertive" style in which self-driving cars will intentionally break traffic laws such as failing to obey stop signs: https://gizmodo.com/teslas-assertive-mode-brings-rolling-stops-to-self-driv-1848331537FYI that NHTSA resolved this problem.
well this was an unexpected hiccup with our EV...
We were charging our car with a 25' charging cable. There was about 6" of snow on the ground. It got above freezing the other day with some rain, then went back down into the single digits overnight. The cable (which heats up ever so slightly) melted down into the snow.
As a result my charging cable - all 25' or so - is firmly lodged in a sheet of ice about 2" thick. I can't pull it out and I'm not risking trying to dig it out with a shovel or ice pick. Ice-melt isn't terribly effective at these temperatures or on thick sheets of ice.
Thankfully the charger cable is about where I want it to be, but now instead of a 25' cord I effectively have about 6' of scope. Have to park in pretty much the exact spot to charge.
well this was an unexpected hiccup with our EV...
We were charging our car with a 25' charging cable. There was about 6" of snow on the ground. It got above freezing the other day with some rain, then went back down into the single digits overnight. The cable (which heats up ever so slightly) melted down into the snow.
As a result my charging cable - all 25' or so - is firmly lodged in a sheet of ice about 2" thick. I can't pull it out and I'm not risking trying to dig it out with a shovel or ice pick. Ice-melt isn't terribly effective at these temperatures or on thick sheets of ice.
Thankfully the charger cable is about where I want it to be, but now instead of a 25' cord I effectively have about 6' of scope. Have to park in pretty much the exact spot to charge.
Oh that is inconvenient... If you check the cable during the end of a charging cycle, maybe it'll be warm enough to let you free it a little at a time?
well this was an unexpected hiccup with our EV...
We were charging our car with a 25' charging cable. There was about 6" of snow on the ground. It got above freezing the other day with some rain, then went back down into the single digits overnight. The cable (which heats up ever so slightly) melted down into the snow.
As a result my charging cable - all 25' or so - is firmly lodged in a sheet of ice about 2" thick. I can't pull it out and I'm not risking trying to dig it out with a shovel or ice pick. Ice-melt isn't terribly effective at these temperatures or on thick sheets of ice.
Thankfully the charger cable is about where I want it to be, but now instead of a 25' cord I effectively have about 6' of scope. Have to park in pretty much the exact spot to charge.
Oh that is inconvenient... If you check the cable during the end of a charging cycle, maybe it'll be warm enough to let you free it a little at a time?
Yes/Probably. but my solution right now is to wait until Thursday, when temps are supposed to be well above freezing here again. If the forecast was just a straight week of cold I'd spend more time trying to get my cable out... for right now it's just a weird inconvenience.
Yes/Probably. but my solution right now is to wait until Thursday, when temps are supposed to be well above freezing here again. If the forecast was just a straight week of cold I'd spend more time trying to get my cable out... for right now it's just a weird inconvenience.
well this was an unexpected hiccup with our EV...LOL so that's the equivalent to the frozen tank cover :D
We were charging our car with a 25' charging cable. There was about 6" of snow on the ground. It got above freezing the other day with some rain, then went back down into the single digits overnight. The cable (which heats up ever so slightly) melted down into the snow.
As a result my charging cable - all 25' or so - is firmly lodged in a sheet of ice about 2" thick. I can't pull it out and I'm not risking trying to dig it out with a shovel or ice pick. Ice-melt isn't terribly effective at these temperatures or on thick sheets of ice.
Thankfully the charger cable is about where I want it to be, but now instead of a 25' cord I effectively have about 6' of scope. Have to park in pretty much the exact spot to charge.
well this was an unexpected hiccup with our EV...
We were charging our car with a 25' charging cable. There was about 6" of snow on the ground. It got above freezing the other day with some rain, then went back down into the single digits overnight. The cable (which heats up ever so slightly) melted down into the snow.
As a result my charging cable - all 25' or so - is firmly lodged in a sheet of ice about 2" thick. I can't pull it out and I'm not risking trying to dig it out with a shovel or ice pick. Ice-melt isn't terribly effective at these temperatures or on thick sheets of ice.
Thankfully the charger cable is about where I want it to be, but now instead of a 25' cord I effectively have about 6' of scope. Have to park in pretty much the exact spot to charge.
Oh that is inconvenient... If you check the cable during the end of a charging cycle, maybe it'll be warm enough to let you free it a little at a time?
Yes/Probably. but my solution right now is to wait until Thursday, when temps are supposed to be well above freezing here again. If the forecast was just a straight week of cold I'd spend more time trying to get my cable out... for right now it's just a weird inconvenience.
well this was an unexpected hiccup with our EV...
We were charging our car with a 25' charging cable. There was about 6" of snow on the ground. It got above freezing the other day with some rain, then went back down into the single digits overnight. The cable (which heats up ever so slightly) melted down into the snow.
As a result my charging cable - all 25' or so - is firmly lodged in a sheet of ice about 2" thick. I can't pull it out and I'm not risking trying to dig it out with a shovel or ice pick. Ice-melt isn't terribly effective at these temperatures or on thick sheets of ice.
Thankfully the charger cable is about where I want it to be, but now instead of a 25' cord I effectively have about 6' of scope. Have to park in pretty much the exact spot to charge.
Oh that is inconvenient... If you check the cable during the end of a charging cycle, maybe it'll be warm enough to let you free it a little at a time?
Yes/Probably. but my solution right now is to wait until Thursday, when temps are supposed to be well above freezing here again. If the forecast was just a straight week of cold I'd spend more time trying to get my cable out... for right now it's just a weird inconvenience.
I think I'd try pouring a kettle's worth of boiling water onto the frozen part closest to the free length of hose and seeing if it would come a little bit free that way.
well this was an unexpected hiccup with our EV...
We were charging our car with a 25' charging cable. There was about 6" of snow on the ground. It got above freezing the other day with some rain, then went back down into the single digits overnight. The cable (which heats up ever so slightly) melted down into the snow.
As a result my charging cable - all 25' or so - is firmly lodged in a sheet of ice about 2" thick. I can't pull it out and I'm not risking trying to dig it out with a shovel or ice pick. Ice-melt isn't terribly effective at these temperatures or on thick sheets of ice.
Thankfully the charger cable is about where I want it to be, but now instead of a 25' cord I effectively have about 6' of scope. Have to park in pretty much the exact spot to charge.
Oh that is inconvenient... If you check the cable during the end of a charging cycle, maybe it'll be warm enough to let you free it a little at a time?
Yes/Probably. but my solution right now is to wait until Thursday, when temps are supposed to be well above freezing here again. If the forecast was just a straight week of cold I'd spend more time trying to get my cable out... for right now it's just a weird inconvenience.
I think I'd try pouring a kettle's worth of boiling water onto the frozen part closest to the free length of hose and seeing if it would come a little bit free that way.
I'd use salt. It is amazing sometimes how salt will cut ice and make it rotten.
Vaguely on topic, my emotions as I've learned about the Silverado EV so far have been "ugh" (disgust), plus I'm sure I won't want the $40 "work truck" or the $70k+ RST version. Yeesh.
The Superbowl commercial informed my lizard brain that I don't completely hate the design, but then I ended up on a "making of" video about that commercial, and I learned some things.
First - the truck is very Chevrolet Avalanche like. That could be good or bad. First the bad - that was not a very popular truck. Maybe because it was as long as a Suburban, maybe because truck people just want "a truck" and not the weird side designs of vehicles like the Avalanche, Honda Ridgeline, Tesla Cybertruck Concept, etc. Maybe because that midgate was notoriously unreliable and leaky. But it could be good... it does potentially increase the flexibility and utility of the vehicle.
Second - it has 4 wheel steering. I have no idea how good or useful that is in practice, and when a bumpy brand like GM, you worry about additional complexity leading to more things breaking.
Third - I really don't mind the design in that video. It's still slightly cartoonish for my tastes, but outside of CGI renders, it's almost palatable. (Growing up a Chevy kid has no doubt poisoned an otherwise rational ability to evaluate vehicles.)
To sum up, I still think Ford's "just like an F150 but electric and full of useful features" is the preferred approach. I think GM is initially leaning a bit too hard into high-priced, niche vehicles, and giving this a Silverado name may end up coming back to bite them if it doesn't sell like they hope. (Assuming they really want to sell these, and aren't still paying lip service to EVs instead of really committing!)
Silverado EV launches in the spring of 2023. I think it looks great. I also just watched the Throttle House review of the R1T from Rivian. I'm very pleased so many good products are hitting the roads.
Tesla Experience:
My family has had a Model Y for a couple of months now. In our experience, range anxiety is nonexistent. We don't have a long commute. ~50 mile charge overnight from a 120v outlet outside our garage has covered all our needs except for using a supercharger on a trip. I had planned to install a dedicated charger, but it's a moot idea at this point.
well this was an unexpected hiccup with our EV...
We were charging our car with a 25' charging cable. There was about 6" of snow on the ground. It got above freezing the other day with some rain, then went back down into the single digits overnight. The cable (which heats up ever so slightly) melted down into the snow.
As a result my charging cable - all 25' or so - is firmly lodged in a sheet of ice about 2" thick. I can't pull it out and I'm not risking trying to dig it out with a shovel or ice pick. Ice-melt isn't terribly effective at these temperatures or on thick sheets of ice.
Thankfully the charger cable is about where I want it to be, but now instead of a 25' cord I effectively have about 6' of scope. Have to park in pretty much the exact spot to charge.
Oh that is inconvenient... If you check the cable during the end of a charging cycle, maybe it'll be warm enough to let you free it a little at a time?
Yes/Probably. but my solution right now is to wait until Thursday, when temps are supposed to be well above freezing here again. If the forecast was just a straight week of cold I'd spend more time trying to get my cable out... for right now it's just a weird inconvenience.
I think I'd try pouring a kettle's worth of boiling water onto the frozen part closest to the free length of hose and seeing if it would come a little bit free that way.
I'd use salt. It is amazing sometimes how salt will cut ice and make it rotten.
Depends on the temperature. Salt barely works at all when it gets down to about -20 C. That's why we don't really use it on the roads up north . . . just plowing and sand. It can also be pretty damaging to plastics, some sorts of rubbers, and most metals.
Don't know how far your breaker panel is from your proposed charger outlet but wire is very expensive at the moment.
Silverado EV launches in the spring of 2023. I think it looks great. I also just watched the Throttle House review of the R1T from Rivian. I'm very pleased so many good products are hitting the roads.
Tesla Experience:
My family has had a Model Y for a couple of months now. In our experience, range anxiety is nonexistent. We don't have a long commute. ~50 mile charge overnight from a 120v outlet outside our garage has covered all our needs except for using a supercharger on a trip. I had planned to install a dedicated charger, but it's a moot idea at this point.
In my experience, the people who experience range anxiety are those that don't actually own a BEV. For those that do, they quickly realize they start every morning with a full or nearly full battery. Infrequent long trips require about 5 minutes of pre-planning where to stop that has a Level3.
We also planned on putting in a Level2 but have postponed that because the number of times it would have been actually useful is pretty close to zero. We will do it when we upgrade our service in a few months (our electrician says running the extra line and circuit will be $100 if we do it at the same time as the panel, with half the cost being the breaker and the exterior outlet).
Our parents also went over two years with their plug in before adding a Level2.
Second - it has 4 wheel steering. I have no idea how good or useful that is in practice, and when a bumpy brand like GM, you worry about additional complexity leading to more things breaking.
well this was an unexpected hiccup with our EV...
We were charging our car with a 25' charging cable. There was about 6" of snow on the ground. It got above freezing the other day with some rain, then went back down into the single digits overnight. The cable (which heats up ever so slightly) melted down into the snow.
As a result my charging cable - all 25' or so - is firmly lodged in a sheet of ice about 2" thick. I can't pull it out and I'm not risking trying to dig it out with a shovel or ice pick. Ice-melt isn't terribly effective at these temperatures or on thick sheets of ice.
Thankfully the charger cable is about where I want it to be, but now instead of a 25' cord I effectively have about 6' of scope. Have to park in pretty much the exact spot to charge.
Oh that is inconvenient... If you check the cable during the end of a charging cycle, maybe it'll be warm enough to let you free it a little at a time?
Yes/Probably. but my solution right now is to wait until Thursday, when temps are supposed to be well above freezing here again. If the forecast was just a straight week of cold I'd spend more time trying to get my cable out... for right now it's just a weird inconvenience.
I think I'd try pouring a kettle's worth of boiling water onto the frozen part closest to the free length of hose and seeing if it would come a little bit free that way.
I'd use salt. It is amazing sometimes how salt will cut ice and make it rotten.
Depends on the temperature. Salt barely works at all when it gets down to about -20 C. That's why we don't really use it on the roads up north . . . just plowing and sand. It can also be pretty damaging to plastics, some sorts of rubbers, and most metals.
True - but I'm thinking it would be warm enough in Maine. Maine reminds me of the UP where I grew up, West of the Soo. It's actually quite a bit North of Toronto. They use quite a lot of salt in Micjigan. In years gone by when they built more cars here, it was said to feed the rust worms and wear your car out quicker. Salt kills Pine trees too.
Second - it has 4 wheel steering. I have no idea how good or useful that is in practice, and when a bumpy brand like GM, you worry about additional complexity leading to more things breaking.
GM has been making trucks with 4-wheel steering for about 20 years so I'm sure they've got it ironed out perfectly by now.....LOL. I would much prefer doing without that extra bit of complexity.
The Silverado EV is just a restyled/decontented Hummer. They're the same platform underneath. They both use the midgate. They both offer 4 wheel steering.
What we're seeing is different approaches to leveraging scale. Ford is leveraging the scale of the non EV parts of the F150 to build the Lightning. It looks like all the other F150s because it's cheaper to share parts. That keeps it familiar and useful as a truck. It also keeps the price reasonable. But it may be slightly more compromised as an EV too. Time will tell.
GM is taking the opposite approach and scaling the EV stuff while changing out the rest of the vehicles with more unique, model specific parts. They're pricing them high, and then removing things to get the price lower. They're distinguishing them from non EVs with similar name plates. They could potentially use the extra freedom to their advantage, resulting in a better EV with fewer compromises. Time will tell.
The Silverado EV is just a restyled/decontented Hummer. They're the same platform underneath. They both use the midgate. They both offer 4 wheel steering.
What we're seeing is different approaches to leveraging scale. Ford is leveraging the scale of the non EV parts of the F150 to build the Lightning. It looks like all the other F150s because it's cheaper to share parts. That keeps it familiar and useful as a truck. It also keeps the price reasonable. But it may be slightly more compromised as an EV too. Time will tell.
GM is taking the opposite approach and scaling the EV stuff while changing out the rest of the vehicles with more unique, model specific parts. They're pricing them high, and then removing things to get the price lower. They're distinguishing them from non EVs with similar name plates. They could potentially use the extra freedom to their advantage, resulting in a better EV with fewer compromises. Time will tell.
The Hummer EV is currently expected to cost $110k, weigh over 9000 lbs, get 47 MPGe and have a range of 329 miles. Not particularly inspiring.
Wonder how much that improves with the "decontented" Silverado. (The work truck is supposed to launch first at just $40,000! And they've been throwing around a 400 miles range.)
Large (heavy) vehicles need large (heavy) battery packs.
I drove a Leaf again yesterday. Nice ride. Easier to park. Hauled me and all the passengers around town just fine.
One thing I noticed driving on Maui, there's no big RV's, no big semi trucks, and the speed limits are low. And cars are small. Hardly any full size trucks or suvs.Large (heavy) vehicles need large (heavy) battery packs.
I drove a Leaf again yesterday. Nice ride. Easier to park. Hauled me and all the passengers around town just fine.
I dream of a world like in a Mickey Mouse movie, when a driver of a Hummer complains about a lack of parking spaces or gas prices, a glove-hand comes out of the rood and slaps him left-right-left-right...
One thing I noticed driving on Maui, there's no big RV's, no big semi trucks, and the speed limits are low. And cars are small. Hardly any full size trucks or suvs.Large (heavy) vehicles need large (heavy) battery packs.
I drove a Leaf again yesterday. Nice ride. Easier to park. Hauled me and all the passengers around town just fine.
I dream of a world like in a Mickey Mouse movie, when a driver of a Hummer complains about a lack of parking spaces or gas prices, a glove-hand comes out of the rood and slaps him left-right-left-right...
It was nice
Maybe they are planning on being parked a while and there are penalties for not moving after charging is complete?
Question: Why do so many Tesla drivers charge their cars with the J1772 - Level 2 public chargers instead of the dedicated Tesla chargers when both are available?
Observation: I live near a spot with 8 public Level 2 (J1772) chargers and 8 Tesla-branded chargers. Almost every day I walk by there, and typically there will be 2 or 3 Teslas charging with the J177s and only 1 or 2 using the Tesla stations. During busy weekends there will *always* be spots open with the Tesla chargers while most or all of the 8 public “universal” chargers are occupied.
It’s not a matter of convenience - they literally sit right next to each other (if anything the Tesla chargers are 30 feet closer the stores). I know the J1772 chargers are free (240v/40amp) - and assume (?) the Tesla chargers are too… there’s certainly no credit card interface anywhere.
What gives?
Thanks - didn’t realize that [some] Tesla chargers were not free / linked via software to the owner’s cc.
These ones look like thi:
So I guess they are DC and cost money.
You can also install a 14-50 outlet and get the 14-50 adapter from Tesla for the mobile charger, and then get 32 amps @ 240v out of it. I did that for a while until I decided I wanted to take advantage of the 30% tax credit and then I bought a Chargepoint.
Well the USPS has decided to go with a mostly gas-guzzzling new fleet of neighborhood mail delivery vehicles. This upsets me. If there ever was a use case where an electric fleet made a ton of sense, this is it. Short, highly predictable routes. Long, consistent charging periods overnight at the same location.
Well the USPS has decided to go with a mostly gas-guzzzling new fleet of neighborhood mail delivery vehicles. This upsets me. If there ever was a use case where an electric fleet made a ton of sense, this is it. Short, highly predictable routes. Long, consistent charging periods overnight at the same location.
Louis Dejoy is still in charge. Money exchanged hands somewhere, no doubt.
What can we do about DeJoy's choice? A letter writing campaign?
Well the USPS has decided to go with a mostly gas-guzzzling new fleet of neighborhood mail delivery vehicles. This upsets me. If there ever was a use case where an electric fleet made a ton of sense, this is it. Short, highly predictable routes. Long, consistent charging periods overnight at the same location.
Well the USPS has decided to go with a mostly gas-guzzzling new fleet of neighborhood mail delivery vehicles. This upsets me. If there ever was a use case where an electric fleet made a ton of sense, this is it. Short, highly predictable routes. Long, consistent charging periods overnight at the same location.
I agree, but I can't imagine it makes fiscal sense. Depends on how long the fleet vehicles run.
Current mail trucks are gloriously stripped down and inexpensive. I'm not sure how reliable their drive trains are, but I imagine at a fleet level they are so simple that maintenance isn't too bad even if it's frequent.
You can't strip down an EV in the same way because a significant portion of the cost is in the batteries, which are having supply chain issues anyway. Plus, you need someone to design the thing. Plus you have to outfit every single post office to manage the new electrical loads as well as ditch all of the ICE gear. Adding a few chargers to an apartment block isn't the same as adding a substation that can handle charging an entire fleet of mail vehicles at once.
It should be done, but I imagine it's a 10 year project to do on a national scale.
Well the USPS has decided to go with a mostly gas-guzzzling new fleet of neighborhood mail delivery vehicles. This upsets me. If there ever was a use case where an electric fleet made a ton of sense, this is it. Short, highly predictable routes. Long, consistent charging periods overnight at the same location.
Louis Dejoy is still in charge. Money exchanged hands somewhere, no doubt.
It seems that the following criteria are being used to justify the USPS's decision
- Cost of fleet-wide gasoline at $2.15, rising to $2.55 by 2040
- A maximum BEV range of 70 miles per charge
- Price difference of $30,000 per vehicle
- No environmental impact assessment conducted
In short the 'logic' being used is puzzling, to say the least. They cynic in my tends to agree with you @pecunia. I'm not sure what sane person thinks gasoline will drop to $2.15 and remain under $2.55 for the next twenty years, and the range limitations and cost premiums cited seem to be based on vehicles made 10 years ago. We already have delivery trucks in operation with a range of >120mi, and the cost difference is roughly half what's being used. The lack of a proper environmental impact survey is frustratingly shortsighted and seems to be in clear violation of the governments own protocols.
Well the USPS has decided to go with a mostly gas-guzzzling new fleet of neighborhood mail delivery vehicles. This upsets me. If there ever was a use case where an electric fleet made a ton of sense, this is it. Short, highly predictable routes. Long, consistent charging periods overnight at the same location.
I agree, but I can't imagine it makes fiscal sense. Depends on how long the fleet vehicles run.
Current mail trucks are gloriously stripped down and inexpensive. I'm not sure how reliable their drive trains are, but I imagine at a fleet level they are so simple that maintenance isn't too bad even if it's frequent.
You can't strip down an EV in the same way because a significant portion of the cost is in the batteries, which are having supply chain issues anyway. Plus, you need someone to design the thing. Plus you have to outfit every single post office to manage the new electrical loads as well as ditch all of the ICE gear. Adding a few chargers to an apartment block isn't the same as adding a substation that can handle charging an entire fleet of mail vehicles at once.
It should be done, but I imagine it's a 10 year project to do on a national scale.
Well the USPS has decided to go with a mostly gas-guzzzling new fleet of neighborhood mail delivery vehicles. This upsets me. If there ever was a use case where an electric fleet made a ton of sense, this is it. Short, highly predictable routes. Long, consistent charging periods overnight at the same location.It's not that easy.
Well the USPS has decided to go with a mostly gas-guzzzling new fleet of neighborhood mail delivery vehicles. This upsets me. If there ever was a use case where an electric fleet made a ton of sense, this is it. Short, highly predictable routes. Long, consistent charging periods overnight at the same location.It's not that easy.
German Deutsche Post is testing a fleet of electric post delivery trucks for years and there were (and still are) quite some quirks to hammer out. Of course that's a custom model - but they bought the whole company who made the prototypes.
Well the USPS has decided to go with a mostly gas-guzzzling new fleet of neighborhood mail delivery vehicles. This upsets me. If there ever was a use case where an electric fleet made a ton of sense, this is it. Short, highly predictable routes. Long, consistent charging periods overnight at the same location.
I agree, but I can't imagine it makes fiscal sense. Depends on how long the fleet vehicles run.
Current mail trucks are gloriously stripped down and inexpensive. I'm not sure how reliable their drive trains are, but I imagine at a fleet level they are so simple that maintenance isn't too bad even if it's frequent.
You can't strip down an EV in the same way because a significant portion of the cost is in the batteries, which are having supply chain issues anyway. Plus, you need someone to design the thing. Plus you have to outfit every single post office to manage the new electrical loads as well as ditch all of the ICE gear. Adding a few chargers to an apartment block isn't the same as adding a substation that can handle charging an entire fleet of mail vehicles at once.
It should be done, but I imagine it's a 10 year project to do on a national scale.
Have you even read the proposal? The new vehicles are going to be phased in over a 10 year period, and they are far from the stripped down models we've been running since the 1990s; the new contract calls for 360º cameras, collision avoidance, intergrated GPS tracking, theft deterrence and the like. The last vehicles were supposed to run for 24 years but most have beens stretched to over 30. The new contract is for a lifespan of 30 years. And this new contract is already a decade in the making.
The problems you've listed are real but neither unanticipated nor sudden for implementation.
I have not read the proposal, but are those not requirements for all road vehicles now? They're not going to significantly cut safety features. I'm talking about things like doors that don't even have a door gap- just old school sliders (that were legal at the time). The cheapest version of a road legal ICE is significantly cheaper than the cheapest version of an EV due entirely to the battery cost.
I'm actually not trying to defend the proposal on principle, I'm just saying that at face value I could easily, easily come up with a myriad of explanations of why ICE would make sense. Playing devil's advocate, so to speak. One of them being simple supply- where would they come from and who would make them? Who's battery supply would we (the government) have to pay a premium for to take from current high $$ vehicle production? Ford, GM, Tesla, Nissan, Kia, VW... all are grabbing at the pile of valuable resources to make energy storage, not to mention all of the grid scale battery packs being deployed.
Ideally, every vehicle would be an EV or some low emissions alternative. But the reality is that while they are making huge strides, re-tooling a global fleet of vehicles can't just happen.
And the bolded part of your comment... that just supports my suspicion more. A decade ago if you proposed electrifying the US mail truck fleet you'd be laughed at by the majority of taxpayers. It also suggest that Dejoy is not a master saboteur of this particular plan. He'd be yelled at for canceling the plan as well, especially with no definite roadmap for replacing the vehicles.
USPS making a large guaranteed buy could even push industry to increase capacity quick that might have otherwise happend.
USPS making a large guaranteed buy could even push industry to increase capacity quick that might have otherwise happend.
Uh-huh. As if there isn't pressure already? Like... what battery makers are out there thinking "there isn't enough of a market, but if only the US gove ordered a fleet there would be?" Honestly.
Again, I'm not defending the proposal, I'm just pointing out that on the face of it there hasn't been given any critical thought as to why or why not it makes sense. Just unbridled EV optimism with little reference to reality.
USPS making a large guaranteed buy could even push industry to increase capacity quick that might have otherwise happend.
Uh-huh. As if there isn't pressure already? Like... what battery makers are out there thinking "there isn't enough of a market, but if only the US gove ordered a fleet there would be?" Honestly.
Again, I'm not defending the proposal, I'm just pointing out that on the face of it there hasn't been given any critical thought as to why or why not it makes sense. Just unbridled EV optimism with little reference to reality.
Most battery manufacturers won't increase capacity without contracts. Just because there's "unlimited" demand for electric vehicles, doesn't mean whoever builds them will buy the battery cell format you manufacture.
Well our current fleet of ICE delivery vehicles catches on fire with alarming regularity, and gets so hot inside that one mail carrier grilled a steak on his truck. So it's not like 30 year old tech is immune from hiccups either.
Well our current fleet of ICE delivery vehicles catches on fire with alarming regularity, and gets so hot inside that one mail carrier grilled a steak on his truck. So it's not like 30 year old tech is immune from hiccups either.
The current trucks are more or less Iron Duke four cylinder Chevy S-10 pickups with a custom body. Not immortal but certainly the USPS could do better.
Well our current fleet of ICE delivery vehicles catches on fire with alarming regularity, and gets so hot inside that one mail carrier grilled a steak on his truck. So it's not like 30 year old tech is immune from hiccups either.
The current trucks are more or less Iron Duke four cylinder Chevy S-10 pickups with a custom body. Not immortal but certainly the USPS could do better.
The replacements get a whopping 8.6 mpg...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/the-epa-and-white-house-take-fire-at-inefficient-new-mail-trucks/
Well our current fleet of ICE delivery vehicles catches on fire with alarming regularity, and gets so hot inside that one mail carrier grilled a steak on his truck. So it's not like 30 year old tech is immune from hiccups either.
The current trucks are more or less Iron Duke four cylinder Chevy S-10 pickups with a custom body. Not immortal but certainly the USPS could do better.
The replacements get a whopping 8.6 mpg...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/the-epa-and-white-house-take-fire-at-inefficient-new-mail-trucks/
Well our current fleet of ICE delivery vehicles catches on fire with alarming regularity, and gets so hot inside that one mail carrier grilled a steak on his truck. So it's not like 30 year old tech is immune from hiccups either.
The current trucks are more or less Iron Duke four cylinder Chevy S-10 pickups with a custom body. Not immortal but certainly the USPS could do better.
The replacements get a whopping 8.6 mpg...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/the-epa-and-white-house-take-fire-at-inefficient-new-mail-trucks/
Ok that article pretty much undoes everything I was skeptical about. Looks like no effort was made.
The replacements get a whopping 8.6 mpg...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/the-epa-and-white-house-take-fire-at-inefficient-new-mail-trucks/
The replacements get a whopping 8.6 mpg...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/the-epa-and-white-house-take-fire-at-inefficient-new-mail-trucks/
Good gosh. We have a 2.5 ton rated (10K curb weight) delivery truck that sees better fuel economy than that.
I can get 9 mpg in the same truck towing a heavy tandem axle 24 ft box trailer with the a/c on.
It seems like focusing on the MPG of the new USPS fleet is missing the bigger picture. In my personal experience, the vast majority of mail the USPS delivers to our house everyday are things we DO NOT WANT! Junk mail seems to be the main moneymaker for the USPS. If we could prohibit them from delivering junk mail to our homes, how many new trucks would they need? half? fewer? If we want to save fuel, sure EVs would be great, but even better would be forcing USPS to stop delivering junk mail. Aside from the vast amounts of petroleum that would save, just think of the benefits of not having to cut down so many trees to print all those glossy ads that we all just toss into the garbage can everyday.
The replacements get a whopping 8.6 mpg...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/the-epa-and-white-house-take-fire-at-inefficient-new-mail-trucks/
Good gosh. We have a 2.5 ton rated (10K curb weight) delivery truck that sees better fuel economy than that.
I can get 9 mpg in the same truck towing a heavy tandem axle 24 ft box trailer with the a/c on.
I am sure junk mail is a huge steady source of revenue for the usps, they have no real motivation to stop it. Individually you can ask the sender to stop sending you stuff and if the solicitor sent you a return envelope you can fill it with scrap metal so they have to pay for the heavy letter.We've worked pretty hard to get all of the junk mail we could to stop, so we don't actually get that much. Other than packages, it's hard to imagine what types of mail need to be physically delivered to people's houses in 2021, when it's so easy to just scan images into a file and email it? The days of mailmen driving/walking all over the place, so they can put ads and letters in paper envelopes into people's mailboxes should be mostly behind us, imho. It just seems like there should be some discussion about whether, or not, all of the mail that's being delivered actually needs to be physically delivered in the first place. I'm in favor of making it more expensive to physically send packages and letters, so that people will only do it if they can't, for some reason, scan it in and send it electronically.
It seems like focusing on the MPG of the new USPS fleet is missing the bigger picture. In my personal experience, the vast majority of mail the USPS delivers to our house everyday are things we DO NOT WANT! Junk mail seems to be the main moneymaker for the USPS. If we could prohibit them from delivering junk mail to our homes, how many new trucks would they need? half? fewer? If we want to save fuel, sure EVs would be great, but even better would be forcing USPS to stop delivering junk mail. Aside from the vast amounts of petroleum that would save, just think of the benefits of not having to cut down so many trees to print all those glossy ads that we all just toss into the garbage can everyday.
yes, but remember there are a lot of people who for one reason or another dont have bank accounts so banking online or online bill pay is not an option. Also there still lots of old people who want physical checks. Given some peoples willingness to click on every dumb scam or fakery on facebook maybe it is a good idea for there to be a speed pump on some peoples financial transactions. sometimes there are reasons for dumbness in the world, maybe not "good" reasons but reasons.
The replacements get a whopping 8.6 mpg...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/the-epa-and-white-house-take-fire-at-inefficient-new-mail-trucks/
Good gosh. We have a 2.5 ton rated (10K curb weight) delivery truck that sees better fuel economy than that.
I can get 9 mpg in the same truck towing a heavy tandem axle 24 ft box trailer with the a/c on.
I bet you wouldn't if you were driving 1/3 of a block at a time, though.
Meanwhile, fuel prices continue to climb higher than they've been in over a decade and my boring PHEV is being seen in a more positive light by lots of truck bros at work.
Meanwhile, fuel prices continue to climb higher than they've been in over a decade and my boring PHEV is being seen in a more positive light by lots of truck bros at work.
Yeah, I'm getting this too.
"what, fuel prices are going up? Hadn't really noticed..."
It's been hard to find the BEV we want in our area, and everything seems to be going for $3-5k over MSRP. I'm worried this will only make it harder. Oh well, first world problems, eh?
Meanwhile, fuel prices continue to climb higher than they've been in over a decade and my boring PHEV is being seen in a more positive light by lots of truck bros at work.
Yeah, I'm getting this too.
"what, fuel prices are going up? Hadn't really noticed..."
It's been hard to find the BEV we want in our area, and everything seems to be going for $3-5k over MSRP. I'm worried this will only make it harder. Oh well, first world problems, eh?
Meanwhile, fuel prices continue to climb higher than they've been in over a decade and my boring PHEV is being seen in a more positive light by lots of truck bros at work.
Yeah, I'm getting this too.
"what, fuel prices are going up? Hadn't really noticed..."
It's been hard to find the BEV we want in our area, and everything seems to be going for $3-5k over MSRP. I'm worried this will only make it harder. Oh well, first world problems, eh?
We haven't purchased fuel since October.
Meanwhile, fuel prices continue to climb higher than they've been in over a decade and my boring PHEV is being seen in a more positive light by lots of truck bros at work.
Yeah, I'm getting this too.
"what, fuel prices are going up? Hadn't really noticed..."
It's been hard to find the BEV we want in our area, and everything seems to be going for $3-5k over MSRP. I'm worried this will only make it harder. Oh well, first world problems, eh?
We haven't purchased fuel since October.
It goes bad in my snow blower. What about a car?
Meanwhile, fuel prices continue to climb higher than they've been in over a decade and my boring PHEV is being seen in a more positive light by lots of truck bros at work.
Yeah, I'm getting this too.
"what, fuel prices are going up? Hadn't really noticed..."
It's been hard to find the BEV we want in our area, and everything seems to be going for $3-5k over MSRP. I'm worried this will only make it harder. Oh well, first world problems, eh?
We haven't purchased fuel since October.
It goes bad in my snow blower. What about a car?
It goes bad in a car too…….it would be well worth putting in a long life additive if it takes that long to use up
2 times ago I filled my tank, the price was 1/3 lower. Or in other words: It has risen by 50%.
Meanwhile, fuel prices continue to climb higher than they've been in over a decade and my boring PHEV is being seen in a more positive light by lots of truck bros at work.
Yeah, I'm getting this too.
"what, fuel prices are going up? Hadn't really noticed..."
Now only if they would fix the 4 chargers.
Back to EV news:
Ford is separating their EV business from their ICE business a little bit. And plans to make 2 million EVs per year by 2026:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/02/ford-plans-to-produce-2-million-evs-generate-10percent-operating-profit-by-2026.html
And Rivian is raising their prices around $12k per vehicle thanks to higher material costs. Initially they were going to raise the price for existing orders as well as newly interested buyers but that plan was changed, and now the price increase will only apply to new orders. It might be a lesson to companies that tout products and take reservations, etc long before they're actually produced. A lot can change with time, including the profit margins that you think you've figured out:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/03/rivian-rolls-back-big-price-increases-on-pre-orders-after-customer-backlash.html
Meanwhile, fuel prices continue to climb higher than they've been in over a decade and my boring PHEV is being seen in a more positive light by lots of truck bros at work.
Why is Ford splitting into two entities?Lays the ground work for a spinoff or selling one or the other unit should that make sense down the road.
Why is Ford splitting into two entities?
Fixed pricing and a stealership-free future sounds good to me.Why is Ford splitting into two entities?
One of the more telling stories to come out of this is that Ford plans to have fixed pricing for EVs. This is, of course, going to be seen as "dealer hostile." In theory, they are trying to move their electric vehicle business into the future, while (by their own admission) using the ICE division to pay the bills and keep the lights on.
Why is Ford splitting into two entities?
One of the more telling stories to come out of this is that Ford plans to have fixed pricing for EVs. This is, of course, going to be seen as "dealer hostile." In theory, they are trying to move their electric vehicle business into the future, while (by their own admission) using the ICE division to pay the bills and keep the lights on.
The impact of its rise on global emissions is nothing short of surprising. The global fleet of SUVs has seen its emissions growing by nearly 0.55 Gt CO2 during the last decade to roughly 0.7 Gt CO2. As a consequence, SUVs were the second-largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions since 2010 after the power sector, but ahead of heavy industry (including iron & steel, cement, aluminium), as well as trucks and aviation.
On average, SUVs consume about a quarter more energy than medium-size cars. As a result, global fuel economy worsened caused in part by the rising SUV demand since the beginning of the decade, even though efficiency improvements in smaller cars saved over 2 million barrels a day, and electric cars displaced less than 100,000 barrels a day.
In fact, SUVs were responsible for all of the 3.3 million barrels a day growth in oil demand from passenger cars between 2010 and 2018, while oil use from other type of cars (excluding SUVs) declined slightly. If consumers’ appetite for SUVs continues to grow at a similar pace seen in the last decade, SUVs would add nearly 2 million barrels a day in global oil demand by 2040, offsetting the savings from nearly 150 million electric cars.
Yeah, like consumers won't turn away from gas sucking SUVs as the price of gas rises and hits their wallet. I guess you could assume the price spike on Russia was transitory, but I'm not sure I'm there yet.Yes. The article also assumes that SUV growth will continue and that the fuel efficiency standards will not improve. It also glosses over that fleet-wide efficencies for passenger vehicles declined during that period (in no small part due to the tighter Obama-era EPA standards) and conflates the relative growth of SUVs compared to passenger vehicles to the absolute growth by that class of vehicles.
Nice shot with the optimism gun @nereo , I dig your style! Plus it's much more fun to speculate about the future in a more reasonable and optimistic nature rather than rigid assumptions that don't change in a rapidly changing world - that comes off as not operating in the best faith.Yeah, like consumers won't turn away from gas sucking SUVs as the price of gas rises and hits their wallet. I guess you could assume the price spike on Russia was transitory, but I'm not sure I'm there yet.Yes. The article also assumes that SUV growth will continue and that the fuel efficiency standards will not improve. It also glosses over that fleet-wide efficencies for passenger vehicles declined during that period (in no small part due to the tighter Obama-era EPA standards) and conflates the relative growth of SUVs compared to passenger vehicles to the absolute growth by that class of vehicles.
I would say this is sloppy journalism but given the writing and the source it seems likely they arrived at the topic and then tried to make some data fit their headline.
Consider in 2010-2018 there were essentially zero options in the SUV category for BEV or PHEV, and even hybrids were just a tiny sliver. Add on that gasoline stayed relatively table in the $2-$3 range. Now look at what’s available, soon to be available or “coming soon”, the corporate shift in WFH policies, and fuel prices.
Extrapolating out two decades and assuming “nothing will change” is seems ridiculous.
Warning: EVs will ruin gas cars for you. Loud, stinky, slow, have to go to annoying fueling stations that play ads at you in the dead of winter with the wind howling...
Totally.Warning: EVs will ruin gas cars for you. Loud, stinky, slow, have to go to annoying fueling stations that play ads at you in the dead of winter with the wind howling...
Agreed!
Top tip: sometimes the unmarked buttons along the edge of the gas pump screen will include a mute button. Gawd how I hate those gas pump TV screens. ;)
Warning: EVs will ruin gas cars for you. Loud, stinky, slow, have to go to annoying fueling stations that play ads at you in the dead of winter with the wind howling...
Agreed!
Top tip: sometimes the unmarked buttons along the edge of the gas pump screen will include a mute button. Gawd how I hate those gas pump TV screens. ;)
kia EV6 is fantastic. We ordered one in runway red with all the tricks. Delivery maybe in 2022. It can tow. It can back up out of the garage without us in it. I should not be bragging about it on this forum because it is such a toy.
The problem is while I know you can button-to-mute yours, nobody else knows that, so you half-hear the ads for the other side of the pump (or next stall over). Or you hear someone's too-loud stereo they left their car running (while pumping gas) so they could "share" with everyone else at the station, because they also left their door open.
Seriously, how many gas stations have these??The problem is while I know you can button-to-mute yours, nobody else knows that, so you half-hear the ads for the other side of the pump (or next stall over). Or you hear someone's too-loud stereo they left their car running (while pumping gas) so they could "share" with everyone else at the station, because they also left their door open.
Benefits of living in a smallish town. Fewer people sharing the gas station with me at any given time.
We have a couple of gas stations with these. I see them the most when I visit the big metro areas near us along the interstate.
Well, I think I'm close to biting the bullet on buying a ridiculously priced new EV. Part of our plan involves making the deliberate choice get our household to net-zero emissions for car travel and energy use before pulling the FI plug. It is an added financial burden, but it's hard to justify not putting the resources to this if we have enough resources to retire early.
Well, I think I'm close to biting the bullet on buying a ridiculously priced new EV. Part of our plan involves making the deliberate choice get our household to net-zero emissions for car travel and energy use before pulling the FI plug. It is an added financial burden, but it's hard to justify not putting the resources to this if we have enough resources to retire early.
One of the biggest issues that I have with Tesla and the EV revolution is that it continues to normalize and even accelerate the use of vehicles. Most people most of the time are using a significantly oversized tool for the job. I am ecstatic that it is now an option compared to a gas vehilce, but at the same time it is committing us to normalizing the car and not re-evaluate our priorities. In some ways it would be better if the only option were shaped like and sounded like tractors, then people would realize how silly it is to be using 300+hp to pick up groceries. The shell and presentation has covered the machine for what it is.
i get that MMM is a big fan of bikes and lots of other people are too, i am as well. But i am not going to commute by bicycle and i hardly ride to the grocery store on the weekends. My two biggest gripes are it takes too long to get somewhere by bike, i.e. work or drop kids off for school and its not safe to ride a bike.
I had a crash where i had to swerve to miss a car and another instance where i was hit and my bike was destroyed (i was fine). These two things will keep me in a car most of the time until i am retired.
It's a good thing that car accidents don't happen, or you would never be able to drive either. :P
Yes. If you are on the bike, you are at fault. If you are in the car, accidents just happen.It's a good thing that car accidents don't happen, or you would never be able to drive either. :P
Surely you understand the difference between being hit while in a car and being hit while on a bicycle.
Yes. If you are on the bike, you are at fault. If you are in the car, accidents just happen.It's a good thing that car accidents don't happen, or you would never be able to drive either. :P
Surely you understand the difference between being hit while in a car and being hit while on a bicycle.
snip
It's a good thing that car accidents don't happen, or you would never be able to drive either. :P
We are becoming EV poster children in our 'hood. This will be our third EV. And DH had one of the first E-bikes too!kia EV6 is fantastic. We ordered one in runway red with all the tricks. Delivery maybe in 2022. It can tow. It can back up out of the garage without us in it. I should not be bragging about it on this forum because it is such a toy.
It's an encouragement for others to electrify! A toy that promotes the environment!
snip
It's a good thing that car accidents don't happen, or you would never be able to drive either. :P
A great comment that was ruined by this last sentence. As someone who has driven small cars, trucks, motorcycles and bikes... they are not all the same.
You know that. You know not only how the accident severity varies, but also how drivers treat people differently. That doesn't make it right, but if you pretend there is no difference, well, I'm surprised you've never had any bad encounters while biking!
As for the rest of your comment, it sounds like you compare "how long things take" based on your condition and bike. I own a mountain bike, and I rode a friend's excellent road bike. The different levels of difficulty were incredible to me. It felt like "taking a break" when I got on the road bike. But... my speed biking is still something like 10-15 mph, while my car is more like 30 mph on average. So even 10 minute round trips are doubled or tripled going from car to bike, assuming the same route. And yet... the road I take to get to the closest grocery store, I would 100% avoid on bike. I'd add a couple miles to the trip and take a much safer route. But a 10 minute round trip would suddenly be easily 40-50 minutes. In the right mood or mindset, this would be fine.
But it would also requiring buying a bike and panniers, as my mountain bike is far from ideal for grocery trips. (I did use it for that purpose a lot when the living conditions were just right, about 15 years ago! Just what I could carry in a backpack without worries about temperature.)
This is very much the way I used to view things, before regularly cycling places. My car goes 80 kph on the highway, and I average about 30 kph on my bike. So it should take me 2.7 times longer to do anything on my bike than in my car, right?
This logic holds true for very long trips, but not short ones
The whole thing of, "It's great that you're able to run errands on a bike, but where I live (out in the suburbs, usually) it would be impossible, take forever, or..." is a bunch of BS, imho. Nobody would live in the suburbs if there weren't cars. The suburbs were only built because of the automobile. Again, I'll say it, transferring North Americans' car-based lifestyle to EVs is a fantasy that's not going to happen. There isn't enough lithium, cobalt, and nickel on the planet to make enough batteries, so that every North American can keep on driving everywhere in a car, let alone all of the people in the rest of the world. Continuing to increase the numbers of cars and trucks, but just changing to EVs instead of ICE vehicles, is not a viable solution. In addition to moving away from ICE vehicles, we're also going to have to make lifestyle changes. There's no way around it. Sorry.
FWIW - Everyone loves to hate on them, but I live in the suburbs and bike all over the place. Just because people generally don't do it, doesn't mean that it's impossible.
FWIW - Everyone loves to hate on them, but I live in the suburbs and bike all over the place. Just because people generally don't do it, doesn't mean that it's impossible.
I mean, I thought the same thing until I lived in a particular location in a Midwest suburb where it was in fact extremely difficult to safely bike to close locations. And this is coming from someone who has no problem doing a 40 minute bike commute that involved 50mph frontage roads.
Sidewalks would just... end. And you'd have routes that would be ok for 85% of of it, but that last 15% was just too dang tricky to navigate on a regular basis. It's weird, because when I live in that place I chose it because it two miles away from work, which was a completely doable ride. So I had just assumed that the two miles to the grocery store would have been just as easy... nope! Lesson learned in that location is everything. Bikability is in the top 3 priorities when choosing a residence for me. I suspect that for most people who live in the 'burbs it's wasn't in the top 20.
Definitely agree that there are some places where bicycling or walking just about anywhere can be all but impossible to do safely. I've lived in places like that. Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong come to mind. I guess what seems like BS to me is the fact that so many people use the geography or layout of streets or amount of traffic or whatever it is about the place they are currently choosing to live to try to argue that, "because I can't, currently, safely cycle or walk anywhere, therefore, nobody can possibly do that anywhere...which means we're just going to have to keep on basing our whole society on the premise that every. single. person. alive. who wants to live a reasonable, middle-class life is going to have to own a giant car/truck, forever, and drive everywhere in that vehicle, never walking or riding a bike anywhere..." I think that's BS.
The whole thing of, "It's great that you're able to run errands on a bike, but where I live (out in the suburbs, usually) it would be impossible, take forever, or..." is a bunch of BS, imho. Nobody would live in the suburbs if there weren't cars. The suburbs were only built because of the automobile. Again, I'll say it, transferring North Americans' car-based lifestyle to EVs is a fantasy that's not going to happen. There isn't enough lithium, cobalt, and nickel on the planet to make enough batteries, so that every North American can keep on driving everywhere in a car, let alone all of the people in the rest of the world. Continuing to increase the numbers of cars and trucks, but just changing to EVs instead of ICE vehicles, is not a viable solution. In addition to moving away from ICE vehicles, we're also going to have to make lifestyle changes. There's no way around it. Sorry.
The way you worded this makes the complaint itself sound invalid. But based on your paragraph, I suspect that you mean that suburbs in general are BS. I've lived places where it is indeed dangerous or impossible to even go 2 miles to a grocery store because of the lack of bicycle infrastructure.
But you're hitting on my stance as well which has in large part been influenced by MMM. It takes an incredible amount of energy to move 4,000lbs of steel just to buy 80 lbs of groceries, whether that be by lithium or petroleum. It's unfortunate that we've been trained to think cars are universal tools. They should be used for specific things (large loads or long distances).
Have you ever seen Shifter (https://www.youtube.com/c/Shifter_Cycling)? I like Tom's videos on bike commuting in Calgary.FWIW - Everyone loves to hate on them, but I live in the suburbs and bike all over the place. Just because people generally don't do it, doesn't mean that it's impossible.
I mean, I thought the same thing until I lived in a particular location in a Midwest suburb where it was in fact extremely difficult to safely bike to close locations. And this is coming from someone who has no problem doing a 40 minute bike commute that involved 50mph frontage roads.
Sidewalks would just... end. And you'd have routes that would be ok for 85% of of it, but that last 15% was just too dang tricky to navigate on a regular basis. It's weird, because when I live in that place I chose it because it two miles away from work, which was a completely doable ride. So I had just assumed that the two miles to the grocery store would have been just as easy... nope! Lesson learned in that location is everything. Bikability is in the top 3 priorities when choosing a residence for me. I suspect that for most people who live in the 'burbs it's wasn't in the top 20.
The thing is, it's not even speed. The actual street design is very important.
I find cycling on 80kph roads out in the countryside where traffic is pretty minimal and it's a nice sunny weekend day to be relaxing and safe feeling . . . but trying to do the same in the middle of Toronto in the dark and rain while heading to work on a Monday morning is quite a different experience. Even on lower speed roads.
Definitely agree that there are some places where bicycling or walking just about anywhere can be all but impossible to do safely. I've lived in places like that. Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong come to mind. I guess what seems like BS to me is the fact that so many people use the geography or layout of streets or amount of traffic or whatever it is about the place they are currently choosing to live to try to argue that, "because I can't, currently, safely cycle or walk anywhere, therefore, nobody can possibly do that anywhere...which means we're just going to have to keep on basing our whole society on the premise that every. single. person. alive. who wants to live a reasonable, middle-class life is going to have to own a giant car/truck, forever, and drive everywhere in that vehicle, never walking or riding a bike anywhere..." I think that's BS.
Definitely agree that there are some places where bicycling or walking just about anywhere can be all but impossible to do safely. I've lived in places like that. Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong come to mind. I guess what seems like BS to me is the fact that so many people use the geography or layout of streets or amount of traffic or whatever it is about the place they are currently choosing to live to try to argue that, "because I can't, currently, safely cycle or walk anywhere, therefore, nobody can possibly do that anywhere...which means we're just going to have to keep on basing our whole society on the premise that every. single. person. alive. who wants to live a reasonable, middle-class life is going to have to own a giant car/truck, forever, and drive everywhere in that vehicle, never walking or riding a bike anywhere..." I think that's BS.
You know just making minor changes to roads and making useful bike paths could be one of the cheapest ways to fight the global warming thing Here's the thing. Once people saw the goodness of it, it would spread. I was talking to a guy with an electric bicycle the other day. His bike had abut a 45 mile range and he said newer ones have even greater ranges. Even a couch potato could get to work or the market that way.
We're on the same page I think, just yappin at the internet. I agree- biggest issue is location and infrastructure. Which are definitely BS in much of North America.
Definitely agree that there are some places where bicycling or walking just about anywhere can be all but impossible to do safely. I've lived in places like that. Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong come to mind. I guess what seems like BS to me is the fact that so many people use the geography or layout of streets or amount of traffic or whatever it is about the place they are currently choosing to live to try to argue that, "because I can't, currently, safely cycle or walk anywhere, therefore, nobody can possibly do that anywhere...which means we're just going to have to keep on basing our whole society on the premise that every. single. person. alive. who wants to live a reasonable, middle-class life is going to have to own a giant car/truck, forever, and drive everywhere in that vehicle, never walking or riding a bike anywhere..." I think that's BS.
You know just making minor changes to roads and making useful bike paths could be one of the cheapest ways to fight the global warming thing Here's the thing. Once people saw the goodness of it, it would spread. I was talking to a guy with an electric bicycle the other day. His bike had abut a 45 mile range and he said newer ones have even greater ranges. Even a couch potato could get to work or the market that way.
We're on the same page I think, just yappin at the internet. I agree- biggest issue is location and infrastructure. Which are definitely BS in much of North America.
If I put solar panels on my roof and use that to charge a full EV car (along with the rest of my house) does it even matter at that point how much I drive, or don't drive?Less, but of course the excess electric you'd create if you did drive less offsets in an admittedly small way the total needs of the grid you're attached to.
If I put solar panels on my roof and use that to charge a full EV car (along with the rest of my house) does it even matter at that point how much I drive, or don't drive?Less, but of course the excess electric you'd create if you did drive less offsets in an admittedly small way the total needs of the grid you're attached to.
If I put solar panels on my roof and use that to charge a full EV car (along with the rest of my house) does it even matter at that point how much I drive, or don't drive?Less, but of course the excess electric you'd create if you did drive less offsets in an admittedly small way the total needs of the grid you're attached to.
I guess my question is more philosophical so I'll restate it. If I create all the energy I need locally, then what is the point of doing things like driving less or keeping my AC at 80 in the summer?
By driving an EV with power you generated you are still reinforcing car centric development. And missing out on the exercise & fresh air of walking/biking to your destination.
If I put solar panels on my roof and use that to charge a full EV car (along with the rest of my house) does it even matter at that point how much I drive, or don't drive?Less, but of course the excess electric you'd create if you did drive less offsets in an admittedly small way the total needs of the grid you're attached to.
I guess my question is more philosophical so I'll restate it. If I create all the energy I need locally, then what is the point of doing things like driving less or keeping my AC at 80 in the summer?
If I put solar panels on my roof and use that to charge a full EV car (along with the rest of my house) does it even matter at that point how much I drive, or don't drive?Less, but of course the excess electric you'd create if you did drive less offsets in an admittedly small way the total needs of the grid you're attached to.
I guess my question is more philosophical so I'll restate it. If I create all the energy I need locally, then what is the point of doing things like driving less or keeping my AC at 80 in the summer?
Everything else equal, you are still making a non-zero impact from the resources needed to do this. You need (more) solar panels. You need a vehicle with relatively huge amounts of elements to make (lithium, cobalt, steel, silicone, rubber). Not to mention the vehicle itself. Larger suspension components to handle the extra battery weight Tesla M3 weighs 4,000lbs. A Civic weights 2,700- the EV takes an extra 1300lbs of mined material to make. An e-bike weighs 40lbs. All of those materials and supporting materials must be mined and processed and shipped to your door, and then you are hauling them around every time you drive. We take this all for granted, but step back and look at how much raw energy you are using, and then *also* the opportunity cost of that energy. What ELSE could have been done with that instead? On a practical domestic level, it's likely harder to imagine, but what if you gave your extra solar panels to a school to help reduce their grid tie? This is hypothetical, but demonstrates that by allocating physical resources you are placing a value judgment on what those resources are best put toward.
In the end, GM releasing a 9,000lb electric hummer is absolutely an exercise in gluttony. It's just more of the same, but the resource consumption happens before you sit in the vehicle. On a practical level, there are likely cases where driving an EV all over the place instead of riding a bike has a minimal impact. On a philosophical or macro level, it absolutely has an impact. EV tech is awesome, but consuming our way out of our impact on the planet ain't gonna work
You are treating solar like it is free, not like manufacturing the panels is messy, dirty, and then they are waste at the end of their (relatively) short life cycle. On and there's the whole "occupies habitat/farmland/forest" thing too.
Don't get me wrong, it doesn't seem to be nearly as bad as dino juice and friends, lifecycle considered, but don't fool yourself thinking it is free and harmless and perfect. It isn't.
Until someone manages to fire up a Mr. Fusion and it works, we won't have "free" energy. At the point we have Mr. Fusion, we might. Yes, you'll still have some radioactive parts coming out of a reactor (TANSTAAFL), but they're not scary in the same way that fission radioactive waste is, so while not free, the impact may be low enough relative to renewables to be as good as free.
You are treating solar like it is free, not like manufacturing the panels is messy, dirty, and then they are waste at the end of their (relatively) short life cycle. On and there's the whole "occupies habitat/farmland/forest" thing too.
The other thing I'm kicking around is that right now we are under one paradigm (ie, that consumption is bad because it's destroying the planet), but I wonder if at some point we reach a point of energy abundance via renewables, if that paradigm doesn't dramatically shift because we will literally have more energy than we know what to do with. Hell, solar based energy is already the cheapest option available for electric companies when building out new capacity. And it will only get cheaper and cheaper over time. Even with batteries, we're seeing a shift to LFP based chemistry and I saw that a company in New York had developed a chemistry (at scale) that didn't need Cobalt as one of the elements. And the thing that I find most astonishing is that we're still in the very beginning of this whole change. Things will get better, faster, cheaper over time. Particularly with batteries, IMO.
If I put solar panels on my roof and use that to charge a full EV car (along with the rest of my house) does it even matter at that point how much I drive, or don't drive?Agree, if you're generating your own renewable power and using that to charge an EV, it makes driving less problematic. It still makes sense, though, to size the tool to the job. Driving everywhere in a 4000lb EV, when most trips could just as easily be accomplished on a 40lb e-bike, is still wasteful. Don't you think? Currently, EVs weigh about 50% more than their ICE equivalents, which means they wear out our roads that much faster. Since asphalt roads are currently, basically, made of oil, it seems like we ought to try to cut down on our use of them, as much as we can, anyway.
If I put solar panels on my roof and use that to charge a full EV car (along with the rest of my house) does it even matter at that point how much I drive, or don't drive?Agree, if you're generating your own renewable power and using that to charge an EV, it makes driving less problematic. It still makes sense, though, to size the tool to the job. Driving everywhere in a 4000lb EV, when most trips could just as easily be accomplished on a 40lb e-bike, is still wasteful. Don't you think? Currently, EVs weigh about 50% more than their ICE equivalents, which means they wear out our roads that much faster. Since asphalt roads are currently, basically, made of oil, it seems like we ought to try to cut down on our use of them, as much as we can, anyway.
If I put solar panels on my roof and use that to charge a full EV car (along with the rest of my house) does it even matter at that point how much I drive, or don't drive?Agree, if you're generating your own renewable power and using that to charge an EV, it makes driving less problematic. It still makes sense, though, to size the tool to the job. Driving everywhere in a 4000lb EV, when most trips could just as easily be accomplished on a 40lb e-bike, is still wasteful. Don't you think? Currently, EVs weigh about 50% more than their ICE equivalents, which means they wear out our roads that much faster. Since asphalt roads are currently, basically, made of oil, it seems like we ought to try to cut down on our use of them, as much as we can, anyway.
Guys, we’ve been over this. In a world where 40-80,000lb semi trucks exist, the difference between a 2500lb car and a 5000lb SUV or EV is irrelevant in terms of road wear. And that’s to say nothing of the northern part of the country where the roads are frequently scraped by metal plow blades.
“ An off-quoted federal study once found that road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to the impact of 9,600 cars. A fully loaded tractor-trailer weighs 80,000 pounds, 20 times more than a typical passenger car at 4,000 pounds, but the wear and tear caused by the truck is exponentially greater.”
If I put solar panels on my roof and use that to charge a full EV car (along with the rest of my house) does it even matter at that point how much I drive, or don't drive?Agree, if you're generating your own renewable power and using that to charge an EV, it makes driving less problematic. It still makes sense, though, to size the tool to the job. Driving everywhere in a 4000lb EV, when most trips could just as easily be accomplished on a 40lb e-bike, is still wasteful. Don't you think? Currently, EVs weigh about 50% more than their ICE equivalents, which means they wear out our roads that much faster. Since asphalt roads are currently, basically, made of oil, it seems like we ought to try to cut down on our use of them, as much as we can, anyway.
Guys, we’ve been over this. In a world where 40-80,000lb semi trucks exist, the difference between a 2500lb car and a 5000lb SUV or EV is irrelevant in terms of road wear. And that’s to say nothing of the northern part of the country where the roads are frequently scraped by metal plow blades.
“ An off-quoted federal study once found that road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to the impact of 9,600 cars. A fully loaded tractor-trailer weighs 80,000 pounds, 20 times more than a typical passenger car at 4,000 pounds, but the wear and tear caused by the truck is exponentially greater.”
Whataboutism doesn't wash away the sins. At the end of the EV's life, those materials have to be recycled, which takes energy. Tires have to be replaced more frequently on a heavier vehicle, and those tires use more resources. Plus, what do you think delivered that 4,000lb EV? An 18-wheeler. How about all of the infrastructure needed to park EVs- well, cars in general? All of that valuable habitat or possible community enhancing pedestrian walkways and parks taken up by slabs of asphalt?
I agree that if it were *only* road wear then EV's would be relatively harmless. But taken in their entirety they are moderately better than cars, but in the same general category, which is one of excess and inefficiency.
Sure, and perfect is the enemy of good.
Sure, and perfect is the enemy of good.
Lol, what? Good is a bicycle. Cars are bad. You're missing the *entire* point here.
I'm not arguing that EVs aren't better than cars. I'm arguing that focusing on improving cars is solving the wrong problem. We should be focusing on stopping relying on cars.
I think you are also missing a point, e.g. you are not going to convince society to abandon cars. It's just not going to happen. In the interim, improvement is better than no improvement.
If I put solar panels on my roof and use that to charge a full EV car (along with the rest of my house) does it even matter at that point how much I drive, or don't drive?Agree, if you're generating your own renewable power and using that to charge an EV, it makes driving less problematic. It still makes sense, though, to size the tool to the job. Driving everywhere in a 4000lb EV, when most trips could just as easily be accomplished on a 40lb e-bike, is still wasteful. Don't you think? Currently, EVs weigh about 50% more than their ICE equivalents, which means they wear out our roads that much faster. Since asphalt roads are currently, basically, made of oil, it seems like we ought to try to cut down on our use of them, as much as we can, anyway.
Guys, we’ve been over this. In a world where 40-80,000lb semi trucks exist, the difference between a 2500lb car and a 5000lb SUV or EV is irrelevant in terms of road wear. And that’s to say nothing of the northern part of the country where the roads are frequently scraped by metal plow blades.
“ An off-quoted federal study once found that road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to the impact of 9,600 cars. A fully loaded tractor-trailer weighs 80,000 pounds, 20 times more than a typical passenger car at 4,000 pounds, but the wear and tear caused by the truck is exponentially greater.”
Whataboutism doesn't wash away the sins. At the end of the EV's life, those materials have to be recycled, which takes energy (you know, twice as much as an equivalent ICE) Tires have to be replaced more frequently on a heavier vehicle, and those tires use more resources. Plus, what do you think delivered that 4,000lb EV? An 18-wheeler. Twice as many 18 wheeler damage delivering cars because of the weight (probably more, because weight doesn't scale linearly for road wear). How about all of the infrastructure needed to park and service EVs- well, cars in general? All of that valuable habitat or possible community enhancing pedestrian walkways and parks taken up by slabs of asphalt?
I agree that if it were *only* road wear then EV's would be relatively harmless. But taken in their entirety they are moderately better than cars, but in the same general category, which is one of excess and inefficiency.
I think you are also missing a point, e.g. you are not going to convince society to abandon cars. It's just not going to happen. In the interim, improvement is better than no improvement.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Edit: We can certainly focus on two things at once, but we don't. How much $$, both private and federal, do we spend on improving pedestrian access and reducing the need for cars compared to transitioning to EV's? The latter gets ALL of the attention, which is what I'm trying to push against. If it were even a 1:10 ratio it would be orders of magnitude above current resources.
If I put solar panels on my roof and use that to charge a full EV car (along with the rest of my house) does it even matter at that point how much I drive, or don't drive?Agree, if you're generating your own renewable power and using that to charge an EV, it makes driving less problematic. It still makes sense, though, to size the tool to the job. Driving everywhere in a 4000lb EV, when most trips could just as easily be accomplished on a 40lb e-bike, is still wasteful. Don't you think? Currently, EVs weigh about 50% more than their ICE equivalents, which means they wear out our roads that much faster. Since asphalt roads are currently, basically, made of oil, it seems like we ought to try to cut down on our use of them, as much as we can, anyway.
Guys, we’ve been over this. In a world where 40-80,000lb semi trucks exist, the difference between a 2500lb car and a 5000lb SUV or EV is irrelevant in terms of road wear. And that’s to say nothing of the northern part of the country where the roads are frequently scraped by metal plow blades.
“ An off-quoted federal study once found that road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to the impact of 9,600 cars. A fully loaded tractor-trailer weighs 80,000 pounds, 20 times more than a typical passenger car at 4,000 pounds, but the wear and tear caused by the truck is exponentially greater.”
Whataboutism doesn't wash away the sins. At the end of the EV's life, those materials have to be recycled, which takes energy (you know, twice as much as an equivalent ICE) Tires have to be replaced more frequently on a heavier vehicle, and those tires use more resources. Plus, what do you think delivered that 4,000lb EV? An 18-wheeler. Twice as many 18 wheeler damage delivering cars because of the weight (probably more, because weight doesn't scale linearly for road wear). How about all of the infrastructure needed to park and service EVs- well, cars in general? All of that valuable habitat or possible community enhancing pedestrian walkways and parks taken up by slabs of asphalt?
I agree that if it were *only* road wear then EV's would be relatively harmless. But taken in their entirety they are moderately better than cars, but in the same general category, which is one of excess and inefficiency.
It’s not whataboutism. You’re yelling at some dude because he’s eating fruit for breakfast that isn’t quite as healthy as a vegetable…I’m reminding you he’s eating 4 Big Macs for lunch and 6 more for dinner, fruit vs veggie doesn’t make a damned bit of difference.
Unfortunately I have a few things going on today and don't have time to do your research for you, but a quick check shows $7+ billion from 1992-2012 (https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/use-federal-funds-bicycle-pedestrian-efforts) on pedestrian/bicycling.
1/10 & two orders of magnitude puts that number above $7 trillion, which I don't believe to be remotely accurate.
Nope got nothing to do with me. I’m poking holes in your incredible reaches of logic to justify cars = bad bikes = good. The “OMG road wear” argument doesn’t work.
Given the localized nature of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (and that the study clearly points out that local and state funding is not captured) what is an appropriate level of federal funding?
Unfortunately I have a few things going on today and don't have time to do your research for you, but a quick check shows $7+ billion from 1992-2012 (https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/use-federal-funds-bicycle-pedestrian-efforts) on pedestrian/bicycling.
1/10 & two orders of magnitude puts that number above $7 trillion, which I don't believe to be remotely accurate.
Ok, one order of magnitude would be more accurate then. My point still stands. Only 7 billion over two decades of federal investment?
While it's possible future technological advances will improve things, right now, using current technology, it would be physically impossible to make all of the lithium ion batteries needed to replace all of the ICE vehicles currently on the road in the US, to say nothing of the rest of the entire. fucking. world. Repeat: There isn't enough lithium mining capacity on the planet, currently, to make enough batteries to replace all of the cars currently being driven in just the US. Maybe in the future batteries will become better, lighter, less resource intensive, but we're not there yet. If we could replace most of the cars on the road today with smaller vehicles, like kei-cars, e-bikes, scooters, etc, maybe, just maybe we could make enough batteries so that everyone on the planet could get around to where they need to go. This video on Electric Vehicles' Battery Problem (https://youtu.be/9dnN82DsQ2k) is worth watching.
Agree with the bolded above. We need to start somewhere, and battery technology will improve over time. Just pointing out that those of us who can, should also consider switching some of our trips to walking, riding a bike, and for longer trips, e-bikes and electric scooters, and we should start the process of redesigning our infrastructure to stop pushing cars and trucks as the only legitimate means of transportation. The resources necessary to make batteries are scarce, and extracting and processing them can be environmentally/socially destructive to our planet and real communities of real people who, incidentally, happen to be disproportionately vulnerable and powerless, compared to those of us who are consuming the resources. Your PHEV sounds like a good choice, nereo. If we needed a car, I'd definitely consider one of those, rather than a BEV. If a PHEV's battery pack is 1/5 the size of a Tesla's, wonder how many e-bike batteries could be made using the same amount of resources as one Tesla battery? Guessing quite a few.While it's possible future technological advances will improve things, right now, using current technology, it would be physically impossible to make all of the lithium ion batteries needed to replace all of the ICE vehicles currently on the road in the US, to say nothing of the rest of the entire. fucking. world. Repeat: There isn't enough lithium mining capacity on the planet, currently, to make enough batteries to replace all of the cars currently being driven in just the US. Maybe in the future batteries will become better, lighter, less resource intensive, but we're not there yet. If we could replace most of the cars on the road today with smaller vehicles, like kei-cars, e-bikes, scooters, etc, maybe, just maybe we could make enough batteries so that everyone on the planet could get around to where they need to go. This video on Electric Vehicles' Battery Problem (https://youtu.be/9dnN82DsQ2k) is worth watching.
There's a few things I'd like to unpack from this.
First, you are absolutely right that our current supply of certain rare-earth metals would make converting every vehicle to long-range BEV is not possible. Having said that...
Second, just because we can't convert all with current technology doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to covert some. Eliminating a few million ICE vehicles, the electrifying of the grid and supporting next-gen battery tech are all net wins even if they aren't the optimal outcome
Third, the limitations of cobalt and (to a lesser extent) lithium is a primary reason why we own PHEV. We get >85% of our miles on electric and our battery pack is about 1/5th the size of a Tesla's (or put another way, you could build five PHEV batteries or one Tesla battery, but the net reduction on PHEVs will be roughly 4x greater for the same amount of materials).
Finally, none of this means we have to perpetually support a car-first future. The same requirements for car BEVs also exist for electric buses and (in a scaled down way) to eBikes. We need acceptance, we need charging, we need a better grid less dependent on fossil fuels. My city recently rejected a proposal to buy several new e-Buses after an analysis concluded (in part) that our current bus depot lacked the electrical service capable of supplying the necessary chargers.
I think there's 2 different underlying ideas in this thread.
1) Should we move over to renewables as our primary energy sources (and subsequent switch to EV's)
2) Is 'car culture' a sustainable model
I hope no one is really advocating that we should not move to renewables from Gas/Oil. That seems like a no-brainer.
The underlying criticism I've seen on this thread seems to be along the lines of "Well, car culture itself is unsustainable so whether or not we move over to renewables is irrelevant".
Is that pretty accurate?
I think there's 2 different underlying ideas in this thread.
1) Should we move over to renewables as our primary energy sources (and subsequent switch to EV's)
2) Is 'car culture' a sustainable model
I hope no one is really advocating that we should not move to renewables from Gas/Oil. That seems like a no-brainer.
The underlying criticism I've seen on this thread seems to be along the lines of "Well, car culture itself is unsustainable so whether or not we move over to renewables is irrelevant".
Is that pretty accurate?
Sorry about your no-brainer. I think the future is going to have a lot more nuclear plants.
I think there's 2 different underlying ideas in this thread.
1) Should we move over to renewables as our primary energy sources (and subsequent switch to EV's)
2) Is 'car culture' a sustainable model
I hope no one is really advocating that we should not move to renewables from Gas/Oil. That seems like a no-brainer.
The underlying criticism I've seen on this thread seems to be along the lines of "Well, car culture itself is unsustainable so whether or not we move over to renewables is irrelevant".
Is that pretty accurate?
Sorry about your no-brainer. I think the future is going to have a lot more nuclear plants.
Then I just hope you find a lot more nuclear fuel, because if everything today came from nuclear power plants, the fuel would be exhausted after 30 years.
And of course don't forget the real reason for having those plants. If you are okay that every country on earth has atomic bombs...
btw. is there a reason you want the most expensive energy source to grow? Train people to use less?
And to the car topic: Yes. A car is luxury, and we can't afford luxury to everyone. We live on a finite earth. Paving ever more area to let 2 ton vehicles carrying 1 person everywhere is not going to cut it long term.
...
That sounds a lot like enforced austerity. I just don't think that's going to work. How would one even begin to decide who 'gets to own a car' and who does not?
...
That sounds a lot like enforced austerity. I just don't think that's going to work. How would one even begin to decide who 'gets to own a car' and who does not?
Historically we have used how much money someone is willing to allocate to such things, like a gas or carbon tax.
-not intended to be snarky.
Isn't strange how in "communism" nearly nobody owned a car but everybody was able to get to work?...
That sounds a lot like enforced austerity. I just don't think that's going to work. How would one even begin to decide who 'gets to own a car' and who does not?
Historically we have used how much money someone is willing to allocate to such things, like a gas or carbon tax.
-not intended to be snarky.
Yes, I agree, that is exactly right. The only way I could even see a mechanism to make this work is to tax the hell out of cars and make them super expensive. But in truth you won't affect the upper middle class or the rich. You'd only be screwing over the poor. And very often the poor need a vehicle in order to get to work. Or to do their work.
Even just taxing gas at a super high rate would have the same affect, disproportionately affecting the poor and working class.
If you remove people's ability to get to work, very soon you will have large numbers of people not able to afford food, or rent, and then we'll see serious civil unrest.
Isn't strange how in "communism" nearly nobody owned a car but everybody was able to get to work?...
That sounds a lot like enforced austerity. I just don't think that's going to work. How would one even begin to decide who 'gets to own a car' and who does not?
Historically we have used how much money someone is willing to allocate to such things, like a gas or carbon tax.
-not intended to be snarky.
Yes, I agree, that is exactly right. The only way I could even see a mechanism to make this work is to tax the hell out of cars and make them super expensive. But in truth you won't affect the upper middle class or the rich. You'd only be screwing over the poor. And very often the poor need a vehicle in order to get to work. Or to do their work.
Even just taxing gas at a super high rate would have the same affect, disproportionately affecting the poor and working class.
If you remove people's ability to get to work, very soon you will have large numbers of people not able to afford food, or rent, and then we'll see serious civil unrest.
Of course that is also true for the time before the car.
Yes, but those times before the car (and more generally the industrial revolution and widespread use of electricity) were awful times to be alive. And re: communism, are you REALLY saying we should all live like the communists? Which was also quite awful especially for the common person, as per reports from many common people during those times.
Yes, but those times before the car (and more generally the industrial revolution and widespread use of electricity) were awful times to be alive. And re: communism, are you REALLY saying we should all live like the communists? Which was also quite awful especially for the common person, as per reports from many common people during those times.
While I agree with you about the second (electrified) industrial revolution, most people didn't drive to work until after WWII. Ignoring the war (and the great depression), was it really such a bad time to be alive? Remember how much the 1920s didn't suck and everyone was happy to be alive? It wasn't because they were all driving Teslas.
Yes, but those times before the car (and more generally the industrial revolution and widespread use of electricity) were awful times to be alive. And re: communism, are you REALLY saying we should all live like the communists? Which was also quite awful especially for the common person, as per reports from many common people during those times.
While I agree with you about the second (electrified) industrial revolution, most people didn't drive to work until after WWII. Ignoring the war (and the great depression), was it really such a bad time to be alive? Remember how much the 1920s didn't suck and everyone was happy to be alive? It wasn't because they were all driving Teslas.
That is simply astonishingly untrue. The truth is that back then the vast, vast majority of Americans were poor. The roaring 20's were an artifact of the fact that were were just starting to be a little less poor as a country. The quality of life for the average person in the 20's was faaaaaaaarrrrr lower than the quality of life for the average person in America today.
Yes, but those times before the car (and more generally the industrial revolution and widespread use of electricity) were awful times to be alive. And re: communism, are you REALLY saying we should all live like the communists? Which was also quite awful especially for the common person, as per reports from many common people during those times.
While I agree with you about the second (electrified) industrial revolution, most people didn't drive to work until after WWII. Ignoring the war (and the great depression), was it really such a bad time to be alive? Remember how much the 1920s didn't suck and everyone was happy to be alive? It wasn't because they were all driving Teslas.
That is simply astonishingly untrue. The truth is that back then the vast, vast majority of Americans were poor. The roaring 20's were an artifact of the fact that were were just starting to be a little less poor as a country. The quality of life for the average person in the 20's was faaaaaaaarrrrr lower than the quality of life for the average person in America today.
In general I don't disagree. But I strongly disagree that the reason "life sucked" was because they had to ride the trolley to work from their walkable mixed-use neighborhood.
But aren't we already moving back to mixed use neighborhoods? I don't know what it's like in your city, but in Denver, the re-gentrification of the downtown area as absolutely turned it into a strongly mixed use area. I remember when I moved here in 99, it was all this industrial wasteland and not the vibrant mixed use community we have now. Including much better biking infrastructure in many areas. In fact I rarely use my car at all anymore as my neighborhood is very walkable and bike-able and I have always made working from home my #1 requirement for any job I've taken over the past 15 years.
So what you are advocating for already exists, but cars are still needed because the entire infrastructure is built to be car centric.
There's simply no way to get away from large scale use of cars if we don't change the infrastructure. And if that's going to change it has to be for something better, not worse.
I'm all ears though, what are some good solutions that are more efficient, more comfortable, cheaper and easier than what we have now from the car-centric infrastructure we have?
And again, I think some of the distaste for cars is because right now they are major polluters because of burning gas (and oil). But with EV's that's no longer a concern. Which is great, IMO. I personally cannot wait for us to completely move away from non-renewables as a society.
But aren't we already moving back to mixed use neighborhoods? I don't know what it's like in your city, but in Denver, the re-gentrification of the downtown area as absolutely turned it into a strongly mixed use area. I remember when I moved here in 99, it was all this industrial wasteland and not the vibrant mixed use community we have now. Including much better biking infrastructure in many areas. In fact I rarely use my car at all anymore as my neighborhood is very walkable and bike-able and I have always made working from home my #1 requirement for any job I've taken over the past 15 years.
In general, no. There are two states that have banned R-1 zoning: Oregon and California. But even in those two states they haven't banned residential only zoning. For a hilarious take on it Climate Town does a good job here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc).So what you are advocating for already exists, but cars are still needed because the entire infrastructure is built to be car centric.
It exists primarily in old neighborhoods that were built before the invention of R-1 zoning. Also, there aren't enough of them to go around so prices are high because of the artificially limited supply. There are more people who want to live in walkable mixed use neighborhoods than there is supply of walkable mixed use neighborhoods.There's simply no way to get away from large scale use of cars if we don't change the infrastructure. And if that's going to change it has to be for something better, not worse.
I completely agree, we should probably get on that.I'm all ears though, what are some good solutions that are more efficient, more comfortable, cheaper and easier than what we have now from the car-centric infrastructure we have?
I posted this in the other thread where we discussed this but this is still my take:
1. Road Diets (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/) for all stroads starting tomorrow.
2. A return to Streetcar Suburbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb).
3. The immediate ban of single family zoning across the entire country.
4. The immediate ban on parking minimums across the entire country.And again, I think some of the distaste for cars is because right now they are major polluters because of burning gas (and oil). But with EV's that's no longer a concern. Which is great, IMO. I personally cannot wait for us to completely move away from non-renewables as a society.
Cars are the single largest killer of young people and car dependent society is a horrible tax on the poor. My distain for cars goes far beyond fossil fuels (or strip-mines for electric batteries).
Man, that is shocking that Portland and California are like that. Those laws need to be changed, the sooner the better.
While it's possible future technological advances will improve things, right now, using current technology, it would be physically impossible to make all of the lithium ion batteries needed to replace all of the ICE vehicles currently on the road in the US, to say nothing of the rest of the entire. fucking. world.
While it's possible future technological advances will improve things, right now, using current technology, it would be physically impossible to make all of the lithium ion batteries needed to replace all of the ICE vehicles currently on the road in the US, to say nothing of the rest of the entire. fucking. world.
Some maths to debunk this statement.
Global light duty vehicle fleet is estimated at 1,310,000,000 vehicles in 2020.
An electric car on average requires 8kg of lithium.
Our global lithium reserves are 80,000,000,000 kg
So enough for 10,000,000,000 electric cars.
Going by these figures we have nearly an order of magnitude more lithium than required to electrify the global light domestic vehicle fleet.
7.1 million metric tonnes = 7,100,000 tonnes
7,100,000 tonnes = 7,100,000,000 kg
7,100,000,000/14 = 507,142,857 EV batteries
I can't figure out how we get enough cobalt.
QuoteI can't figure out how we get enough cobalt.
By switching to Lithium ion phosphate (LFP) and other colbalt free chemistries. This switch is well underway. My father's Tesla Model 3 contains no colbalt.
LFP also contains no nickel. The second most expensive metal in lithium ion batteries.
China's government did the research and maths a decade ago and invested heavily in LFP. Both improving volume manufacturing and energy density.
While it's possible future technological advances will improve things, right now, using current technology, it would be physically impossible to make all of the lithium ion batteries needed to replace all of the ICE vehicles currently on the road in the US, to say nothing of the rest of the entire. fucking. world.
Some maths to debunk this statement.
Global light duty vehicle fleet is estimated at 1,310,000,000 vehicles in 2020.
An electric car on average requires 8kg of lithium.
Our global lithium reserves are 80,000,000,000 kg
So enough for 10,000,000,000 electric cars.
Going by these figures we have nearly an order of magnitude more lithium than required to electrify the global light domestic vehicle fleet.
Troubles around the Thacker Pass mine echo global conflicts over mineral extraction for renewable energy that are almost certain to grow with the world’s transition to clean energy and its rapid electrification of the transportation sector in particular. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a cobalt rush has brought human rights violations, child labor and dangerously tunnel-riddled neighborhoods. In Chile, lithium mining is stressing the water Indigenous peoples and native wildlife depend on in the Atacama desert. And in the once-pristine Arctic surrounding Norilsk, Russia, nickel production has turned rivers red, killed vast forests and darkened skies with the worst sulfur dioxide pollution in the world...The proposed project spans 17,933 acres that would hold an open-pit mine and a sulfuric acid plant to process lithium from the raw ore. The mine is expected to have a lifespan of at least 46 years. The mine operations at Thacker Pass will emit 152,713 tons of carbon dioxide annually, equivalent to the emissions of a small city, according to its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). It is expected to consume 1.7 billion gallons of water each year—500,000 gallons of water for each ton of lithium—in an arid region that is experiencing worsening droughts.
I was actually talking about "real existing socialism" like East Germany until 1989.Yes, but those times before the car (and more generally the industrial revolution and widespread use of electricity) were awful times to be alive. And re: communism, are you REALLY saying we should all live like the communists? Which was also quite awful especially for the common person, as per reports from many common people during those times.
While I agree with you about the second (electrified) industrial revolution, most people didn't drive to work until after WWII. Ignoring the war (and the great depression), was it really such a bad time to be alive? Remember how much the 1920s didn't suck and everyone was happy to be alive? It wasn't because they were all driving Teslas.
But aren't we already moving back to mixed use neighborhoods?No.
https://news.utexas.edu/2021/12/06/sodium-based-material-yields-stable-alternative-to-lithium-ion-batteries/
Demand is rising for stationary energy storage systems for homes and for smoothing out the ebb and flow of wind and solar energy on electric grids. At the same time, lithium mining has been criticized for its environmental impacts, including heavy groundwater use, soil and water pollution and carbon emissions. Lithium-ion batteries typically also use cobalt, which is expensive and mined mostly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where it has significant impacts on human health and the environment. By comparison, sodium mining is cheaper and more environmentally friendly.
Mitlin is bullish on the idea that this new innovation and others from UT Austin, including a new solid electrolyte that boosts energy storage, will mean sodium batteries may soon be able to fill the growing demand for stationary energy storage.
I was actually talking about "real existing socialism" like East Germany until 1989.Yes, but those times before the car (and more generally the industrial revolution and widespread use of electricity) were awful times to be alive. And re: communism, are you REALLY saying we should all live like the communists? Which was also quite awful especially for the common person, as per reports from many common people during those times.
While I agree with you about the second (electrified) industrial revolution, most people didn't drive to work until after WWII. Ignoring the war (and the great depression), was it really such a bad time to be alive? Remember how much the 1920s didn't suck and everyone was happy to be alive? It wasn't because they were all driving Teslas.
My father simply walked the 2km to work, he didn't drive a car (and btw. he had to stand the whole day). Like nearly everyone else. Some, of course, came by bus.
I think that is better than to drive (or "drive") the same time in a car because everyone sprawled.
I'm all ears though, what are some good solutions that are more efficient, more comfortable, cheaper and easier than what we have now from the car-centric infrastructure we have?
QuoteI can't figure out how we get enough cobalt.
By switching to Lithium ion phosphate (LFP) and other colbalt free chemistries. This switch is well underway. My father's Tesla Model 3 contains no colbalt.
LFP also contains no nickel. The second most expensive metal in lithium ion batteries.
China's government did the research and maths a decade ago and invested heavily in LFP. Both improving volume manufacturing and energy density.
I was actually talking about "real existing socialism" like East Germany until 1989.Yes, but those times before the car (and more generally the industrial revolution and widespread use of electricity) were awful times to be alive. And re: communism, are you REALLY saying we should all live like the communists? Which was also quite awful especially for the common person, as per reports from many common people during those times.
While I agree with you about the second (electrified) industrial revolution, most people didn't drive to work until after WWII. Ignoring the war (and the great depression), was it really such a bad time to be alive? Remember how much the 1920s didn't suck and everyone was happy to be alive? It wasn't because they were all driving Teslas.
My father simply walked the 2km to work, he didn't drive a car (and btw. he had to stand the whole day). Like nearly everyone else. Some, of course, came by bus.
I think that is better than to drive (or "drive") the same time in a car because everyone sprawled.
QuoteI can't figure out how we get enough cobalt.
By switching to Lithium ion phosphate (LFP) and other colbalt free chemistries. This switch is well underway. My father's Tesla Model 3 contains no colbalt.
LFP also contains no nickel. The second most expensive metal in lithium ion batteries.
China's government did the research and maths a decade ago and invested heavily in LFP. Both improving volume manufacturing and energy density.
LFP is great for home backup, but is heavier than NCA which is why Tesla isn't using it for their long range batteries. But yes, LFP is a viable cobalt-free alternative to the NCA chemistry but it comes with a weight penalty which is why you don't see it much in US EVs.
I'm all ears though, what are some good solutions that are more efficient, more comfortable, cheaper and easier than what we have now from the car-centric infrastructure we have?
Others have pointed out many of the issues with infrastructure (stroads), books like Walkable city and nonprofits like Strongtowns that all have written encyclopedias on this stuff. It is very interesting to go down the rabbit hole of how our whole North American view of what living should look like after WWII, and how it's a facade of success and efficiency in our cities: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-can-my-town-not-be-wealthy-when-theres-been-so-much-growth/id369032477?i=1000553148216 . City level analysis shows that poor, densely populated and mixed-use districts subsidize single family residential zoning to a surprising degree.
But I want to poke the bear a little bit on the bolded part. I think comfort is the wrong way of looking at it, and I suspect many people could be convinced of this once exposed to it. I won't deny that a road trip in a 2020 Suburban is much nicer than one in a 1991 Civic. It is undoubtedly more comfortable. But comfort is very much subjective and kind of a never ending addiction in a "chase the dragon" kind of way. Mostly because of hedonic adaptation.
I think a better measure would be to replace "comfort" with "convenient" or even "satisfying".
I also strongly disagree with the notion that everything sucked and no one was happy before 1920's. I would rather live today than then, for sure, but not because of cars. In fact, if it were down solely to city layout, I would rather live in a layout like one of the Netherlands pedestrian friendly towns than any US based one, due entirely to their discard of the car as an omni-tool.
I agree with you that we should be moving towards a more european style non-stroad approach to our infrastructure.
Re: electric cars, why can't it be both? Why can't we move to mixed use neighborhoods AND convert all our cars to EV's at the same time?
I'm all ears though, what are some good solutions that are more efficient, more comfortable, cheaper and easier than what we have now from the car-centric infrastructure we have?
Others have pointed out many of the issues with infrastructure (stroads), books like Walkable city and nonprofits like Strongtowns that all have written encyclopedias on this stuff. It is very interesting to go down the rabbit hole of how our whole North American view of what living should look like after WWII, and how it's a facade of success and efficiency in our cities: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-can-my-town-not-be-wealthy-when-theres-been-so-much-growth/id369032477?i=1000553148216 . City level analysis shows that poor, densely populated and mixed-use districts subsidize single family residential zoning to a surprising degree.
But I want to poke the bear a little bit on the bolded part. I think comfort is the wrong way of looking at it, and I suspect many people could be convinced of this once exposed to it. I won't deny that a road trip in a 2020 Suburban is much nicer than one in a 1991 Civic. It is undoubtedly more comfortable. But comfort is very much subjective and kind of a never ending addiction in a "chase the dragon" kind of way. Mostly because of hedonic adaptation.
I think a better measure would be to replace "comfort" with "convenient" or even "satisfying".
I also strongly disagree with the notion that everything sucked and no one was happy before 1920's. I would rather live today than then, for sure, but not because of cars. In fact, if it were down solely to city layout, I would rather live in a layout like one of the Netherlands pedestrian friendly towns than any US based one, due entirely to their discard of the car as an omni-tool.
I agree with you that we should be moving towards a more european style non-stroad approach to our infrastructure.
Re: electric cars, why can't it be both? Why can't we move to mixed use neighborhoods AND convert all our cars to EV's at the same time?
Make me king, and I'd set up a federal definition for small lightweight neighborhood electric vehicles (25-30 mph max), max unloaded weight 500lbs, 30 mile max range and subsidize them fairly heavily. It would discourage stroads and sprawl while converting a large portion of everyday transportation to electric.
https://news.utexas.edu/2021/12/06/sodium-based-material-yields-stable-alternative-to-lithium-ion-batteries/
Re: electric cars, why can't it be both? Why can't we move to mixed use neighborhoods AND convert all our cars to EV's at the same time?
I agree with you that we should be moving towards a more european style non-stroad approach to our infrastructure.
Re: electric cars, why can't it be both? Why can't we move to mixed use neighborhoods AND convert all our cars to EV's at the same time?
Make me king, and I'd set up a federal definition for small lightweight neighborhood electric vehicles (25-30 mph max), max unloaded weight 500lbs, 30 mile max range and subsidize them fairly heavily. It would discourage stroads and sprawl while converting a large portion of everyday transportation to electric.
So I’d have to buy one of those in addition to a regular car to take on the highway? Pass.
I agree with you that we should be moving towards a more european style non-stroad approach to our infrastructure.
Re: electric cars, why can't it be both? Why can't we move to mixed use neighborhoods AND convert all our cars to EV's at the same time?
Make me king, and I'd set up a federal definition for small lightweight neighborhood electric vehicles (25-30 mph max), max unloaded weight 500lbs, 30 mile max range and subsidize them fairly heavily. It would discourage stroads and sprawl while converting a large portion of everyday transportation to electric.
So I’d have to buy one of those in addition to a regular car to take on the highway? Pass.
Yep, that's exactly what I said!
I agree with you that we should be moving towards a more european style non-stroad approach to our infrastructure.
Re: electric cars, why can't it be both? Why can't we move to mixed use neighborhoods AND convert all our cars to EV's at the same time?
Make me king, and I'd set up a federal definition for small lightweight neighborhood electric vehicles (25-30 mph max), max unloaded weight 500lbs, 30 mile max range and subsidize them fairly heavily. It would discourage stroads and sprawl while converting a large portion of everyday transportation to electric.
So I’d have to buy one of those in addition to a regular car to take on the highway? Pass.
Yep, that's exactly what I said!
So how would they be used? I mean, you’d need a car for longer trips, and presumably your vision is we’d have one of these neighborhood vehicles…so one would need both. No?
I mean you basically proposed the Segway which was a monumental flop outside mall cops so I was having a hard time understanding your vision.
Around here there are a ton of electric scooters people rent for short trips and then Uber/Lime pick the scooters up when done. Gets a lot of use in the spring/summer/fall but not so much in the winter.
Around here there are a ton of electric scooters people rent for short trips and then Uber/Lime pick the scooters up when done. Gets a lot of use in the spring/summer/fall but not so much in the winter.
Have you tried prioritizing protected bike lanes for both trip length and snow removal?
Not Just Bikes: Why Canadians Can't Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU)
So how would they be used? I mean, you’d need a car for longer trips, and presumably your vision is we’d have one of these neighborhood vehicles…so one would need both. No?
I mean you basically proposed the Segway which was a monumental flop outside mall cops so I was having a hard time understanding your vision.
Comparing a Segway to a neighborhood electric vehicle is a weird obtuse stretch.
Around here there are a ton of electric scooters people rent for short trips and then Uber/Lime pick the scooters up when done. Gets a lot of use in the spring/summer/fall but not so much in the winter.
Have you tried prioritizing protected bike lanes for both trip length and snow removal?
Not Just Bikes: Why Canadians Can't Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU)
Oh yeah, check it out, we've added a ton of bike lanes like this. You mean other cities aren't doing this? Wow, that makes me even more glad I live here.
<snip image>
I mean you basically proposed the Segway which was a monumental flop outside mall cops so I was having a hard time understanding your vision.
Comparing a Segway to a neighborhood electric vehicle is a weird obtuse stretch.
It was your quoted weight limit that did it. 500lbs is roughly half that of a golf cart.
It's not like you can just snap your fingers and lithium 'reserves' suddenly become batteries.
And we're not talking about just one car to replace each existing vehicle. Most people go through many cars in their lifetimes.
If a PHEV's battery pack is 1/5 the size of a Tesla's, wonder how many e-bike batteries could be made using the same amount of resources as one Tesla battery? Guessing quite a few.
And thanks to an abundance of renewable energy the environmental impact of this process will be infinitesimal.
If a PHEV's battery pack is 1/5 the size of a Tesla's, wonder how many e-bike batteries could be made using the same amount of resources as one Tesla battery? Guessing quite a few.
Most long range ebikes sit around 750Wh of battery pack. The smallest BEV is about 30kWh. Base Tesla M3 is 60kWh. So, you could make about 80 ebike batteries for every base Tesla M3.
On a similar note, at average US electrical grid emissions, a Tesla indirectly emits about 100g of CO2/mile. The average ICE car in the us emits about 400g of CO2/mile. So Teslas contribute about 4x less carbon to the atmosphere than ICEs. Ebikes under medium assistance emit about 9g CO2/mile. Electric related emissions is improving as the grid becomes greener, but that's about where it's at currently.
Every person who opts to use/buy an eBike instead of a Tesla reduces their carbon footprint by a factor of about 10 (not to mention resources, etc.). Every person who opts to buy a Tesla rather than an ICE reduces their carbon footprint factor by about 4. Using an eBike instead of an ICE reduces footprint by a factor of about 40. This is all using DOT and EPA averages across the US.
To summarize, for every ICE person that can be convinced to switch to an eBike, that has as much emissions effect as convincing 10 people to switch from ICE to BEV.
To me the bolded part seems to be a bit absurd. An eBike and a Tesla aren't even remotely the same tool, and having one doesn't replace or exclude you from owning the other. I actually know quite a few people who have BEVs and eBikes (and also Fat-Tire and Mountain Bikes and Road bikes...)
your point that we should favor cycling whenever possible is well taken. The benefits of cycling over driving are indeed huge. But it's apples to oranges for most people
To me the bolded part seems to be a bit absurd. An eBike and a Tesla aren't even remotely the same tool, and having one doesn't replace or exclude you from owning the other. I actually know quite a few people who have BEVs and eBikes (and also Fat-Tire and Mountain Bikes and Road bikes...)
your point that we should favor cycling whenever possible is well taken. The benefits of cycling over driving are indeed huge. But it's apples to oranges for most people
I'll 100% grant that it's absurd to equate the maximum utility of an ebike to that of a Tesla. My position is assuming that this is a given.
But I would also submit that it's absurd that the majority of passenger vehicle trips in the US are solo trips, and that this latter absurdity is one that is much harder to envision and convey (as seen in this thread). It seems that people take my above statistics and discussion as some kind of affront on EVs, when it is intended to be more of an exposure to other options. I realize that the majority of people won't find these options immediately accessible, but I would hope that they keep the door open to them as they make lifestyle decision. It is muuuuch more interesting to approach life this way, IMO. If you need a new car and an EV fits those needs, sure, go get one...but no the Hummer ;).. jk I really don't care that much. I just think people get caught up in this focused mindset that we forget that we can have healthy, fulfilling lives without some specific set of circumstances that are largely culturally driven.
Here are the types of scenarios that I want to suggest: 2 car ICE family would likely have all of their needs exceeded with 1 BEV or PHEV and 2-4 ebikes. The amount of energy, resources, and cost of this setup would be significantly less. And that's in our current poorly designed streets. You're healthier, take up less garage space, less insurance, etc.
The problem with eBikes and electric scooters is they both depend on decent weather. Too hot or too cold and people will just use their cars, regardless of distance.
QuoteIt's not like you can just snap your fingers and lithium 'reserves' suddenly become batteries.
Right. But repeating mistruths about how there is not enough lithium to make every car electric isn't going to help bring more mines online. What will help is a commitment to purchase that lithium.QuoteAnd we're not talking about just one car to replace each existing vehicle. Most people go through many cars in their lifetimes.
What's your point? Lithium ion batteries are 99% recyclable with current technology. Once the global fleet of electric vehicles is established we keep recycling them into new ones. And thanks to an abundance of renewable energy the environmental impact of this process will be infinitesimal.
Yes there will be some impact getting there. But it's better than what we're doing today (burning oil). And a whole lot better as time goes on.
The only recycling places we've found that accept lithium ion batteries in our area, so far, are way out in the suburbs and they want to charge us money to take used batteries off of our hands. Hopefully, this situation will improve in the future, and batteries will become more readily recyclable everywhere.Do you have a Home Depot or Lowe's? They are partnered with Call2Recycle (https://www.call2recycle.org/locator/) and have free drop-off bins at the front of the store.
Yes, thank you. There are a couple of Lowe's within 4-6 miles of our house. So, I can easily ride there on my bike to drop off batteries. Have been looking at Call2Recycle's site. Apparently, our local Lowe's will accept 'rechargeable' batteries and cellphones, but not single-use batteries (i.e., AA, AAA, D, etc.) and not e-bike batteries. We've got a box of various types of batteries we've collected over the past 2.5 years. It would be nice if we could take them all to one place and just drop them off, but I'll take what I can get, for now.The only recycling places we've found that accept lithium ion batteries in our area, so far, are way out in the suburbs and they want to charge us money to take used batteries off of our hands. Hopefully, this situation will improve in the future, and batteries will become more readily recyclable everywhere.Do you have a Home Depot or Lowe's? They are partnered with Call2Recycle (https://www.call2recycle.org/locator/) and have free drop-off bins at the front of the store.
And below 62V DC you won't be electrocuted b/c the electrical resistance of dry skin is too high.
This question could only be answered in a 10 pager :DI was actually talking about "real existing socialism" like East Germany until 1989.Yes, but those times before the car (and more generally the industrial revolution and widespread use of electricity) were awful times to be alive. And re: communism, are you REALLY saying we should all live like the communists? Which was also quite awful especially for the common person, as per reports from many common people during those times.
While I agree with you about the second (electrified) industrial revolution, most people didn't drive to work until after WWII. Ignoring the war (and the great depression), was it really such a bad time to be alive? Remember how much the 1920s didn't suck and everyone was happy to be alive? It wasn't because they were all driving Teslas.
My father simply walked the 2km to work, he didn't drive a car (and btw. he had to stand the whole day). Like nearly everyone else. Some, of course, came by bus.
I think that is better than to drive (or "drive") the same time in a car because everyone sprawled.
perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that more governments move towards an East Germany model?
I don't think the would be well received in North America
On a similar note, at average US electrical grid emissions, a Tesla indirectly emits about 100g of CO2/mile. The average ICE car in the us emits about 400g of CO2/mile.Ouch, really? My 9 year old not exactly high tech car has an official rating of 120g/km. So less than half of an US average car.
Ouch, really? My 9 year old not exactly high tech car has an official rating of 120g/km. So less than half of an US average car.
Ouch, really? My 9 year old not exactly high tech car has an official rating of 120g/km. So less than half of an US average car.
8,887g CO2 per gallon of gasoline, average gas passenger vehicle is 22.7 miles/gallon. I slightly overstated, the actual number =8,887/22.7 = 389g CO2/mile.
Tesla M3= .24 kWh/mile. average. According to EPA, average CO2 from grid is .85 lbs/kWh. .85lbs = 386g. Tesla CO2 = 386g*.24kWh = 92g CO2/mile.
So, I did a bit of embellished rounding, but close enough to get the point.
Source for kWh emissions: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11
Source for fuel numbers: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references
What car do you have? CO2 emissions are directly linked to gas burned, so better MPGs means better numbers.
This question could only be answered in a 10 pager :DI was actually talking about "real existing socialism" like East Germany until 1989.Yes, but those times before the car (and more generally the industrial revolution and widespread use of electricity) were awful times to be alive. And re: communism, are you REALLY saying we should all live like the communists? Which was also quite awful especially for the common person, as per reports from many common people during those times.
While I agree with you about the second (electrified) industrial revolution, most people didn't drive to work until after WWII. Ignoring the war (and the great depression), was it really such a bad time to be alive? Remember how much the 1920s didn't suck and everyone was happy to be alive? It wasn't because they were all driving Teslas.
My father simply walked the 2km to work, he didn't drive a car (and btw. he had to stand the whole day). Like nearly everyone else. Some, of course, came by bus.
I think that is better than to drive (or "drive") the same time in a car because everyone sprawled.
perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that more governments move towards an East Germany model?
I don't think the would be well received in North America
I mostly wanted to point out that in a time where most of the people in this forum were still alive, it was possible to life your life without problems without a car.
In no small part that was, of course, because efficiency in the GDR was measured differently than it is today. Today it's efficient if there is a big store on the outside of the city and everyone drives there individually. For the bis store that is certainly cost effective.
In the GDR it was considered effective if the daily shopping could be done withhin walking distance. And jobs e.g. in factories where placed where people lived. Today people have to move where the jobs are.
I dare say, if you take cars and fuel and street building and health effects in account, the GDR model might even be cheaper.QuoteOn a similar note, at average US electrical grid emissions, a Tesla indirectly emits about 100g of CO2/mile. The average ICE car in the us emits about 400g of CO2/mile.Ouch, really? My 9 year old not exactly high tech car has an official rating of 120g/km. So less than half of an US average car.
Just to be nit-picky for posterity… there’s a minor correction and a border point to be made.
First, from my source there’s a fleet-wide fuel economy of 24.9 (2021 data), moderately better than the 22.7 cited.
Just to be nit-picky for posterity… there’s a minor correction and a border point to be made.
First, from my source there’s a fleet-wide fuel economy of 24.9 (2021 data), moderately better than the 22.7 cited.
I like nit-picky; that places LennStar's Canadian vehicle in a more reasonable spot. It's pretty easy to calculate; 8887/(xmpg). So a 40mpg car would emit 220g co2/mile on average. (His 120g/km is the same as 190g/mile), also resulting in him having a 46mpg vehicle.
This is starting to get to be a little bit of a tangent on a tangent. The summary of this is that vehicles take lots of energy to run; it is better to start by reducing the need for that energy in the first place than to try to switch delivery methods on a global scale. Both are needed, but solving the latter will not only be more expensive, it will come with other externalities
Just to be nit-picky for posterity… there’s a minor correction and a border point to be made.
First, from my source there’s a fleet-wide fuel economy of 24.9 (2021 data), moderately better than the 22.7 cited.
I like nit-picky; that places LennStar's Canadian vehicle in a more reasonable spot. It's pretty easy to calculate; 8887/(xmpg). So a 40mpg car would emit 220g co2/mile on average. (His 120g/km is the same as 190g/mile), also resulting in him having a 46mpg vehicle.
This is starting to get to be a little bit of a tangent on a tangent. The summary of this is that vehicles take lots of energy to run; it is better to start by reducing the need for that energy in the first place than to try to switch delivery methods on a global scale. Both are needed, but solving the latter will not only be more expensive, it will come with other externalities
Just to be nit-picky for posterity… there’s a minor correction and a border point to be made.
First, from my source there’s a fleet-wide fuel economy of 24.9 (2021 data), moderately better than the 22.7 cited.
I like nit-picky; that places LennStar's Canadian vehicle in a more reasonable spot. It's pretty easy to calculate; 8887/(xmpg). So a 40mpg car would emit 220g co2/mile on average. (His 120g/km is the same as 190g/mile), also resulting in him having a 46mpg vehicle.
This is starting to get to be a little bit of a tangent on a tangent. The summary of this is that vehicles take lots of energy to run; it is better to start by reducing the need for that energy in the first place than to try to switch delivery methods on a global scale. Both are needed, but solving the latter will not only be more expensive, it will come with other externalities
…and I certainly agree with the bolder portion above (though many good points made throughout).
The thread topic is: Electric cars: cant hey finally become popular in the United States. I believe everyone is in agreement that less total driving and a greater focus on walking/cycling/public transit is best. However, it’s not the thread topic.
What car do you have? CO2 emissions are directly linked to gas burned, so better MPGs means better numbers.
If you are just considering what most drivers would consider a “car” the fuel standards for late model vehicles is much, much better - most are in the high 30s to low 40s now. Still way behind where we should be but far better than the numbers reflect.For me a car is a vehicle that is used as a personal transport to haul people around. (Of course a taxi is still a car) So a SUV and a pickup is are still cars for me. I mean a SUV nearly never transports heavy good, right? And many pickups in the US also not from what I have heard.
…and I certainly agree with the bolder portion above (though many good points made throughout).
The thread topic is: Electric cars: cant hey finally become popular in the United States. I believe everyone is in agreement that less total driving and a greater focus on walking/cycling/public transit is best. However, it’s not the thread topic.
Pretty sure there's no agreement, at all, on the bolded above, not even among the people posting in this thread, let alone among North Americans in general.
btw. Not Canadian, I am German ;).
Hyundai i10. If you don't drive too crazy, it's 6 liters/100km. Official I think 5l.
…and I certainly agree with the bolder portion above (though many good points made throughout).
The thread topic is: Electric cars: cant hey finally become popular in the United States. I believe everyone is in agreement that less total driving and a greater focus on walking/cycling/public transit is best. However, it’s not the thread topic.
Pretty sure there's no agreement, at all, on the bolded above, not even among the people posting in this thread, let alone among North Americans in general.
Agreed, which is the whole point of bringing it up when threads like this are discussed. By posting the question: "Can electric cars become popular in the United States?" There is an inherent value judgment placed on the transition to EVs. If Elon Musk is anything to go by, the entire point of Tesla and EVs is to accelerate the transition the world off of fossil fuels. And that's where most people stop, if they even get to that point. Rarely do folks re-evaluate the necessity of using so much energy in the first place.
There is a saying "when someone asks for a drill, what they really want is a hole in the wall." It is the evlauator's job to interpret the second from the first. Same thing I'm applying here when people ask for global transition to EVs.
There is sort of a sunk cost into cars; like "we're stuck with them, so we may as well make them electric". 15 years ago, almost everyone in the general public would have laughed if they were told that EVs would be the new standard for driving tech. Why can't we make the same social change with infrastructure?
It would be interesting to see what the total environmental footprint of someone in the city vs someone in a small town in America. I was originally from Texas and the stroad based small towns there are legion. And the people there are pretty stubborn about making any changes, at all, ever.
It would be interesting to see what the total environmental footprint of someone in the city vs someone in a small town in America. I was originally from Texas and the stroad based small towns there are legion. And the people there are pretty stubborn about making any changes, at all, ever.
How did they manage to do the epochical change to a car culture?
Ok, who here is arguing against this? You keep bringing this point up and I don’t see any disagreement.Just to be nit-picky for posterity… there’s a minor correction and a border point to be made.
First, from my source there’s a fleet-wide fuel economy of 24.9 (2021 data), moderately better than the 22.7 cited.
I like nit-picky; that places LennStar's Canadian vehicle in a more reasonable spot. It's pretty easy to calculate; 8887/(xmpg). So a 40mpg car would emit 220g co2/mile on average. (His 120g/km is the same as 190g/mile), also resulting in him having a 46mpg vehicle.
This is starting to get to be a little bit of a tangent on a tangent. The summary of this is that vehicles take lots of energy to run; it is better to start by reducing the need for that energy in the first place than to try to switch delivery methods on a global scale. Both are needed, but solving the latter will not only be more expensive, it will come with other externalities
…and I certainly agree with the bolder portion above (though many good points made throughout).
The thread topic is: Electric cars: cant hey finally become popular in the United States. I believe everyone is in agreement that less total driving and a greater focus on walking/cycling/public transit is best. However, it’s not the thread topic.
Pretty sure there's no agreement, at all, on the bolded above, not even among the people posting in this thread, let alone among North Americans in general.
You're right, nereo. There's no one actively arguing against the narrative you mentioned in this particular thread. Based on conversations I've had with many Americans on this subject, though, I'm pretty skeptical that that means we're all in agreement. In my personal, lived experience, most Americans, even really good people who claim to care a lot about the environment and climate change, seem to strongly believe that if they can afford something, like an $85K top of the line Chevy Suburban with heated seats and steering wheel, adaptive CC, blah, blah, blah, with enough room for the maximum number of people and pets and sports equipment that they could ever, conceivably, need to haul, then they deserve to have it. Whether they need it, or not, is irrelevant and taboo to even try to bring up in polite conversation.Ok, who here is arguing against this? You keep bringing this point up and I don’t see any disagreement.Just to be nit-picky for posterity… there’s a minor correction and a border point to be made.
First, from my source there’s a fleet-wide fuel economy of 24.9 (2021 data), moderately better than the 22.7 cited.
I like nit-picky; that places LennStar's Canadian vehicle in a more reasonable spot. It's pretty easy to calculate; 8887/(xmpg). So a 40mpg car would emit 220g co2/mile on average. (His 120g/km is the same as 190g/mile), also resulting in him having a 46mpg vehicle.
This is starting to get to be a little bit of a tangent on a tangent. The summary of this is that vehicles take lots of energy to run; it is better to start by reducing the need for that energy in the first place than to try to switch delivery methods on a global scale. Both are needed, but solving the latter will not only be more expensive, it will come with other externalities
…and I certainly agree with the bolder portion above (though many good points made throughout).
The thread topic is: Electric cars: cant hey finally become popular in the United States. I believe everyone is in agreement that less total driving and a greater focus on walking/cycling/public transit is best. However, it’s not the thread topic.
Pretty sure there's no agreement, at all, on the bolded above, not even among the people posting in this thread, let alone among North Americans in general.
Isn't it strange how many people say that advertisment doesnt influence them, but they always deserve whatever the companies want to sell them?
The only thing they deserve is a facepunch!
Way too less of the in the forums in the last months!!
Ok, who here is arguing against this? You keep bringing this point up and I don’t see any disagreement.…and I certainly agree with the bolder portion above (though many good points made throughout).
The thread topic is: Electric cars: cant hey finally become popular in the United States. I believe everyone is in agreement that less total driving and a greater focus on walking/cycling/public transit is best. However, it’s not the thread topic.
Pretty sure there's no agreement, at all, on the bolded above, not even among the people posting in this thread, let alone among North Americans in general.
I think you are also missing a point, e.g. you are not going to convince society to abandon cars. It's just not going to happen. In the interim, improvement is better than no improvement. With 8 billion people on this planet, surely we can focus on two things at once.
i get that MMM is a big fan of bikes and lots of other people are too, i am as well. But i am not going to commute by bicycle and i hardly ride to the grocery store on the weekends. My two biggest gripes are it takes too long to get somewhere by bike, i.e. work or drop kids off for school and its not safe to ride a bike. I had a crash where i had to swerve to miss a car and another instance where i was hit and my bike was destroyed (i was fine). These two things will keep me in a car most of the time until i am retired.
There are only so many ways to re-evaluate your priorities to eliminate the need to for a car. No everyone can live with in 1-2 miles of grocery stores and mass transit
Yes, but those times before the car (and more generally the industrial revolution and widespread use of electricity) were awful times to be alive. And re: communism, are you REALLY saying we should all live like the communists? Which was also quite awful especially for the common person, as per reports from many common people during those times.
Again, your suggestions are not workable.
The problem with eBikes and electric scooters is they both depend on decent weather. Too hot or too cold and people will just use their cars, regardless of distance.
Ok, who here is arguing against this? You keep bringing this point up and I don’t see any disagreement.…and I certainly agree with the bolder portion above (though many good points made throughout).
The thread topic is: Electric cars: cant hey finally become popular in the United States. I believe everyone is in agreement that less total driving and a greater focus on walking/cycling/public transit is best. However, it’s not the thread topic.
Pretty sure there's no agreement, at all, on the bolded above, not even among the people posting in this thread, let alone among North Americans in general.
No one is point blank saying it, but they are certainly implying that it is an invalid point. Which is why I think it's important to bring up, and even still on topic. Like someone saying "Is Starbucks or Duncan better" and someone replying with "Try making coffee at home"I think you are also missing a point, e.g. you are not going to convince society to abandon cars. It's just not going to happen. In the interim, improvement is better than no improvement. With 8 billion people on this planet, surely we can focus on two things at once.i get that MMM is a big fan of bikes and lots of other people are too, i am as well. But i am not going to commute by bicycle and i hardly ride to the grocery store on the weekends. My two biggest gripes are it takes too long to get somewhere by bike, i.e. work or drop kids off for school and its not safe to ride a bike. I had a crash where i had to swerve to miss a car and another instance where i was hit and my bike was destroyed (i was fine). These two things will keep me in a car most of the time until i am retired.
There are only so many ways to re-evaluate your priorities to eliminate the need to for a car. No everyone can live with in 1-2 miles of grocery stores and mass transitYes, but those times before the car (and more generally the industrial revolution and widespread use of electricity) were awful times to be alive. And re: communism, are you REALLY saying we should all live like the communists? Which was also quite awful especially for the common person, as per reports from many common people during those times.
Again, your suggestions are not workable.The problem with eBikes and electric scooters is they both depend on decent weather. Too hot or too cold and people will just use their cars, regardless of distance.
I'm not advocating that we should not change. Quite the opposite, I think change is desperately needed. My posts above are more aimed at the question of how do you drive change in a general population that is (at best) apathetic or (at worst) downright hostile to the idea?
The Biden AdministrationWhoever happens to be in office right now, regardless of political party or branch of government... is trying to figure out ways to make gasoline cheaper, so they can get reelected...
I do not see any scenario where we will abandon a significant part of the built environment in this country and reverse the flow to the suburbs (or I guess exurbs now). Not only would it be immensely expensive, it would be against the norms/expectations of most cultures in the US. In a representative democracy, the only way to cause that great a change is making city living cheaper, more pleasant and more convenient than it is. That is a big task and is unlikely to happen without a major shift in culture and living conditions necessitating it.
Probably better to focus on finding more ways to make batteries. That seems
much easier.
I do not see any scenario where we will abandon a significant part of the built environment in this country and reverse the flow to the suburbs (or I guess exurbs now). Not only would it be immensely expensive, it would be against the norms/expectations of most cultures in the US. In a representative democracy, the only way to cause that great a change is making city living cheaper, more pleasant and more convenient than it is. That is a big task and is unlikely to happen without a major shift in culture and living conditions necessitating it.
Probably better to focus on finding more ways to make batteries. That seems
much easier.
Agreed. We can make some current places more walkable over time. We can prioritize higher density with new construction. But we're not going to see massive change to existing infrastructure in many parts of the country. Not when high density housing tends to be expensive and lower density sprawl is cheap.
Agree with Abe that focusing on building batteries is a good thing. Better batteries can power bikes, scooters and skateboards, as well as Tesla M3s. Also agree with StashingAway that changing zoning rules is doable. Just in the past few years, Minneapolis has effectively outlawed single-family zoning in their city; Oregon and California have done basically the same for their entire states. So, change is not impossible. There's no reason we can't do two things at once: improve batteries, while also doing away with single-family zoning and off-street parking minimums. Tons of people would love to live in walkable cities if good quality housing they could afford was available. Let's make that happen.I do not see any scenario where we will abandon a significant part of the built environment in this country and reverse the flow to the suburbs (or I guess exurbs now). Not only would it be immensely expensive, it would be against the norms/expectations of most cultures in the US. In a representative democracy, the only way to cause that great a change is making city living cheaper, more pleasant and more convenient than it is. That is a big task and is unlikely to happen without a major shift in culture and living conditions necessitating it.
Probably better to focus on finding more ways to make batteries. That seems
much easier.
Agreed. We can make some current places more walkable over time. We can prioritize higher density with new construction. But we're not going to see massive change to existing infrastructure in many parts of the country. Not when high density housing tends to be expensive and lower density sprawl is cheap.
Urban sprawl is "cheaper" because other build methods are outright illegal due to zoning. Urban sprawl is subsidized by high density areas of cities. This is an interesting summary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
We can change this easily; change the zoning. Builders would absolutely build 4-plexes, small condos, etc if the could, but it's not allowed. The problem is that we have been convinced that the current North American lifestyle came about naturally and out of an appeal for convenience, when it was in fact guided by city planners and, without sounding too conspiratorial, the automotive industry. There was a time in history when people who could afford a car did not buy one.
Long term, -say in 50 or 100 years- which would have a better impact of spending our money on? Having nearly the same lifestyle, but with EVs rather than ICE's? Or changing our practice of consumption. It may sound ambitions to do the latter, but I think it's more realistic than we think. Change is hard to visualize before it happens, and seems inevitable afterwards. You can even see that here in this thread. EV's for the most part fulfill enough of the average driver's needs that it is easy to see them happening. 10 years ago not so much.
We can do this, it starts simply with changing the zoning. Americans would absolutely go for this; we just have to make it available.
Agree with Abe that focusing on building batteries is a good thing. Better batteries can power bikes, scooters and skateboards, as well as Tesla M3s. Also agree with StashingAway that changing zoning rules is doable. Just in the past few years, Minneapolis has effectively outlawed single-family zoning in their city; Oregon and California have done basically the same for their entire states. So, change is not impossible. There's no reason we can't do two things at once: improve batteries, while also doing away with single-family zoning and off-street parking minimums. Tons of people would love to live in walkable cities if good quality housing they could afford was available. Let's make that happen.
The statements I made are directed at people (average Americans) that are not already philosophically on board with making these changes. For the average person, change is resisted, even if it's for the better. And if they feel like something is being 'taken away', they will be even more resistant to change.
Agreed. We can make some current places more walkable over time. We can prioritize higher density with new construction. But we're not going to see massive change to existing infrastructure in many parts of the country. Not when high density housing tends to be expensive and lower density sprawl is cheap.
But we're not going to see massive change to existing infrastructure in many parts of the country. Not when high density housing tends to be expensive and lower density sprawl is cheap.
Urban sprawl is "cheaper" because other build methods are outright illegal due to zoning. Urban sprawl is subsidized by high density areas of cities. This is an interesting summary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
Agree that reducing demand for cars is superior to just switching our car dependent lifestyles from ICE vehicles to EVs, because, as you point out, car dependence causes many more problems than just pollution and CO2 emissions. Also, in trying to get people to consider switching some of their trips from cars to other means of transportation, I agree that we need to make the messaging positive if we're going to have any hope of succeeding. If we can make it more convenient, cheaper, and more enjoyable to take public transport, walk, or ride a bike, many will choose those other options.Agree with Abe that focusing on building batteries is a good thing. Better batteries can power bikes, scooters and skateboards, as well as Tesla M3s. Also agree with StashingAway that changing zoning rules is doable. Just in the past few years, Minneapolis has effectively outlawed single-family zoning in their city; Oregon and California have done basically the same for their entire states. So, change is not impossible. There's no reason we can't do two things at once: improve batteries, while also doing away with single-family zoning and off-street parking minimums. Tons of people would love to live in walkable cities if good quality housing they could afford was available. Let's make that happen.
I think, for me, I am only pushing so hard because I don't see them as solving equal issues. That's not to say that we don't need both or that I'm not excited about battery improvements; batteries are critical for transportation and grid transition from fossil fuels.
I think, in this particular case, I see this as one solving a symptom and one solving the cause. Batteries solve the symptom. Poorly designed infrastructure and built environment is the cause. In a metaphor: Insulin solves the symptoms of Type II diabetes. It is absolutely important to keep people from dying, and in theory could work indefinitely without changing anything else. But solving the cause of Type II in the first place is cheaper, reduces hundreds of other lifestyle externalities, and is better for our collective psyche.
If we could snap our fingers and change half the world to EVs, we would only be solving a couple of symptoms (air quality and CO2). Particularly the latter is crazy important, but we wouldn't be solving most of the other issues with cars and adding a few significant ones to the mix. If we were to reduce the car demand by half, we would not only reduce air quality and CO2 issues by a larger margin than the EV switch, we would also reduce countless other issues that cars cause. Suburbs are expensive to build and rebuild- it is more expensive in the long run to keep them than it is to switch. It sounds expensive to change cities, but we can start with *really* cheap things, like making building convenience stores in neighborhoods legal. And making SFH only zones illegal.
People are hung up on Americans not wanting to get rid of their cars and I call balogna. We were an American culture before the automobile, and we can be that again. There are hundreds of gorgeous historical cities and towns who's roots are founded on central markets and community. Americans love convenience, just gotta make it more convenient to walk than drive.
Can all this reinvention happen naturally or will it require new development?
The Villages in FLA, for example, has accomplished part of the formula allowing people to use alternative transportation (golf carts) or bicycles (though, how many seniors bicycle in FLA heat?). It is still suburb like in most other ways.
Seems like those who profit the most from the status quo might resist change in creative ways.
Personally I think there is appetite for high density SFH. I happily live on a a 50’x125’ suburban/city lot.
However, I have zero interest in multi-family properties. I bet most suburban dwellers would agree with me. Trying to force people I to multi family units is where you’ll meet maximum resistance.
There's really no need to force anyone to do anything. Just take away the subsidies for the suburbs, and the free market will push people towards denser housing choices.
Personally I think there is appetite for high density SFH. I happily live on a a 50’x125’ suburban/city lot.
However, I have zero interest in multi-family properties. I bet most suburban dwellers would agree with me. Trying to force people I to multi family units is where you’ll meet maximum resistance.
The problem is that you really want to get to an average of 20 units per acre (2,178sq/ft lot) for transit efficacy. I happen to currently live on a 2,600 sq ft lot, but I used to live on even less (in a town house). Do Americans really hate townhouses? Because I loved mine. Of course that's only an average, some people can live on larger lots if some people live in condos.
With human population on this planet, there's a small contradiction. If we want the population to keep growing (or rather, simply not forcibly prevent overpopulation), then we need to increase population density, put us all in as small a box we can, and entertain us with glowing screens.
Sorry - for me, I want the planet to live and thrive, but I want to be as close to "the planet" as possible. Not as close to "the humans" as possible. Yes, I'm part of the problem. We have an acre, and I walk out on my deck the size of many small apartments (950 sq. ft.) and I watch the deer work their way across the hill on the other side of the valley, or watch the fox trot through our meadow, pausing to take in the enormity of my dog. I sip my beer, and this is living. If you're going to move me into the city, take me away from nature, and put me within earshot of the neighbors arguing over their Netflix pics... well, I guess take me behind the barn and shoot me.
I agree with you that we should be moving towards a more european style non-stroad approach to our infrastructure.
Re: electric cars, why can't it be both? Why can't we move to mixed use neighborhoods AND convert all our cars to EV's at the same time?
Make me king, and I'd set up a federal definition for small lightweight neighborhood electric vehicles (25-30 mph max), max unloaded weight 500lbs, 30 mile max range and subsidize them fairly heavily. It would discourage stroads and sprawl while converting a large portion of everyday transportation to electric.
So I’d have to buy one of those in addition to a regular car to take on the highway? Pass.
Yep, that's exactly what I said!
With human population on this planet, there's a small contradiction. If we want the population to keep growing (or rather, simply not forcibly prevent overpopulation), then we need to increase population density, put us all in as small a box we can, and entertain us with glowing screens.
Sorry - for me, I want the planet to live and thrive, but I want to be as close to "the planet" as possible. Not as close to "the humans" as possible. Yes, I'm part of the problem. We have an acre, and I walk out on my deck the size of many small apartments (950 sq. ft.) and I watch the deer work their way across the hill on the other side of the valley, or watch the fox trot through our meadow, pausing to take in the enormity of my dog. I sip my beer, and this is living. If you're going to move me into the city, take me away from nature, and put me within earshot of the neighbors arguing over their Netflix pics... well, I guess take me behind the barn and shoot me.
I agree with you that we should be moving towards a more european style non-stroad approach to our infrastructure.
Re: electric cars, why can't it be both? Why can't we move to mixed use neighborhoods AND convert all our cars to EV's at the same time?
Make me king, and I'd set up a federal definition for small lightweight neighborhood electric vehicles (25-30 mph max), max unloaded weight 500lbs, 30 mile max range and subsidize them fairly heavily. It would discourage stroads and sprawl while converting a large portion of everyday transportation to electric.
So I’d have to buy one of those in addition to a regular car to take on the highway? Pass.
Yep, that's exactly what I said!
It sounds like you're dismissing the idea of a person owning two cars, one for short-range, and one for long-range. I agree that may sound weird.
But the idea of a two-person household owning such a fleet of cars (or a parent and a teenage driver)? That sounds worthy of consideration.
It and most of the other townhome developments in the area are some of the least expensive places to live that give you a garage and any semblance of outdoor space. If you search our area on Zillow for 2+ Bed 2+ Bath homes, it's our and its sister developments that come up under "least expensive". It's also full of renters, who are not apt to keep up the property. While there are some very nice people there, and plenty of folks do well to maintain their properties, you have a weird mix of unkempt properties on the brink of dilapidation next to well maintained little yards and gardens. Some folks in the neighborhood have zero respect for others' privacy and will let their family issues linger in the air for all to hear.
...
I guess I just don't know how you would sell the idea that a dense community is better for people, without completely outlawing single family construction. So many people we know in the area feel the same way about the townhouses and condos, and even if that same sentiment is prevalent in 20% of the similar areas in the country, that's still tens of millions of people who would prefer the comfort, privacy, and safety of a suburban SFH neighborhood.
It and most of the other townhome developments in the area are some of the least expensive places to live that give you a garage and any semblance of outdoor space. If you search our area on Zillow for 2+ Bed 2+ Bath homes, it's our and its sister developments that come up under "least expensive". It's also full of renters, who are not apt to keep up the property. While there are some very nice people there, and plenty of folks do well to maintain their properties, you have a weird mix of unkempt properties on the brink of dilapidation next to well maintained little yards and gardens. Some folks in the neighborhood have zero respect for others' privacy and will let their family issues linger in the air for all to hear.
...
I guess I just don't know how you would sell the idea that a dense community is better for people, without completely outlawing single family construction. So many people we know in the area feel the same way about the townhouses and condos, and even if that same sentiment is prevalent in 20% of the similar areas in the country, that's still tens of millions of people who would prefer the comfort, privacy, and safety of a suburban SFH neighborhood.
I going to harp on US zoning a bit more. Why should the townhouses be packed together in a "development?" Why can't a single city block have more than one type of housing (this used to be completely normal pre-WWII and is still normal in most of the world)? Because it's illegal and you need scale to fight the zoning board. As to why you should want dense community, because I like living in townhouses and more units means more property tax dollars which means cheaper property taxes for everyone.
Also, what safety? The #1 killer of children aged 1-19 in this country is cars. Children are more likely to be killed by car dependent sprawl than any other cause, and that stat doesn't even include the obesity epidemic brought on by driving everywhere and never leaving the house.
To the 'safety' perspective, I'm looking at it in terms of how much yard space is afforded to kids with families and pets. If I had to guess, i'd say at least half of the townhouses in our area have no backyards or backyards that are downright unsafe for little kids.As you can see on videos from - guess whom lol - it's totally normal and safe in the Netherlands to have "micro playgrounds" in the middle of cities, right besides streets, without a fance.
QuoteTo the 'safety' perspective, I'm looking at it in terms of how much yard space is afforded to kids with families and pets. If I had to guess, i'd say at least half of the townhouses in our area have no backyards or backyards that are downright unsafe for little kids.As you can see on videos from - guess whom lol - it's totally normal and safe in the Netherlands to have "micro playgrounds" in the middle of cities, right besides streets, without a fance.
If you put up townhouses instead of SFH, then you can easily have a lot of greenspace and still higher density. The only "drawback" is that it would be "communistic", aka your children would not play alone.
QuoteTo the 'safety' perspective, I'm looking at it in terms of how much yard space is afforded to kids with families and pets. If I had to guess, i'd say at least half of the townhouses in our area have no backyards or backyards that are downright unsafe for little kids.As you can see on videos from - guess whom lol - it's totally normal and safe in the Netherlands to have "micro playgrounds" in the middle of cities, right besides streets, without a fance.
If you put up townhouses instead of SFH, then you can easily have a lot of greenspace and still higher density. The only "drawback" is that it would be "communistic", aka your children would not play alone.
No the main drawback is people don’t want to share walls with their neighbors. Also, in the US, it is uncommon to have townhomes without some sort of homeowners association (HOA) which is known for creating many rules and regulations which are often arbitrary and unnecessary. Lots of people don’t want to live in that type of situation.
No the main drawback is people don’t want to share walls with their neighbors. Also, in the US, it is uncommon to have townhomes without some sort of homeowners association (HOA) which is known for creating many rules and regulations which are often arbitrary and unnecessary. Lots of people don’t want to live in that type of situation.
AFAIK it is uncommon to have a new suburban development without an HOA. At least with a townhouse the HOA actually does something of value (usually roofing and siding).
QuoteTo the 'safety' perspective, I'm looking at it in terms of how much yard space is afforded to kids with families and pets. If I had to guess, i'd say at least half of the townhouses in our area have no backyards or backyards that are downright unsafe for little kids.As you can see on videos from - guess whom lol - it's totally normal and safe in the Netherlands to have "micro playgrounds" in the middle of cities, right besides streets, without a fance.
If you put up townhouses instead of SFH, then you can easily have a lot of greenspace and still higher density. The only "drawback" is that it would be "communistic", aka your children would not play alone.
Granted this is unusual, and we live near downtown, but point being that the neighborhood doesn't have townhouses but still achieves high density without sharing walls. Also there are three grocery stores, many restaurants, a pharmacy, school, gun range (all the daily needs) within a mile radius.
No the main drawback is people don’t want to share walls with their neighbors. Also, in the US, it is uncommon to have townhomes without some sort of homeowners association (HOA) which is known for creating many rules and regulations which are often arbitrary and unnecessary. Lots of people don’t want to live in that type of situation.
Sorry - for me, I want the planet to live and thrive, but I want to be as close to "the planet" as possible. Not as close to "the humans" as possible. Yes, I'm part of the problem. We have an acre, and I walk out on my deck the size of many small apartments (950 sq. ft.) and I watch the deer work their way across the hill on the other side of the valley, or watch the fox trot through our meadow, pausing to take in the enormity of my dog. I sip my beer, and this is living. If you're going to move me into the city, take me away from nature, and put me within earshot of the neighbors arguing over their Netflix pics... well, I guess take me behind the barn and shoot me.
It’s geographically specific. In the south, you’re correct. Here in the older parts of IL, or in New England, it’s relatively uncommon to have an HOA. Here in IL closer to the city we don’t have “new developments”, most of the new construction is in existing neighborhoods. A HOA for anything but condos/townhomes is unusual here.
Finally, I want to comment a bit on this:
Sorry - for me, I want the planet to live and thrive, but I want to be as close to "the planet" as possible. Not as close to "the humans" as possible. Yes, I'm part of the problem. We have an acre, and I walk out on my deck the size of many small apartments (950 sq. ft.) and I watch the deer work their way across the hill on the other side of the valley, or watch the fox trot through our meadow, pausing to take in the enormity of my dog. I sip my beer, and this is living. If you're going to move me into the city, take me away from nature, and put me within earshot of the neighbors arguing over their Netflix pics... well, I guess take me behind the barn and shoot me.
This isn't a relaxing and freeing life; you are trapped by your addictions. It is much easier to be flexible and adaptable than "need" a certain lifestyle to make you happy. That's a problem that is entirely addressable on a personal level and it is incredibly rewarding to be able to find satisfaction and peace in all walks of life.
Finally, I want to comment a bit on this:
Sorry - for me, I want the planet to live and thrive, but I want to be as close to "the planet" as possible. Not as close to "the humans" as possible. Yes, I'm part of the problem. We have an acre, and I walk out on my deck the size of many small apartments (950 sq. ft.) and I watch the deer work their way across the hill on the other side of the valley, or watch the fox trot through our meadow, pausing to take in the enormity of my dog. I sip my beer, and this is living. If you're going to move me into the city, take me away from nature, and put me within earshot of the neighbors arguing over their Netflix pics... well, I guess take me behind the barn and shoot me.
This isn't a relaxing and freeing life; you are trapped by your addictions. It is much easier to be flexible and adaptable than "need" a certain lifestyle to make you happy. That's a problem that is entirely addressable on a personal level and it is incredibly rewarding to be able to find satisfaction and peace in all walks of life.
Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?You're free to make any comments you like on 'the main topic of this thread.' No one is stopping you.
Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?
Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?
I fail to see how they are not intimately related. "Can electric cars become popular in the US" is a question about meeting transportation needs which is inherently tied to where you live, what you need to get to, and what your other options are.
Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?
I fail to see how they are not intimately related. "Can electric cars become popular in the US" is a question about meeting transportation needs which is inherently tied to where you live, what you need to get to, and what your other options are.
Two things:
First, people who have joined this thread are primarily interested in the adoption of EVs in the US. To dilute the thread with other topics means getting notifications and having to wade through comments that don't discuss the primary interest.
Two, the discussion of alternate solutions to solving climate change may be related but it is not the same topic, and it does not answer the question at hand.
Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?
I fail to see how they are not intimately related. "Can electric cars become popular in the US" is a question about meeting transportation needs which is inherently tied to where you live, what you need to get to, and what your other options are.
Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?You're free to make any comments you like on 'the main topic of this thread.' No one is stopping you.
Finally, I want to comment a bit on this:
Sorry - for me, I want the planet to live and thrive, but I want to be as close to "the planet" as possible. Not as close to "the humans" as possible. Yes, I'm part of the problem. We have an acre, and I walk out on my deck the size of many small apartments (950 sq. ft.) and I watch the deer work their way across the hill on the other side of the valley, or watch the fox trot through our meadow, pausing to take in the enormity of my dog. I sip my beer, and this is living. If you're going to move me into the city, take me away from nature, and put me within earshot of the neighbors arguing over their Netflix pics... well, I guess take me behind the barn and shoot me.
This isn't a relaxing and freeing life; you are trapped by your addictions. It is much easier to be flexible and adaptable than "need" a certain lifestyle to make you happy. That's a problem that is entirely addressable on a personal level and it is incredibly rewarding to be able to find satisfaction and peace in all walks of life.
Or maybe...people just like different things. Humans aren't all wired the same. And there are a vast number of humans in the US that choose to live in a vast number of different locations/geographies with different density, climate, building codes, costs, etc. If there truly is lots of demand for things like zoning changes, and additional dense housing there exist legal ways to make that happen. They just need adequate support from a large enough portion of the populace in a given location. It could be that there are financial or political reasons why what you suggest isn't more widespread. It's also at least possible that your suggestions don't have as much support as you might think.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that we should reconsider our infrastructure needs, especially for new development. I don't think it's fine to suggest that what you want, should be what everybody wants, or that what works really well in one place would be just as great in another location. We all have different priorities based on our own unique outlook and situations. Our differences make us stronger. It's ok for people to like and prefer different things.
Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?
I like living on the moon but I don't get to have it.
I can see how zoning can impact car use. But it has nothing at all to do with what's powering those cars (EV vs ICE). This thread is more about what's powering cars than how much cars should be emphasized by a society in the first place.
But I really don't want my government to push too hard on making everyone live in high density areas. I mean, yes, zone it for new projects, let local governments discuss these things and decide on it, and if we're realistic, something bigger than local government is needed for things to affect climate change or societal norms.
No, its not. It's about the question if Electric cars will become popular in the US.Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?You're free to make any comments you like on 'the main topic of this thread.' No one is stopping you.
Sure. And no one is stopping you from starting a more focused discussion about going car less, or the details of zoning somewhere else. This thread is about switching methods of propulsion in cars and trucks. I can see making a quick point about how it would be more beneficial to de-emphasize cars in society, but lengthy discussion about zoning policy changes really don't apply to what's powering the vehicles that so many people use.
Me either. I just want them to get out of the way and let me build whatever I want like Adam Smith would have wanted.Let me guess: You never actually read his books?
QuoteMe either. I just want them to get out of the way and let me build whatever I want like Adam Smith would have wanted.Let me guess: You never actually read his books?
In fact this last point might be relevant to EVs after all - we are seeing cases of regulations attempting to push the U.S. forward a wee bit faster toward adopting EVs,
Along the lines of the free market, can we get rid of CAFE in this country? Slate: Are Gas Prices Too High? Or Is Your Car Too Big? (https://slate.com/business/2022/03/high-gas-prices-biden-russia-ukraine-cafe-standards-obama.html)
Seriously, I know that I'm a weird kind of liberal in the USA but can we just tax the negative externalities of ICE and then remove the EV subsidies and let the market sort it out? You want EVs? Great, just ratchet up the ICE taxes until the EV is cheaper.
A carbon tax with dividend sounds great to me. Then, just let the market sort things out.Along the lines of the free market, can we get rid of CAFE in this country? Slate: Are Gas Prices Too High? Or Is Your Car Too Big? (https://slate.com/business/2022/03/high-gas-prices-biden-russia-ukraine-cafe-standards-obama.html)
Seriously, I know that I'm a weird kind of liberal in the USA but can we just tax the negative externalities of ICE and then remove the EV subsidies and let the market sort it out? You want EVs? Great, just ratchet up the ICE taxes until the EV is cheaper.
Get rid of Cafe and green incentive programs (green new deal- bleah!) and just do a carbon tax ladder (with dividend). This is how a significant portion of the world's economists have placed their reputations on effectively reducing our carbon footprint.
Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?You're free to make any comments you like on 'the main topic of this thread.' No one is stopping you.
Sure. And no one is stopping you from starting a more focused discussion about going car less, or the details of zoning somewhere else. This thread is about switching methods of propulsion in cars and trucks. I can see making a quick point about how it would be more beneficial to de-emphasize cars in society, but lengthy discussion about zoning policy changes really don't apply to what's powering the vehicles that so many people use.
Is there any chance we can get back to the main topic of this thread, and move the zoning/population density/cost of living discussion to it's own thread?You're free to make any comments you like on 'the main topic of this thread.' No one is stopping you.
Sure. And no one is stopping you from starting a more focused discussion about going car less, or the details of zoning somewhere else. This thread is about switching methods of propulsion in cars and trucks. I can see making a quick point about how it would be more beneficial to de-emphasize cars in society, but lengthy discussion about zoning policy changes really don't apply to what's powering the vehicles that so many people use.
Why not just start posting the kinds of comments you want to see? I really don't get the urge to police other people's comments. If you were posting interesting things about whatever you believe is the 'main topic' of this thread, then the rest of us could respond to your comments, and maybe the conversation would go in a different direction you might be more happy with.
What seems relevant to OP's question, to me, is the bigger picture. Not just, "Can EVs become popular in the US?" But, should we just copy and paste from ICE to EVs, or should we take this opportunity to make some changes? As Mustachians, who are presumably all here because we are either already FIRE or striving to reach FIRE, we have the luxury of being able to freely choose where and how we live. I'm really grateful to be able to make those choices, without having to worry about a job.
It wasn't just by chance that my family and I ended up living in our current location. Out of all of the places in the world we could've settled, we chose this small, LCOL city, where we've been since 2019, partly because it seemed like, maybe, we wouldn't have to use our car very much. After two and a half years of our shiny, new car mostly just sitting parked on the street in front of our house, we finally pulled the plug and sold it to CarMax in early December, 2021. Friends all told us we were crazy. "You can't sell your car. It's winter!" So far, we're fine, though. We're healthy, so able to walk and bike most places we need/want to go. For longer trips, or if the weather is bad, we regularly use Uber/Lyft. Also hoping the developer building a new 150 unit apartment building a couple of blocks from our house follows through on his promise to negotiate a Zipcar node in their parking lot.
The question all Mustachians should be asking ourselves isn't just, "Should we get an M3 or an ID4?" The bigger question ought to be, "Can we live a good life with just one car and an e-bike, instead of two cars, or could we, maybe, not own a car, at all?"
Just my 2 cents.
Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.
Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.
Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.
The Chinese government has mandated that, by 2030, 40% of vehicles sold in China be EVs. In 2017, visiting cities in southern China, it seemed to us like almost all vehicles were already EVs. Several European countries have pledged to only allow sales of EVs by 2025-2030. Individual European countries have been banning short-haul plane flights for several years, and the EU is considering doing the same, region wide, on routes where less-polluting train travel is a viable option. In the US, politicians have been scrambling to outdo each other at proposing tax cuts and other ways to try to make gasoline cheaper, so that Americans can burn MORE of it, so they can get reelected. While rich Americans sit around discussing important questions like, Gee, "Can EVs finally become popular in the US?"
You want to make this out to be all just a matter of choice, like, you prefer vanilla and I like chocolate. I totally disagree. When future generations look back at this time in history, they're going to be, rightfully, harsh on Americans' gluttonous lifestyles and failure to treat the current ecological crisis as a hair on fire emergency. I'm totally cool with each of us pursuing his own version of happiness, as long as there's a level playing field. Let's take away all the subsidies for suburbia and enact a carbon tax with a dividend, so that rugged American individualists who want to live in the suburbs or on acreages in the countryside and drive everywhere in big, fat, gas guzzling 4WD SUVs and trucks, can pay more of the costs of their lifestyle choices. Then, those of us who are actively trying to minimize our energy and materials usage and their effects on the planet can sit back and collect a check from the energy hogs, every month. Sounds like a plan to me.
Oh, and I looked at both of the links you posted a couple of days ago. Sorry, didn't have anything constructive to add, so I didn't comment. That doesn't mean I didn't read them. Please keep posting things about EVs that you find interesting. I'll be happy to take a look at them. It's funny. You say you're all about each of us being free to live his own life, maximizing individual happiness. Recently, several of us have been enjoying discussing the question in the OP from a different perspective but, apparently, that's a bridge too far.
Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.
With all due respect, that's just not a healthy way to look at the problem. The neat thing about our society, for better or worse, is that you can support and even advocate for one thing while not necessarily being representative of the thing that you're advocating for.
I know it sounds hypocritical, but the fact of the matter is that with an ever growing population, it's neither wise nor reasonable to continue to advocate for the status quo (at least, in terms of this topic, in spirit). You can live where you live and drive how you drive while also recognizing that the way things are, today, does not lead to better future results.
Like you, I'm not in any position to replicate the lifestyle @Shane leads. I still have to drive to work daily and even if that weren't the case, we frequently travel hundreds of miles to see family. But just because I can't ditch my car or even replace even one of my vehicles with an EV today doesn't mean that I can't be an advocate for EV's in general, much less for pushing future growth in the country/world towards more sustainable infrastructure that would eliminate the heavy reliance we have on cars in general.
Our country has a massive housing deficit. Existing infrastructure - rural, suburban, and urban - isn't going anywhere, at least on a general basis. I don't think Shane or PDX or anyone else here is advocating for the demolition of suburbia as it currently exists - that would be wildly counterproductive. But trying to steer future development toward more density, urbanization, walkability, and frankly just places that are better for humans to live is something that anyone can get behind.
Or to look at it from another perspective, even if you wouldn't actively advocate for it, would you (the royal 'you') see yourself going to the local zoning board and demanding that SFH-only zoning be the only path forward? I think not. You'd find yourself on the wrong side of the argument pretty quickly.
But the thesis that advocating for better, tighter, more efficient infrastructure has nothing to do with EV adoption is just plain wrong. This topic has been full of discussions about batteries and F150 lightning, and Tesla, and Rivian, and all the other niche enthusiast discussion about EV's but the actual question - "can they become popular" is frequently overlooked. (Okay, it's not, because these circular discussion keep cropping up).
Tighter, more walkable infrastructure that's designed with EV's in mind is exactly the thing that's needed for EV's to become popular. That, and functional regional or (lofty as it may be) national rapid public transportation. Parse out all the reasons people in this thread, on this forum, and in the general public don't buy and EV and I'd contend that the single biggest hurdle is range anxiety.
Why? Because like me, many Americans drive over 60 miles a day in wildly variable weather with no guarantee that there will be a way to refill their battery. Suburbia and rural fetishization* has made it necessary for people to feel as though they NEED 300, 400, or even 500 miles of range. And that will remain true for the next 20 years. But the elephant in the room, brought up time and again, is the battery issue. EV popularity will forever be tied to battery technology more than any other aspect of the vehicle. In the not too distant future, if the majority of people who need a car have everything they do accessible within 20 miles, then future EV's wouldn't all need to have 400 miles of range. 100 would be just fine for plenty of people, especially because that not too distant future ideally would have such a robust charging infrastructure that refueling "stations" wouldn't even be necessary.
Of course this is all handwaving and who knows if any of it will come to pass. But Shane, PDX, and others aren't trying to coerce everyone into living the same lifestyle - the argument is that when we think about the future of infrastructure and transportation, what we have now is just not sustainable at all. Future development needs to occur in such a way that there are fewer, smaller, vehicles on the road, better public transportation, and more priority given to thoughtful urban planning that doesn't turn acres and acres of space into desolate parking lot warehouse wastelands.
*I like rural living, I have no beef with it, and I wish I could make it work for my family. But there's a significant population of people who are wasting millions of dollars of public money by demanding that their rural wet dreams can be subsidized by the rest of their communities. I am not accusing you or anyone in this thread of that. I am merely thinking of people in my own life who advocate so strongly for public utilities in very rural communities.
Not millions.
Billions.
Suburbs get subventionized by dense spaces by billions each year.
Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.
With all due respect, that's just not a healthy way to look at the problem. The neat thing about our society, for better or worse, is that you can support and even advocate for one thing while not necessarily being representative of the thing that you're advocating for.
I know it sounds hypocritical, but the fact of the matter is that with an ever growing population, it's neither wise nor reasonable to continue to advocate for the status quo (at least, in terms of this topic, in spirit). You can live where you live and drive how you drive while also recognizing that the way things are, today, does not lead to better future results.
Like you, I'm not in any position to replicate the lifestyle @Shane leads. I still have to drive to work daily and even if that weren't the case, we frequently travel hundreds of miles to see family. But just because I can't ditch my car or even replace even one of my vehicles with an EV today doesn't mean that I can't be an advocate for EV's in general, much less for pushing future growth in the country/world towards more sustainable infrastructure that would eliminate the heavy reliance we have on cars in general.
Our country has a massive housing deficit. Existing infrastructure - rural, suburban, and urban - isn't going anywhere, at least on a general basis. I don't think Shane or PDX or anyone else here is advocating for the demolition of suburbia as it currently exists - that would be wildly counterproductive. But trying to steer future development toward more density, urbanization, walkability, and frankly just places that are better for humans to live is something that anyone can get behind.
Or to look at it from another perspective, even if you wouldn't actively advocate for it, would you (the royal 'you') see yourself going to the local zoning board and demanding that SFH-only zoning be the only path forward? I think not. You'd find yourself on the wrong side of the argument pretty quickly.
But the thesis that advocating for better, tighter, more efficient infrastructure has nothing to do with EV adoption is just plain wrong. This topic has been full of discussions about batteries and F150 lightning, and Tesla, and Rivian, and all the other niche enthusiast discussion about EV's but the actual question - "can they become popular" is frequently overlooked. (Okay, it's not, because these circular discussion keep cropping up).
Tighter, more walkable infrastructure that's designed with EV's in mind is exactly the thing that's needed for EV's to become popular. That, and functional regional or (lofty as it may be) national rapid public transportation. Parse out all the reasons people in this thread, on this forum, and in the general public don't buy and EV and I'd contend that the single biggest hurdle is range anxiety.
Why? Because like me, many Americans drive over 60 miles a day in wildly variable weather with no guarantee that there will be a way to refill their battery. Suburbia and rural fetishization* has made it necessary for people to feel as though they NEED 300, 400, or even 500 miles of range. And that will remain true for the next 20 years. But the elephant in the room, brought up time and again, is the battery issue. EV popularity will forever be tied to battery technology more than any other aspect of the vehicle. In the not too distant future, if the majority of people who need a car have everything they do accessible within 20 miles, then future EV's wouldn't all need to have 400 miles of range. 100 would be just fine for plenty of people, especially because that not too distant future ideally would have such a robust charging infrastructure that refueling "stations" wouldn't even be necessary.
Of course this is all handwaving and who knows if any of it will come to pass. But Shane, PDX, and others aren't trying to coerce everyone into living the same lifestyle - the argument is that when we think about the future of infrastructure and transportation, what we have now is just not sustainable at all. Future development needs to occur in such a way that there are fewer, smaller, vehicles on the road, better public transportation, and more priority given to thoughtful urban planning that doesn't turn acres and acres of space into desolate parking lot warehouse wastelands.
*I like rural living, I have no beef with it, and I wish I could make it work for my family. But there's a significant population of people who are wasting millions of dollars of public money by demanding that their rural wet dreams can be subsidized by the rest of their communities. I am not accusing you or anyone in this thread of that. I am merely thinking of people in my own life who advocate so strongly for public utilities in very rural communities.
I've stated multiple times that I'm very supportive of alternative energy sources, EVs, and more thoughtful planning. If there's public demand for more dense living in a location, then I hope that can be achieved.
Shane chose to live a car free lifestyle because he prefers it over alternatives, and feels that it reduces his footprint. But unless I'm mistaken, he also posts in other threads about somewhat frequent intercontinental trips with his family.
I live in an older SFH in a rural area that's car dependent, but I drive a PHEV (mostly electric miles), limit my trips, don't take heavily polluting flights, and a relatively large percentage of my food comes from within 15 miles of my house. That's a better fit for me.
We can't live in a first world society without consuming. So with that as given, Shane and I have both taken steps to reduce our consumption and/or try to offset our consumption, while still living our preferred lifestyle. I honestly would be fascinated to know how our footprints compare over time.
EDITed to add - The right in the USA is all about "freedom" until you talk about letting me build a five over one or eliminating minimum parking requirements, then they become all Gosplan and want a centrally managed car economy.
I've stated multiple times that I'm very supportive of alternative energy sources, EVs, and more thoughtful planning. If there's public demand for more dense living in a location, then I hope that can be achieved.
Shane chose to live a car free lifestyle because he prefers it over alternatives, and feels that it reduces his footprint. But unless I'm mistaken, he also posts in other threads about somewhat frequent intercontinental trips with his family.
I live in an older SFH in a rural area that's car dependent, but I drive a PHEV (mostly electric miles), limit my trips, don't take heavily polluting flights, and a relatively large percentage of my food comes from within 15 miles of my house. That's a better fit for me.
We can't live in a first world society without consuming. So with that as given, Shane and I have both taken steps to reduce our consumption and/or try to offset our consumption, while still living our preferred lifestyle. I honestly would be fascinated to know how our footprints compare over time.
I'd also be interested to know how rural vs urban footprints compare when everything is taken into account.
I visit my dad's farm in a very rural area it's always something that I wonder about.
There are certain undeniably higher costs - road building per capita is astronomically more expensive in rural areas than in the city. Same with maintenance (like clearing roads of snow in the winter). Building and maintaining electrical transmission lines is much more costly. Same with telephone/internet lines - which is probably why his internet service sucks. Providing health care, police, and fire services in a small rural community is much less efficient than in a larger city (need more people and equipment to cover fewer people). Sheer distance to go anywhere or get anything is a problem - there's nothing at all within an hour's walk of Dad's farm . . . and that means you need gas to see a movie, go to the grocery store, go to the farmer's market, get to a restaurant, visit the library, buy tools at the hardware store, etc. There is no public transit to speak of.
That said, my dad grows a decent amount of the food he eats each year. He is also able to locally buy a lot of food, which must reduce transportation costs.
I'm unclear if the costs (parts, machinery, chemicals, electricity) associated with running his own well are higher than using city water or not. That's a battle between economies of scale (advantage city water) and cost of transport (advantage local well).
To me, it seems like the environmental costs of rural living would have to be much higher per capita than city life, but haven't seen any really clear cut data to prove it.
I'm unclear if the costs (parts, machinery, chemicals, electricity) associated with running his own well are higher than using city water or not. That's a battle between economies of scale (advantage city water) and cost of transport (advantage local well).
EDITed to add - The right in the USA is all about "freedom" until you talk about letting me build a five over one or eliminating minimum parking requirements, then they become all Gosplan and want a centrally managed car economy.
I felt the same way about cars in general after my time in Europe. When I left the USA on the roads were those awful 1980s cars with huge engines, poor MPG and low power. In Europe they had cars with half the engine, plenty of power, twice the fuel economy and better design. Ford Fairmont vs Chevy Citation vs all those interesting European cars...
I could license and drive anything since the beginning of American automotive history but I couldn't import a VW Polo or a Renaulti Clio 16V... Because safety or pollution standards. But an aircooled VW Beetle was okay. I could license and ride a motorcycle, even custom motorcycle - in the USA but not an Opel.
To me, it seems like the environmental costs of rural living would have to be much higher per capita than city life, but haven't seen any really clear cut data to prove it.
To me, it seems like the environmental costs of rural living would have to be much higher per capita than city life, but haven't seen any really clear cut data to prove it.
I think the main thing to consider is whether it's economically productive or not. An actual farm or ranch that is producing food vs a hobby farm or exurb. In fact that's a significant complaint about suburbs. They often pave and develop over land that was previously used for productive agriculture.
Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.
The Chinese government has mandated that, by 2030, 40% of vehicles sold in China be EVs. In 2017, visiting cities in southern China, it seemed to us like almost all vehicles were already EVs. Several European countries have pledged to only allow sales of EVs by 2025-2030. Individual European countries have been banning short-haul plane flights for several years, and the EU is considering doing the same, region wide, on routes where less-polluting train travel is a viable option. In the US, politicians have been scrambling to outdo each other at proposing tax cuts and other ways to try to make gasoline cheaper, so that Americans can burn MORE of it, so they can get reelected. While rich Americans sit around discussing important questions like, Gee, "Can EVs finally become popular in the US?"
You want to make this out to be all just a matter of choice, like, you prefer vanilla and I like chocolate. I totally disagree. When future generations look back at this time in history, they're going to be, rightfully, harsh on Americans' gluttonous lifestyles and failure to treat the current ecological crisis as a hair on fire emergency. I'm totally cool with each of us pursuing his own version of happiness, as long as there's a level playing field. Let's take away all the subsidies for suburbia and enact a carbon tax with a dividend, so that rugged American individualists who want to live in the suburbs or on acreages in the countryside and drive everywhere in big, fat, gas guzzling 4WD SUVs and trucks, can pay more of the costs of their lifestyle choices. Then, those of us who are actively trying to minimize our energy and materials usage and their effects on the planet can sit back and collect a check from the energy hogs, every month. Sounds like a plan to me.
Oh, and I looked at both of the links you posted a couple of days ago. Sorry, didn't have anything constructive to add, so I didn't comment. That doesn't mean I didn't read them. Please keep posting things about EVs that you find interesting. I'll be happy to take a look at them. It's funny. You say you're all about each of us being free to live his own life, maximizing individual happiness. Recently, several of us have been enjoying discussing the question in the OP from a different perspective but, apparently, that's a bridge too far.
The Chinese government, and many others care very little about climate change. They have other motivations for heavily supporting EVs. They're currently dependent on fossil fuels from other countries for their energy. This is a big point in the current Russia/Ukraine situation. If China and the EU were fully energy independent, that situation might be playing out much differently. The US has the capacity to be energy independent if they wanted to (and I'd strongly encourage it). That gives them political leverage that other nations lack, so other nations are racing to try and relevel the geopolitical playing field.
In China, all EVs are centrally monitored by the government as well. They can even shut them down remotely per government officials. So in addition to helping them achieve energy independence and gain politically, it also allows their government an easy way to track and control the movement of their citizens. They don't give a shit about climate change, it's about control:
https://futurism.com/tesla-china-ev-track-citizens
https://www.engadget.com/2018-11-29-china-tracks-ev-data-drivers-locations.html
https://qz.com/1522309/how-chinas-electric-car-surveillance-system-works/
I'm very supportive of green energy efforts, EVs, etc. I want to see things like solar, wind, and hydro used wisely in places where they make sense. Same goes for the proposed zoning changes, etc. Where they make sense and are wanted by the public, then have at it. I'd love to see more widespread adoption of green energy. I'd love to see people consuming less. I'd love to see fossil fuel subsidies taken away. I'm fully supportive of more thoughtful infrastructure design and planning. I'm not saying that pointing out the advantages of reducing car dependency is a bad thing, or a bridge too far. I just think that it's become a dominant, off topic part of this thread over the last few days that might be better off as a stand alone topic (and there's now a carbon tax thread that seems like an ideal place for it).
I've stated multiple times that I'm very supportive of alternative energy sources, EVs, and more thoughtful planning. If there's public demand for more dense living in a location, then I hope that can be achieved.
Shane chose to live a car free lifestyle because he prefers it over alternatives, and feels that it reduces his footprint. But unless I'm mistaken, he also posts in other threads about somewhat frequent intercontinental trips with his family.
I live in an older SFH in a rural area that's car dependent, but I drive a PHEV (mostly electric miles), limit my trips, don't take heavily polluting flights, and a relatively large percentage of my food comes from within 15 miles of my house. That's a better fit for me.
We can't live in a first world society without consuming. So with that as given, Shane and I have both taken steps to reduce our consumption and/or try to offset our consumption, while still living our preferred lifestyle. I honestly would be fascinated to know how our footprints compare over time.
Since someone(tm) wanted more on-topic talk: What do you think about this "car"?Der Hopper schaut gut aus, LennStar! I want one!
https://www.heise.de/news/Elektromobil-Hopper-Zwiegestalt-aus-Fahrrad-und-Auto-vorbestellbar-6630387.html?hg=1&hgi=5&hgf=false
Legally it's a bicycle (well, actually tricycle since it has 3 wheels lol). No license required, but you have to pedal and get electric help. (What we call a pedelec). Max. electric suported speed 25km/h (legal limit on pedelcs). Space enough for groceries or a second person. Range 100km, 5km/h through power from the roof.
I won't state my opinion about it because I want to hear yours. I only want to point out for consideration that this might be especially useful for old folks, who no longer have the body to safely use a normal bike (the fast pedelecs have lead to a spike in serious accidents in the high ages) but also for the same reason should not drive a car anymore.
Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.
With all due respect, that's just not a healthy way to look at the problem. The neat thing about our society, for better or worse, is that you can support and even advocate for one thing while not necessarily being representative of the thing that you're advocating for.
I know it sounds hypocritical, but the fact of the matter is that with an ever growing population, it's neither wise nor reasonable to continue to advocate for the status quo (at least, in terms of this topic, in spirit). You can live where you live and drive how you drive while also recognizing that the way things are, today, does not lead to better future results.
Like you, I'm not in any position to replicate the lifestyle @Shane leads. I still have to drive to work daily and even if that weren't the case, we frequently travel hundreds of miles to see family. But just because I can't ditch my car or even replace even one of my vehicles with an EV today doesn't mean that I can't be an advocate for EV's in general, much less for pushing future growth in the country/world towards more sustainable infrastructure that would eliminate the heavy reliance we have on cars in general.
Our country has a massive housing deficit. Existing infrastructure - rural, suburban, and urban - isn't going anywhere, at least on a general basis. I don't think Shane or PDX or anyone else here is advocating for the demolition of suburbia as it currently exists - that would be wildly counterproductive. But trying to steer future development toward more density, urbanization, walkability, and frankly just places that are better for humans to live is something that anyone can get behind.
Or to look at it from another perspective, even if you wouldn't actively advocate for it, would you (the royal 'you') see yourself going to the local zoning board and demanding that SFH-only zoning be the only path forward? I think not. You'd find yourself on the wrong side of the argument pretty quickly.
But the thesis that advocating for better, tighter, more efficient infrastructure has nothing to do with EV adoption is just plain wrong. This topic has been full of discussions about batteries and F150 lightning, and Tesla, and Rivian, and all the other niche enthusiast discussion about EV's but the actual question - "can they become popular" is frequently overlooked. (Okay, it's not, because these circular discussion keep cropping up).
Tighter, more walkable infrastructure that's designed with EV's in mind is exactly the thing that's needed for EV's to become popular. That, and functional regional or (lofty as it may be) national rapid public transportation. Parse out all the reasons people in this thread, on this forum, and in the general public don't buy and EV and I'd contend that the single biggest hurdle is range anxiety.
Why? Because like me, many Americans drive over 60 miles a day in wildly variable weather with no guarantee that there will be a way to refill their battery. Suburbia and rural fetishization* has made it necessary for people to feel as though they NEED 300, 400, or even 500 miles of range. And that will remain true for the next 20 years. But the elephant in the room, brought up time and again, is the battery issue. EV popularity will forever be tied to battery technology more than any other aspect of the vehicle. In the not too distant future, if the majority of people who need a car have everything they do accessible within 20 miles, then future EV's wouldn't all need to have 400 miles of range. 100 would be just fine for plenty of people, especially because that not too distant future ideally would have such a robust charging infrastructure that refueling "stations" wouldn't even be necessary.
Of course this is all handwaving and who knows if any of it will come to pass. But Shane, PDX, and others aren't trying to coerce everyone into living the same lifestyle - the argument is that when we think about the future of infrastructure and transportation, what we have now is just not sustainable at all. Future development needs to occur in such a way that there are fewer, smaller, vehicles on the road, better public transportation, and more priority given to thoughtful urban planning that doesn't turn acres and acres of space into desolate parking lot warehouse wastelands.
*I like rural living, I have no beef with it, and I wish I could make it work for my family. But there's a significant population of people who are wasting millions of dollars of public money by demanding that their rural wet dreams can be subsidized by the rest of their communities. I am not accusing you or anyone in this thread of that. I am merely thinking of people in my own life who advocate so strongly for public utilities in very rural communities.
Your posts about how all of us seemingly should act or choose to live come off as preachy and condescending. It's ok to like different things. I'm happy that you're enjoying your choices and current lifestyle. I can tell you that I would very much not enjoy your lifestyle, and I doubt that you'd care much for mine. I don't think that either of us is right or wrong in our choices. We're both just trying to maximize our happiness.
With all due respect, that's just not a healthy way to look at the problem. The neat thing about our society, for better or worse, is that you can support and even advocate for one thing while not necessarily being representative of the thing that you're advocating for.
I know it sounds hypocritical, but the fact of the matter is that with an ever growing population, it's neither wise nor reasonable to continue to advocate for the status quo (at least, in terms of this topic, in spirit). You can live where you live and drive how you drive while also recognizing that the way things are, today, does not lead to better future results.
Like you, I'm not in any position to replicate the lifestyle @Shane leads. I still have to drive to work daily and even if that weren't the case, we frequently travel hundreds of miles to see family. But just because I can't ditch my car or even replace even one of my vehicles with an EV today doesn't mean that I can't be an advocate for EV's in general, much less for pushing future growth in the country/world towards more sustainable infrastructure that would eliminate the heavy reliance we have on cars in general.
Our country has a massive housing deficit. Existing infrastructure - rural, suburban, and urban - isn't going anywhere, at least on a general basis. I don't think Shane or PDX or anyone else here is advocating for the demolition of suburbia as it currently exists - that would be wildly counterproductive. But trying to steer future development toward more density, urbanization, walkability, and frankly just places that are better for humans to live is something that anyone can get behind.
Or to look at it from another perspective, even if you wouldn't actively advocate for it, would you (the royal 'you') see yourself going to the local zoning board and demanding that SFH-only zoning be the only path forward? I think not. You'd find yourself on the wrong side of the argument pretty quickly.
But the thesis that advocating for better, tighter, more efficient infrastructure has nothing to do with EV adoption is just plain wrong. This topic has been full of discussions about batteries and F150 lightning, and Tesla, and Rivian, and all the other niche enthusiast discussion about EV's but the actual question - "can they become popular" is frequently overlooked. (Okay, it's not, because these circular discussion keep cropping up).
Tighter, more walkable infrastructure that's designed with EV's in mind is exactly the thing that's needed for EV's to become popular. That, and functional regional or (lofty as it may be) national rapid public transportation. Parse out all the reasons people in this thread, on this forum, and in the general public don't buy and EV and I'd contend that the single biggest hurdle is range anxiety.
Why? Because like me, many Americans drive over 60 miles a day in wildly variable weather with no guarantee that there will be a way to refill their battery. Suburbia and rural fetishization* has made it necessary for people to feel as though they NEED 300, 400, or even 500 miles of range. And that will remain true for the next 20 years. But the elephant in the room, brought up time and again, is the battery issue. EV popularity will forever be tied to battery technology more than any other aspect of the vehicle. In the not too distant future, if the majority of people who need a car have everything they do accessible within 20 miles, then future EV's wouldn't all need to have 400 miles of range. 100 would be just fine for plenty of people, especially because that not too distant future ideally would have such a robust charging infrastructure that refueling "stations" wouldn't even be necessary.
Of course this is all handwaving and who knows if any of it will come to pass. But Shane, PDX, and others aren't trying to coerce everyone into living the same lifestyle - the argument is that when we think about the future of infrastructure and transportation, what we have now is just not sustainable at all. Future development needs to occur in such a way that there are fewer, smaller, vehicles on the road, better public transportation, and more priority given to thoughtful urban planning that doesn't turn acres and acres of space into desolate parking lot warehouse wastelands.
*I like rural living, I have no beef with it, and I wish I could make it work for my family. But there's a significant population of people who are wasting millions of dollars of public money by demanding that their rural wet dreams can be subsidized by the rest of their communities. I am not accusing you or anyone in this thread of that. I am merely thinking of people in my own life who advocate so strongly for public utilities in very rural communities.
I agree. Almost everyone I know with an EV uses it as a second car for those reasons.
I live in a household of 5 adults + 1 kid, and we have 2 cars. Most of the time we don’t drive more than 10 miles/day. But several times/year we go camping, and we don’t see an EV as practical for that.
Meanwhile, we plan to buy two bikes this summer, but honestly- they are going to be largely recreational, so kind of expensive toys. I feel some guilt about them.
I have a 2018 corolla, so it should be a while until the next car purchase. Hopefully by then, there are would a whole lot faster EV charging, as fast as putting gas in the car, or a whole lot of battery swapping stations like NIO. If not, then I'd get a PHEV
To me, it seems like the environmental costs of rural living would have to be much higher per capita than city life, but haven't seen any really clear cut data to prove it.
I think the main thing to consider is whether it's economically productive or not. An actual farm or ranch that is producing food vs a hobby farm or exurb. In fact that's a significant complaint about suburbs. They often pave and develop over land that was previously used for productive agriculture.
I have a 2018 corolla, so it should be a while until the next car purchase. Hopefully by then, there are would a whole lot faster EV charging, as fast as putting gas in the car, or a whole lot of battery swapping stations like NIO. If not, then I'd get a PHEV
I have a 2018 corolla, so it should be a while until the next car purchase. Hopefully by then, there are would a whole lot faster EV charging, as fast as putting gas in the car, or a whole lot of battery swapping stations like NIO. If not, then I'd get a PHEV
We have a PHEV with an 18kw battery pack, and we absolutely love it.
That said, the only people I’ve heard who are concerned about range and charging speed are those who don’t actually own a BEV (plus a few with older BEVS with very small pattern packs, e.g. the Gen I/II Leafs). For late models, 250+ mile range is the ‘new normal’ and there’s options for cars that go well above 300.
Starting on full every night more than takes care of normal driving. For longer trips (i.e. those requiring 200++ miles of driving in a single day)…
The DC charging network is already pretty built out along major corridors and adds another 200 miles in 15-20 minutes for the newer models. It’s not gas-station quickness but that bumps the daily total range over 500 miles with just a single quick lunch stop. Lather, rinse, repeat for dinner if necessary.
Not only is that more than what the overwhelming majority of drivers will ever need, but to be frank it’s more driving than any person *should* do in a single day, both for safety and health reasons. And I say this as someone who’s driving cross-country about ten times.
I’m assuming an EV owner has a place to charge it daily, yes - but that seems to be such a given as to not be worth mentioning. It can be at home, at work or through a public charging network. I’m not sure why your friend has a tesla and no reliable place to charge it.I have a 2018 corolla, so it should be a while until the next car purchase. Hopefully by then, there are would a whole lot faster EV charging, as fast as putting gas in the car, or a whole lot of battery swapping stations like NIO. If not, then I'd get a PHEV
We have a PHEV with an 18kw battery pack, and we absolutely love it.
That said, the only people I’ve heard who are concerned about range and charging speed are those who don’t actually own a BEV (plus a few with older BEVS with very small pattern packs, e.g. the Gen I/II Leafs). For late models, 250+ mile range is the ‘new normal’ and there’s options for cars that go well above 300.
Starting on full every night more than takes care of normal driving. For longer trips (i.e. those requiring 200++ miles of driving in a single day)…
The DC charging network is already pretty built out along major corridors and adds another 200 miles in 15-20 minutes for the newer models. It’s not gas-station quickness but that bumps the daily total range over 500 miles with just a single quick lunch stop. Lather, rinse, repeat for dinner if necessary.
Not only is that more than what the overwhelming majority of drivers will ever need, but to be frank it’s more driving than any person *should* do in a single day, both for safety and health reasons. And I say this as someone who’s driving cross-country about ten times.
You're assuming the ablilty to charge overnight though. When I visited a friend who had a tesla, after she picked me up from the airport, we had to go chill in her car for an hour in the car while she charged it because it needed to charge before we went to wherever we were going next. Also had to wait for a solid 30-45 min for the other cars to be done charging before there was an open spot for her's.
Geothermal energy with a side benefit of 20,000 metric tons of lithium a year harvested. Or, about 8% of world demand per year...
At one site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-36VWp9Sf4A
I thought some of you would appreciate this:
We Can Do Better Than “Same, But Electric” (https://climateer.substack.com/p/better-than-fossil?s=r)
We've been making compromises to the limits of fossil fuels for so long that we've forgotten they're compromises
Hacker News discussion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30838132)
611 comments
ttiurani 1 day ago | next [–]
Agree with the general sentiment that moving to electric is a great place to rethink the whole design.
However a "make it electric" mentality doesn't address the fact that a big chunk of the "its" (at least in the global North) are just overconsumption that shouldn't exist at all, if we ever want to find balance with nature.
So instead of changing to an electric car that has a massive material footprint and takes up the same amount of space on the road as a petrol car, buy a bike (and vote for investments in bike lanes and public transport).
Instead of living in a huge house and needing a lawnmower, move to an apartment (and vote for more compact housing zoning).
Instead of buying vanity gadgets that relies on ocean cargo traffic, don't (and work less as you then need less money).
reply
collegeburner 1 day ago | parent | next [–]
Why would I do this? I hate apartments, they are cramped, noisy, I don't have a private yard, I can have bad neighbors and I don't really own it (just the apartment not the land). I'll stick to living in a rural area. I hate this dystopia you people envision of living packed like sardines in a can.
I wouldn't bike, either. Distances are too long (can be over 40 miles to go somewhere) and I'd be soaked in sweat after even a short ride most of the year.
A lot more people think like me. We didn't work so we could move back into cities and live like broke 25 year olds. The life you're envisioning honestly sounds like it sucks. If not I'm open to hear why, but you'll need to convince most people that it's better, not just that it's greener.
reply
dionidium 1 day ago | root | parent | next [–]
"Packed like sardines" is a phrase that probably needs to be retired. First of all, people aren't packed like a factory worker packs a tin of sardines; they choose to live in cities, because they either enjoy it or find the tradeoffs to be worth it. Second, our cities are nowhere near as dense as they once were. There was maybe a time when people really were all packed in together in a way almost all of them found uncomfortable, but that's not really true anymore. Manhattan's population density is down 40% since 1910.
But, ultimately I think you should be free to live however you want to live. What you should not be free to do is enforce your way of living via regulations that prevent density. If other people want to build density on property they own, then they should be allowed to do that, even if you don't like it.
Somebody once said that buying a plot of land near a city and expecting the areas around it never to densify is like buying a puppy and getting mad when it turns into a full-sized dog. Cities have to be allowed to grow, your preferences notwithstanding.
reply
everdrive 1 day ago | root | parent | next [–]
I don't think your arguments are incorrect, but I honestly couldn't imagine anything worse than needing to live in a city surrounded by people. I live in a suburb now, and it's still too dense for my tastes. I strongly believe in environmentalist issues, and I understand intellectually that we would be better off if we mostly resided in compact environments.
One issue I see is that ultimately when there are enough people, choice is removed. Eventually there is only density left. My town isn't very dense right now, but there is definitely pressure to build more homes. When that happens, my interests will be harmed, and the interests of people who would like more density would be served. It's effectively a zero-sum game. You could say "I have a choice to move somewhere less dense" -- but so too do the people who would prefer density: they can move somewhere else and leave me alone.
Now I'm not arguing that I should be able to prevent people from making my area more dense. What I am arguing is that under this regime, people who like density will always eventually win, and people who abhor density will always eventually lose. Why is it fair that one group's preferences matter and another group's preferences do not?
This thread's inspired me to bike to work more - any recommendations on a mod to add a small motor to my existing bike?
This thread's inspired me to bike to work more - any recommendations on a mod to add a small motor to my existing bike?
Let me caveat the following by saying i want an electric truck, bad.
But in a search of available car options and prices its quite a premium to get an electric option. so that lead me down a rabbit hole and i ended up checking the co2 emissions per mile for several car options i have my eye on. The new Toyota Tundra puts out 441 grams of co2 per mile. If you assume you drive 12,000 miles per year, that's 5,292 kilograms or 5.3 tonnes of co2 per year. Seems like a lot but carbon credits can be purchased for as less than $10/ton in effect negating your carbon footprint. So for $50-60 per year you can offset your co2 produced by driving compared to a premium on the electrical components of $15k plus. granted this doesnt include a cost of fuel analysis compared to charging electric but makes me feel less bad about maybe getting another ICE or hybrid vehicle.
Thoughts?
Seems like a lot but carbon credits can be purchased for as less than $10/ton in effect negating your carbon footprintThat's a stupididly low number.
Let me caveat the following by saying i want an electric truck, bad.
But in a search of available car options and prices its quite a premium to get an electric option. so that lead me down a rabbit hole and i ended up checking the co2 emissions per mile for several car options i have my eye on. The new Toyota Tundra puts out 441 grams of co2 per mile. If you assume you drive 12,000 miles per year, that's 5,292 kilograms or 5.3 tonnes of co2 per year. Seems like a lot but carbon credits can be purchased for as less than $10/ton in effect negating your carbon footprint. So for $50-60 per year you can offset your co2 produced by driving compared to a premium on the electrical components of $15k plus. granted this doesnt include a cost of fuel analysis compared to charging electric but makes me feel less bad about maybe getting another ICE or hybrid vehicle.
Thoughts?
Let me caveat the following by saying i want an electric truck, bad.
But in a search of available car options and prices its quite a premium to get an electric option. so that lead me down a rabbit hole and i ended up checking the co2 emissions per mile for several car options i have my eye on. The new Toyota Tundra puts out 441 grams of co2 per mile. If you assume you drive 12,000 miles per year, that's 5,292 kilograms or 5.3 tonnes of co2 per year. Seems like a lot but carbon credits can be purchased for as less than $10/ton in effect negating your carbon footprint. So for $50-60 per year you can offset your co2 produced by driving compared to a premium on the electrical components of $15k plus. granted this doesnt include a cost of fuel analysis compared to charging electric but makes me feel less bad about maybe getting another ICE or hybrid vehicle.
Thoughts?
First off, carbon credits always felt a bit icky to me. It always felt like the old Catholic practice of buying indulgences. But I thought about it a bit more, and I'm okay with them.
The problem with the "you just have to be rich" philosophy is it ignores the secondary market. Sure, the Model S started as a $100k car. You can find them as low as $30k these days (and that was also true pre-pandemic -- maybe not many, but they did exist). Yes, they're 8-10 year old vehicles and yes they tend to have the smaller battery sizes. And yet, at 70% less expensive they are still likely 90% of the car they were priced at 100k.
How do you get used EVs on the market? Someone has to buy it new. The more and sooner they get bought new, the quicker they show up used.
The problem with the "you just have to be rich" philosophy is it ignores the secondary market. Sure, the Model S started as a $100k car. You can find them as low as $30k these days (and that was also true pre-pandemic -- maybe not many, but they did exist). Yes, they're 8-10 year old vehicles and yes they tend to have the smaller battery sizes. And yet, at 70% less expensive they are still likely 90% of the car they were priced at 100k.
How do you get used EVs on the market? Someone has to buy it new. The more and sooner they get bought new, the quicker they show up used.
Not to be mention if you continue driving your old car, it's a lot less carbon intensive than a new Tesla and with the money saved you can buy a lot more real offset than you could safe with the Tesla.
Not to be mention if you continue driving your old car, it's a lot less carbon intensive than a new Tesla and with the money saved you can buy a lot more real offset than you could safe with the Tesla.
And if you're ambitious, those credits could be purchased today, which front loads their effect compared to having to drive 100k miles to get there in the Tesla. 1g of CO2 saved today is worth 2g in the future because the compounding warming effect of continuous CO2 in the atmosphere. This can be done piecewise as well, so for instance I could purchase 1ton of CO2 credits in January for my projected yearly travel and re-up the following year.
I know this whole thing will be taken wrong, but I'm not arguing against EVs at all here, I just think they are commonly seen as a solution to the problem, when I see them as a solution to the symptoms. The more we can tear ourselves from the automobile band-aid, the better it is all around.
One side caveat: I think it was one of the "not just bikes" videos, but despite being a society that actively discourages automobile use, the reported pleasure of driving is higher in the Netherlands. This is likely because most of the people out driving are people who want to be driving, and not people who need to be.
Not to be mention if you continue driving your old car, it's a lot less carbon intensive than a new Tesla and with the money saved you can buy a lot more real offset than you could safe with the Tesla.
And if you're ambitious, those credits could be purchased today, which front loads their effect compared to having to drive 100k miles to get there in the Tesla. 1g of CO2 saved today is worth 2g in the future because the compounding warming effect of continuous CO2 in the atmosphere. This can be done piecewise as well, so for instance I could purchase 1ton of CO2 credits in January for my projected yearly travel and re-up the following year.
I know this whole thing will be taken wrong, but I'm not arguing against EVs at all here, I just think they are commonly seen as a solution to the problem, when I see them as a solution to the symptoms. The more we can tear ourselves from the automobile band-aid, the better it is all around.
One side caveat: I think it was one of the "not just bikes" videos, but despite being a society that actively discourages automobile use, the reported pleasure of driving is higher in the Netherlands. This is likely because most of the people out driving are people who want to be driving, and not people who need to be.
We should stop driving so much and stop flying so much. Both are insane activities when viewed from a carbon standpoint.
Not to be mention if you continue driving your old car, it's a lot less carbon intensive than a new Tesla and with the money saved you can buy a lot more real offset than you could safe with the Tesla.
The problem with the "you just have to be rich" philosophy is it ignores the secondary market. Sure, the Model S started as a $100k car. You can find them as low as $30k these days (and that was also true pre-pandemic -- maybe not many, but they did exist). Yes, they're 8-10 year old vehicles and yes they tend to have the smaller battery sizes. And yet, at 70% less expensive they are still likely 90% of the car they were priced at 100k.
How do you get used EVs on the market? Someone has to buy it new. The more and sooner they get bought new, the quicker they show up used.
You're sort of arguing against a point that isn't being made, at least by me. I totally agree that as many new cars as possible should be EV, PHEV or hybrid. The more the better. If that's the point you're trying to make, we can shake hands and agree here.
First off, I invite you to find me a used model 3 under 40k.
While I wait for you to do that, I will run some numbers here for you. I can keep driving my 2009 Pontiac Vibe, which has as much (or more) utility than the m3 for my daily purposes. The value of my vehicle is about $6K. So the Tesla costs at minimum $34K more than my car up front.
Counting carbon indulgences (0.4c/mile), $6/gallon gas and, .1c/mile maintenance (which are all conservative numbers as of today for my vehicle), it would take me about 100k miles to break even with the Tesla, and that is assuming 100% free charging and zero maintenance on the Tesla for those 100k miles. That would take me 10 years to hit at my driving rate.
I can keep driving my 2009 Pontiac Vibe, which has as much (or more) utility than the m3 for my daily purposes. The value of my vehicle is about $6K. So the Tesla costs at minimum $34K more than my car up front.
Counting carbon indulgences (0.4c/mile), $6/gallon gas and, .1c/mile maintenance (which are all conservative numbers as of today for my vehicle), it would take me about 100k miles to break even with the Tesla, and that is assuming 100% free charging and zero maintenance on the Tesla for those 100k miles. That would take me 10 years to hit at my driving rate.
On a personal level, the benefits of driving less overwhelm the necessity to switch to an EV. I would love an EV, and will get one when it remotely makes financial sense.
The problem with the "you just have to be rich" philosophy is it ignores the secondary market. Sure, the Model S started as a $100k car. You can find them as low as $30k these days (and that was also true pre-pandemic -- maybe not many, but they did exist). Yes, they're 8-10 year old vehicles and yes they tend to have the smaller battery sizes. And yet, at 70% less expensive they are still likely 90% of the car they were priced at 100k.
How do you get used EVs on the market? Someone has to buy it new. The more and sooner they get bought new, the quicker they show up used.
You're sort of arguing against a point that isn't being made, at least by me. I totally agree that as many new cars as possible should be EV, PHEV or hybrid. The more the better. If that's the point you're trying to make, we can shake hands and agree here.
First off, I invite you to find me a used model 3 under 40k.
While I wait for you to do that, I will run some numbers here for you. I can keep driving my 2009 Pontiac Vibe, which has as much (or more) utility than the m3 for my daily purposes. The value of my vehicle is about $6K. So the Tesla costs at minimum $34K more than my car up front.
Counting carbon indulgences (0.4c/mile), $6/gallon gas and, .1c/mile maintenance (which are all conservative numbers as of today for my vehicle), it would take me about 100k miles to break even with the Tesla, and that is assuming 100% free charging and zero maintenance on the Tesla for those 100k miles. That would take me 10 years to hit at my driving rate.
Cheap EVs exist too. Not everything has to be a Tesla, or a new $40k+ EV. How do your numbers change with something like a used Leaf instead of a Model 3? They seem more "Vibe like" in their form factor than the Model 3 anyway, so might be similar practicality. Even something like a Ford CMax Energi (PHEV) would likely have the vast majority of miles driven under EV power, with a much lower buy-in than a Model 3. Plus the smaller batteries will have smaller CO2 footprints than the long range EVs (Tesla, etc) so they'll reach their environmental break even point sooner.
The problem with the "you just have to be rich" philosophy is it ignores the secondary market. Sure, the Model S started as a $100k car. You can find them as low as $30k these days (and that was also true pre-pandemic -- maybe not many, but they did exist). Yes, they're 8-10 year old vehicles and yes they tend to have the smaller battery sizes. And yet, at 70% less expensive they are still likely 90% of the car they were priced at 100k.
How do you get used EVs on the market? Someone has to buy it new. The more and sooner they get bought new, the quicker they show up used.
You're sort of arguing against a point that isn't being made, at least by me. I totally agree that as many new cars as possible should be EV, PHEV or hybrid. The more the better. If that's the point you're trying to make, we can shake hands and agree here.
First off, I invite you to find me a used model 3 under 40k.
While I wait for you to do that, I will run some numbers here for you. I can keep driving my 2009 Pontiac Vibe, which has as much (or more) utility than the m3 for my daily purposes. The value of my vehicle is about $6K. So the Tesla costs at minimum $34K more than my car up front.
Counting carbon indulgences (0.4c/mile), $6/gallon gas and, .1c/mile maintenance (which are all conservative numbers as of today for my vehicle), it would take me about 100k miles to break even with the Tesla, and that is assuming 100% free charging and zero maintenance on the Tesla for those 100k miles. That would take me 10 years to hit at my driving rate.
Cheap EVs exist too. Not everything has to be a Tesla, or a new $40k+ EV. How do your numbers change with something like a used Leaf instead of a Model 3? They seem more "Vibe like" in their form factor than the Model 3 anyway, so might be similar practicality. Even something like a Ford CMax Energi (PHEV) would likely have the vast majority of miles driven under EV power, with a much lower buy-in than a Model 3. Plus the smaller batteries will have smaller CO2 footprints than the long range EVs (Tesla, etc) so they'll reach their environmental break even point sooner.
That's all true, actually the car that fits my needs the most would be the Volt. For my specific case, Cheap EVs don't quite match because I like to go camping, and the inconvenience in both idle time and locations of chargers limits shorter range EVs.
I want to re-iterate, I am in full support of EVs, I just don't think that personal vehicles in general are a good national investment and so am wary of us assuming that we can continue with business as usual should they all be electrified. As a nation, we are set to spend massive resources making driving feasible (what with all of the self-driving R&D and battery tech), when all of those resources could have been spent making our towns and cities better. No need for super smart in-city driving AI's if we just fill the city with pedestrians and design the streets so that cars aren't zooming through them.
Plus the smaller batteries will have smaller CO2 footprints than the long range EVs (Tesla, etc) so they'll reach their environmental break even point sooner.
Again, it's not an either-or. We can make changes to cities at the same time we go fully electric.
Again, it's not an either-or. We can make changes to cities at the same time we go fully electric.
But are we? It seems that we are only going electric, and patting ourselves on the back for doing so. It seems that it's all icing and no cake.
Again, it's not an either-or. We can make changes to cities at the same time we go fully electric.
But are we? It seems that we are only going electric, and patting ourselves on the back for doing so. It seems that it's all icing and no cake.
Guess it depends on where you live. I can say there’s a great deal more cycling and public transit infrastructure where I live now than there was just ten years ago.
Also, what’s wrong with just icing? Generally I see cake simply as a frosting-delivery mechanism, nothing more. Except when it’s exceptional cake, but that’s rare.
I want to re-iterate, I am in full support of EVs, I just don't think that personal vehicles in general are a good national investment and so am wary of us assuming that we can continue with business as usual should they all be electrified. As a nation, we are set to spend massive resources making driving feasible (what with all of the self-driving R&D and battery tech), when all of those resources could have been spent making our towns and cities better. No need for super smart in-city driving AI's if we just fill the city with pedestrians and design the streets so that cars aren't zooming through them.
Landlords who want to attract high-quality tenants will put in chargers or plugs for a mobile charger. A friend who's family business does rentals near UofI Chicago was asking me about them after we got the EV because they were looking at putting them in during a teardown/planned development unit.
Rich international students driving teslas want a place to live and charge. You get tenants who are more likely to pay and less likely to leave (at least until other landlords install chargers).
Urban overhall will happen once autonomous EVs become mainstream. Once you remove the need for kerb side parking you free up a whole lot of urban realestate.
You're more likely to find that $40k model 3 than getting the US to overhaul urban design that much that quickly. If nothing else trillions of dollars of property value hinges on the status quo.
Urban overhall will happen once autonomous EVs become mainstream. Once you remove the need for kerb side parking you free up a whole lot of urban realestate.
That promise has been being given since the New York World's fair in 1939 (called "Futurama" presented by GM), still hasn't happened. What has happened is that auto makers have convinced public figures and urban planners that autos are #1 priority in development, something that the EV autonomous revolution doesn't solve.
Last night I heard that my governor wants to remove the gas tax, like this is moving in exactly the wrong direction. But it might be popular because people choose to buy a gas guzzler and gas is now 0.20$/gal more expensive than it was a few months ago.People are so weird about gas prices. Like I heard someone on the radio (while at the dentist, I don't usually listen to radio) say "I filled up and gas was $4.50, oh my gosh so expensive!!" (paraphrased). But I remember when gas was $4.50+ in California over a decade ago! Isn't $4.50/gallon actually really cheap? If you have a reasonable 30 mpg vehicle (e.g. CR-V) it's just 15 cents per mile.
Plus the smaller batteries will have smaller CO2 footprints than the long range EVs (Tesla, etc) so they'll reach their environmental break even point sooner.
Only if using the same batteries.
If we assume vehicle weight is directly correlated to manufacturing CO2 emissions my 2014 Nissan Leaf weighs 3,277 lbs vs my father's Tesla Model 3 of 3,558 lbs. Yes the Tesla weighs 9% more but over it's useful life will likely travel 100-200% more miles.
As a midwesterner, too often the 4-wheel glass/metal box is actually a weather safety thing, even if you could otherwise wave a wand and fix all the infrastructure issues that make my ebike not quite good enough for the average joe.You know, it's probably cheaper to build bike paths with solar roofs than to build car streets.
Last night I heard that my governor wants to remove the gas tax, like this is moving in exactly the wrong direction. But it might be popular because people choose to buy a gas guzzler and gas is now 0.20$/gal more expensive than it was a few months ago.
...
Last night I heard that my governor wants to remove the gas tax, like this is moving in exactly the wrong direction. But it might be popular because people choose to buy a gas guzzler and gas is now 0.20$/gal more expensive than it was a few months ago.
QuoteLast night I heard that my governor wants to remove the gas tax, like this is moving in exactly the wrong direction. But it might be popular because people choose to buy a gas guzzler and gas is now 0.20$/gal more expensive than it was a few months ago.
I am all for it! Remove gas tax, enact carbon tax.
Why would you wish to remove the gasoline tax?
QuoteLast night I heard that my governor wants to remove the gas tax, like this is moving in exactly the wrong direction. But it might be popular because people choose to buy a gas guzzler and gas is now 0.20$/gal more expensive than it was a few months ago.
I am all for it! Remove gas tax, enact carbon tax.
Why would you wish to remove the gasoline tax?
Because a general carbon tax is (theoretically) way more effective. Also, if you take cash only for fuel, then indeed (one of the few cases) you will only tax the poor in a few years, because everyone who can afford the initial cost will drive electric.
My favorite model would be a high carbon tax on everything where 3/4 get redistributed per head. Rest for improving public transit.
Re the LG cells. Personally, I'm leery of any pouch style cell. Maybe it's bad intuition, but the idea of a pouch cell in a vehicle that experiences all kinds of vibrations and stresses, as well as the relatively extreme heat, cold and cycle duty spooks me. Perhaps over time, it'll bear out fine, but Tesla has proven the cylindrical cell's robustness by now.
I suspect the prismatic lifepo4 cells will be fine too. In fact, they have been used for some time in smaller and older EVs and held up fine. Not to mention the chemistry is significantly safer to begin with.
Lifepo4 cells have gotten quite a bit better over time, they now match the energy density of NMC from ~6 or 7 years ago. Hopefully if they keep improving, they'll solve several issues at the same time. They're less dangerous, and they don't rely on hard to get/conflict minerals.
Wow. Is that vehicle street-legal in all 50 states?
Wow. Is that vehicle street-legal in all 50 states?Three-wheeled vehicles are often categorized as motorcycles and don't have have to meet the same safety regulations as four-wheeled vehicles.
I missed some posts. Have we discussed the Aptera? (Please accept my apologies.)
This is the electric car I wanted somebody to build. Can run 40 miles/day on just its built-in solar cells!
Tripod cars have a bad history of flipping over though, so I'd want to see some independent testing (the moose test, for example) before I signed on.
I may be speaking over my pay level here, but I think the ones that have problems are ones with the single wheel in front. Two wheels in front/one in back is much more stable
I missed some posts. Have we discussed the Aptera? (Please accept my apologies.)
This is the electric car I wanted somebody to build. Can run 40 miles/day on just its built-in solar cells!
Keep in mind that's highly variable as it will depend on how much direct sun it gets per day. Certain climates like the PNW will likely get significantly less than that. Cool concept though.
A 3 wheeled, 2 seat, dedicated EV with 40 miles of range seems like a much worse option to me than something like a Chevy Volt or Toyota Rav4 Prime. They both have similar electric range, but also an ICE for anything longer. They have to actually pass crash tests to be sold, and have functionality that the Aptera lacks (hauling more than a couple of people, transporting some cargo, being able to go on longer trips with no planning at all, etc). A small, swoopy 2 seat EV that's only good for short trips with a couple of people just seems way too specialized and niche to justify the price when there are more capable options for similar money.
It is worth noting it is only a 2-seater, but closer in size to the Model Y/Mach E/ID.4 than something like a Honda Fit. Tripod cars have a bad history of flipping over though, so I'd want to see some independent testing (the moose test, for example) before I signed on.
Also, I'm... not so sure I believe their numbers. The 99.9kwh pack in the Mach E is claimed to be ~1800 lbs. Cut that down to 60kwh and you're still looking at 1100 lbs of battery -- so 700 lbs for the whole rest of the car? I guess that's possible but ... not sure I believe it. Not when an e-bike is easily 50+ lbs (sans battery) and that's a lot smaller/lighter single 750 watt motor (not 3x 50kw motors), tiny tires, no canopy, no hvac, no suspension, etc.
A 3 wheeled, 2 seat, dedicated EV with 40 miles of range seems like a much worse option to me than something like a Chevy Volt or Toyota Rav4 Prime. They both have similar electric range, but also an ICE for anything longer. They have to actually pass crash tests to be sold, and have functionality that the Aptera lacks (hauling more than a couple of people, transporting some cargo, being able to go on longer trips with no planning at all, etc). A small, swoopy 2 seat EV that's only good for short trips with a couple of people just seems way too specialized and niche to justify the price when there are more capable options for similar money.
40 miles/day is the range from solar charging only, it has a stated range of 1000 miles from a full battery charge. It has a trunk that is actually fairly good size. Go watch one of the linked videos above, they also talk about crash safety. The video I saw they quoted a price of 25k$.
...
Yeah, I misunderstood. But the language on the official website is all full of "maybe"s, "up to"s and "about"s and the product itself has been in the final development stage forever. Maybe this time it actually works out for them, but I'm skeptical.
https://aptera.us/vehicle/
"Aptera’s Never Charge technology can give you up to about 40 miles per day of free driving powered by the sun."
- Sounds a lot like in the perfect location, with perfect sun intensity you might get 40 miles of added range. It's a cool concept, but in reality this feature probably adds closer to 10 miles per day. Other solar roof options typically just provide enough power to run the HVAC in the vehicle. They're less powerful, but the limitations for panel shape, sun angle, and intensity are still the same.
Getting one with 1000mile range and the full solar capability will cost you over $50k:
https://aptera.us/reserve/
...
Yeah, I misunderstood. But the language on the official website is all full of "maybe"s, "up to"s and "about"s and the product itself has been in the final development stage forever. Maybe this time it actually works out for them, but I'm skeptical.
https://aptera.us/vehicle/
"Aptera’s Never Charge technology can give you up to about 40 miles per day of free driving powered by the sun."
- Sounds a lot like in the perfect location, with perfect sun intensity you might get 40 miles of added range. It's a cool concept, but in reality this feature probably adds closer to 10 miles per day. Other solar roof options typically just provide enough power to run the HVAC in the vehicle. They're less powerful, but the limitations for panel shape, sun angle, and intensity are still the same.
Getting one with 1000mile range and the full solar capability will cost you over $50k:
https://aptera.us/reserve/
thanks for the reserve link, fun to play around with the options. Looks like for ~30k or low 30's you can get a very capable car with ~400 miles range. 1000 mile range, well I have never had need to drive 1/3 of the way across the US without stopping but I guess that might be in someone's use case.
...
It's not really that practical, though. It's as practical as a motorcycle with a pillion seat, at least from a utility standpoint. I can get a 2020 Kawasaki Versys for 8K around here, and I would own that tomorrow if I did. Then I could buy some carbon offsets and gas for 15 years and still come out ahead financially, plus it's easier to store and park.
...
It's not really that practical, though. It's as practical as a motorcycle with a pillion seat, at least from a utility standpoint. I can get a 2020 Kawasaki Versys for 8K around here, and I would own that tomorrow if I did. Then I could buy some carbon offsets and gas for 15 years and still come out ahead financially, plus it's easier to store and park.
? No. The aptera could probably replace almost 100% of what I use my corolla for. I am single and occasionally have a passenger and have a driveway that gets good sun light. The only thing it might not do for me is haul as many bags of dirt from the garden center, but like making two trips every few years instead of one to buy bags of mulch does not seem like a reason to buy one car vs some other. It has a decent sized trunk for costco runs or what ever other random stuff I want to transport in a protected environment.
Yes clearly it would be wise to see the production version before sending them a check or becoming fixated on one, but if you see a motor cycle as equally practical then I guess to each there own.
Price and volume are still issues, but this is indication of progress.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/06/not-your-grandpas-ride-the-2023-cadillac-lyriq-tested/
$63k, 312 mile range, 340 HP (RWD), luxury SUV. With people spending $40k on "everyday" SUVs, this isn't a huge stretch.
But only 25,000 this year, all sold out already.
I was really worried about GM's platform after the insane weight of the Hummer. This is still quite heavy at 5600 lbs, while the typical Honda/Toyota/Mazda mid-sized SUV might be 3500 lbs.
I saw a video recently that electric cars actually produce more co2 over the whole lifetime including productionI've seen the opposite.
I was really worried about GM's platform after the insane weight of the Hummer. This is still quite heavy at 5600 lbs, while the typical Honda/Toyota/Mazda mid-sized SUV might be 3500 lbs.
I saw a video recently that electric cars actually produce more co2 over the whole lifetime including production
I saw a video recently that electric cars actually produce more co2 over the whole lifetime including production
I saw a video recently that electric cars actually produce more co2 over the whole lifetime including productionOnly if all your electricity comes from coal or if you compare an electric F-350 with a compact car with low mileage.
Glad to see Gen-X included on a list for once :-)
Also with the Aptera early buyers would get the fed tax credit, and they claim a commitment to Right to Repair. But those are clearly not set in stone and may/will change.
I saw a video recently that electric cars actually produce more co2 over the whole lifetime including production
On the motorcycle argument? One word: winter.
re: Lyriq
Hmm it is quite long at 196 inches. A nice comparison is the Cadillac XT4 - just 181 inches, and under 3700 lbs. Definitely different classes. (I like vehicles like the CR-V, Rav4, CX-5, so that's my benchmark...)
So the XT5 is 190 inches, 4300 lbs. The XT6 is a whopping 198 inches, 4440 lbs. So there it's about a 1200 lb surplus of weight to go electric.
The argument is an example of big picture thinking. That car for 30K (or 50K?) is a pretty penny.
This is the MMM forum; realistically we should be comparing to a bicycle, which, you know... winter!
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/12/23/its-winter-get-out-and-enjoy-it/
The argument is an example of big picture thinking. That car for 30K (or 50K?) is a pretty penny.
This is the MMM forum; realistically we should be comparing to a bicycle, which, you know... winter!
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/12/23/its-winter-get-out-and-enjoy-it/
Yeahno. I've done it. And then I got off the bike and walked it home because it wasn't safe. Snow plus weight distribution was making the cargo bike fishtail and it simply wasn't safe. I was either going to go down, or pull something trying to avoid going down, or both.
Where MMM is, aka where snow stays snow, not turns into glare ice? Sure. That's not my climate. I get snow-melts-freezes-ice.
There are studded tires and snow tires for bikes.
Eventually I may consider putting an EV kit in our existing daily driver. Just drive it forever.
There are studded tires and snow tires for bikes.
Have ridden them extensively in the winter. They're cheap, and absolutely amazing. I had what felt like 50% of dry pavement traction on black ice and wet ice, and entirely acceptable traction in snow. The downside was that I had about 50% of summer dry pavement traction on dry pavement - they were not "grippy tires" in the summer sense. But I'd be purring down a path or the road, and all of a sudden the studs would go silent on a layer of ice I couldn't even see - and there was no change in how the bike rode.
A friend of mine, former BMXer, got tired of hearing me talk about how amazing they were some winter evening, so he borrowed my bike, built up some speed, and rode a stoppie across a frozen lake of a parking lot. Came back, apologized for doubting them, and agreed that they were, in fact, that incredible.
=======
I did the math on the last tank of gas in our Volt. $35 and change. The 2100 miles on this tank would have run us close to $350 in our Mazda 3 we had previously. And, no, I don't really count power cost because our solar arrays are over-generating our demand, so power is somewhere between "free" and "substantially prepaid."
Quick, back-of-the-napkin math shows you’re getting ~240 miles per gallon on your volt (plus electricity). Not too bad, and a strong case for a PHEV with it’s massively smaller battery over a full EV.
My brother sent me this story of politicians being somewhat irrational about the charger thing.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a40543385/north-carolina-wants-remove-free-public-ev-chargers/ (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a40543385/north-carolina-wants-remove-free-public-ev-chargers/)
My impression is that change is hard for some people. The old V8 is like Betsy Ross and the American flag.
Some days I am glad I am not patriotic.
Eventually I may consider putting an EV kit in our existing daily driver. Just drive it forever.
I'd like to do that with mine. Forever may be a stretch, but until the frame is beyond rust repair would be nice. Transmission parts are already unavailable, as are some sensors. Each day could be it's last for that powertrain/control system.
Looks like we are getting closer to popularity[...]I recently heard that the US passed 5% of new cars sales being EVs, which is considered a tipping point.
TL;DR is that the carbon emissions associated with creating a BEV are some much higher compared to an ICE or hybrid to start and depending where you are or how your electricity is generated it could be dirty coal and also contribute to the carbon emissions compared with green sources.No, that is wrong. There have been multiple studies disproving it. And electricity sources will only get greener while ICE can never be carbon-free.
Looks like we are getting closer to popularity[...]I recently heard that the US passed 5% of new cars sales being EVs, which is considered a tipping point.
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/report-ev-tipping-point/
Looks like we are getting closer to popularity[...]I recently heard that the US passed 5% of new cars sales being EVs, which is considered a tipping point.
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/report-ev-tipping-point/
The longer gasoline stays north of $4 the more popular I believe BEVs will be. Even if I paid for all of my charging (I don’t) the energy cost would be competitive with a gasoline engine with fuel prices at $2/gallon.
And one more refutation of the TEDx referenced above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXLko2_pozc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXLko2_pozc).TL;DR is that the carbon emissions associated with creating a BEV are some much higher compared to an ICE or hybrid to start and depending where you are or how your electricity is generated it could be dirty coal and also contribute to the carbon emissions compared with green sources.No, that is wrong. There have been multiple studies disproving it. And electricity sources will only get greener while ICE can never be carbon-free.
https://insideevs.com/news/569169/gas-cars-emissions-electric-cars/
https://electrek.co/2022/03/04/light-duty-evs-have-64-lower-life-cycle-emissions-than-ice-vehicles-ford-study/
The longer gasoline stays north of $4 the more popular I believe BEVs will be.
[first world problems] but... getting a bit frustrated that I've had no movement on my pre-order for an EV. It's been almost three months now, and we know that once we hit the next point ("delivery") it will be an additional 3-5 weeks, so it looks like the end of summer at the earliest.
As someone who'd been planning to replace our last ICE with a BEV (we have one PHEV) few years, it's frustrating that our plans get delayed with $5/gas and hundreds-of-thousands rushing into the EV space. Glad they are now popular, but wish they had gotten popular about three months later. Oh well.
I would dearly love to get an Ioniq 5 except that its a 6 month wait (apart from the fact that I drive less than 1000 miles a month and spend barely anything on gas).By then Lithium will be in very short supply. Don't put you hopes up.
By then Lithium will be in very short supply. Don't put you hopes up.
Another Crazy Idea:F-150 Lightning supports bi-directional charging which is sort of the fancy way to do this. But also (and this is a feature on ICE versions as well) has pro-power which is exactly what you reference here. Marketed towards people doing construction where you might not have electric set up at all yet at a house that doesn't exist, but also works as backup power and enough juice (7.2 KW I believe - more in aggregate from 2 separate inverters in the lightning, but I think it supports 7.2KW output via a single 240V plug in the bed).
I don't have an electric car.
There's been thunderstorms rolling through. We had a power outage. I don't have a backup generator. I don't have solar (cloudy?) panels. Those who live in the areas where solar makes some sense often have a battery bank and inverter to serve the needs of their homes when the sun doesn't shine.
Can you use the battery of an electric car through an inverter to serve some of the needs of a home during power outages? It seems like getting an inverter and a plug to the car would be simpler than a backup generator.
Maybe someone can point us to an after-market version? Because I'd like to add that to the LEAF and stop with our gas generator (just a PITA basically - works fine, but now I've got another motor to take care of, gas to store, and so on).CHAdeMO (which is what the LEAF uses) has always supported bi-directional charging. LEAFs were used as emergency generators during the Fukushima disaster.
Maybe someone can point us to an after-market version? Because I'd like to add that to the LEAF and stop with our gas generator (just a PITA basically - works fine, but now I've got another motor to take care of, gas to store, and so on).CHAdeMO (which is what the LEAF uses) has always supported bi-directional charging. LEAFs were used as emergency generators during the Fukushima disaster.
The Wallbox Quasar (https://wallbox.com/en_catalog/quasar-dc-charger) is supposed to support powering your home via a CHAdeMO EV connection, but I'm not sure how to buy one (and last time I looked they were supposed to be like $4k). The same company also lists a Quasar 2 (https://wallbox.com/en_us/quasar2-dc-charger) that uses CCS instead. Not sure if only certain EVs will be compatible though (like the VW ID.4 which is supposed to be enabling bi-directional charging soon).
I haven't looked much deeper than that. I suspect there will be more manufacturers offering their own bi-directional capable home charging stations like Ford as time goes on.
I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.
If there were two vehicles it would be less of a deal
I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.
If there were two vehicles it would be less of a deal
I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.
If there were two vehicles it would be less of a deal
And that assumes your EV is at or near full charge when the power goes out.
Another Crazy Idea:Depends on the car. Generally speaking that is even part of the renewable energies strategy - after all, most of all those huge batteries are never used. Using 20% of their capacity to store solar power on midday to release in the night is dirt cheap.
I don't have an electric car.
There's been thunderstorms rolling through. We had a power outage. I don't have a backup generator. I don't have solar (cloudy?) panels. Those who live in the areas where solar makes some sense often have a battery bank and inverter to serve the needs of their homes when the sun doesn't shine.
Can you use the battery of an electric car through an inverter to serve some of the needs of a home during power outages? It seems like getting an inverter and a plug to the car would be simpler than a backup generator.
This source gets a number of 6kWh of juice used per day for a refrigeratorAn AMERICAN SIZED, AGE OLD refrigerator. Modern (EU sized) ones are rated at about at 0,6kWh per day. And even big ones (2 doors) don't go above double that since the isolation is that is keeping the cold in, so the volume is not having a big effect after a certain minimum size.
QuoteThis source gets a number of 6kWh of juice used per day for a refrigeratorAn AMERICAN SIZED, AGE OLD refrigerator. Modern (EU sized) ones are rated at about at 0,6kWh per day. And even big ones (2 doors) don't go above double that since the isolation is that is keeping the cold in, so the volume is not having a big effect after a certain minimum size.
I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.Suppose it depends on your situation - probably would have to track things and find places to charge (in our case there's a bunch of free chargers around town) and plan for a couple of hours every other day to go get some juice and bring it home. In a power-out for potentially a long time situation, you'd probably manage particularly high-draw things like cutting central air in favor of portable AC only where you need it and "no dryer, no oven". Same as on generator unless you've got a massive one.
If there were two vehicles it would be less of a deal
I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.Suppose it depends on your situation - probably would have to track things and find places to charge (in our case there's a bunch of free chargers around town) and plan for a couple of hours every other day to go get some juice and bring it home. In a power-out for potentially a long time situation, you'd probably manage particularly high-draw things like cutting central air in favor of portable AC only where you need it and "no dryer, no oven". Same as on generator unless you've got a massive one.
If there were two vehicles it would be less of a deal
In our case, the main concern is hurricane - 2016 Hermine was first one to hit Tallahassee proper since 1989. Power was out for a full week, and we weren't the last ones to have it restored. Our 1950's-built neighborhood took some time to clear all the downed trees and get the power poles replaced and so on, but in-town with over 1,000 houses means we aren't super low on the priority list either. Agree that more options is a good thing.I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.Suppose it depends on your situation - probably would have to track things and find places to charge (in our case there's a bunch of free chargers around town) and plan for a couple of hours every other day to go get some juice and bring it home. In a power-out for potentially a long time situation, you'd probably manage particularly high-draw things like cutting central air in favor of portable AC only where you need it and "no dryer, no oven". Same as on generator unless you've got a massive one.
If there were two vehicles it would be less of a deal
The last time we had a multi-day power outage it was in the middle of the winter and -25 outside. And without electricity our gas furnace blower won't run, which means no heating. I'd rather lose ability to drive than risk potential burst water pipes any day of the week . . . but the beauty is, you just have more options with an EV that can be fed back into the house. If you would rather drive away, then you can do that too.
I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.Suppose it depends on your situation - probably would have to track things and find places to charge (in our case there's a bunch of free chargers around town) and plan for a couple of hours every other day to go get some juice and bring it home. In a power-out for potentially a long time situation, you'd probably manage particularly high-draw things like cutting central air in favor of portable AC only where you need it and "no dryer, no oven". Same as on generator unless you've got a massive one.
If there were two vehicles it would be less of a deal
The last time we had a multi-day power outage it was in the middle of the winter and -25 outside. And without electricity our gas furnace blower won't run, which means no heating. I'd rather lose ability to drive than risk potential burst water pipes any day of the week . . . but the beauty is, you just have more options with an EV that can be fed back into the house. If you would rather drive away, then you can do that too.
I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.Suppose it depends on your situation - probably would have to track things and find places to charge (in our case there's a bunch of free chargers around town) and plan for a couple of hours every other day to go get some juice and bring it home. In a power-out for potentially a long time situation, you'd probably manage particularly high-draw things like cutting central air in favor of portable AC only where you need it and "no dryer, no oven". Same as on generator unless you've got a massive one.
If there were two vehicles it would be less of a deal
The last time we had a multi-day power outage it was in the middle of the winter and -25 outside. And without electricity our gas furnace blower won't run, which means no heating. I'd rather lose ability to drive than risk potential burst water pipes any day of the week . . . but the beauty is, you just have more options with an EV that can be fed back into the house. If you would rather drive away, then you can do that too.
This has been my experience as well. Multi-day power outage often occur with extreme weather and/or civil unrest. In both cases the ability to GTFO takes on a high priority. It’s not always advisable to shelter in place, even if you have the electrical power.
Sometimes what you think might last a day or two drags on much longer and the consequences get more severe.
I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.Suppose it depends on your situation - probably would have to track things and find places to charge (in our case there's a bunch of free chargers around town) and plan for a couple of hours every other day to go get some juice and bring it home. In a power-out for potentially a long time situation, you'd probably manage particularly high-draw things like cutting central air in favor of portable AC only where you need it and "no dryer, no oven". Same as on generator unless you've got a massive one.
If there were two vehicles it would be less of a deal
The last time we had a multi-day power outage it was in the middle of the winter and -25 outside. And without electricity our gas furnace blower won't run, which means no heating. I'd rather lose ability to drive than risk potential burst water pipes any day of the week . . . but the beauty is, you just have more options with an EV that can be fed back into the house. If you would rather drive away, then you can do that too.
This has been my experience as well. Multi-day power outage often occur with extreme weather and/or civil unrest. In both cases the ability to GTFO takes on a high priority. It’s not always advisable to shelter in place, even if you have the electrical power.
Sometimes what you think might last a day or two drags on much longer and the consequences get more severe.
Mobility shouldn't be an issue. I have a bike and pretty good knowledge of routes within a 100 km radius of our house. :P
I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.
If there were two vehicles it would be less of a deal
And that assumes your EV is at or near full charge when the power goes out.
Average battery capacity for an ev 64.1 kWh
https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/useable-battery-capacity-electric-car (https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/useable-battery-capacity-electric-car)
Say you used 1/3 of that and got home right as the power went out.
64.1 * 2/3 = 42.7kWh of juice left in the car
This source gets a number of 6kWh of juice used per day for a refrigerator (https://www.energybot.com/blog/how-many-watts-does-a-refrigerator-use.html (https://www.energybot.com/blog/how-many-watts-does-a-refrigerator-use.html))
42.7kWh * (1day / 6kWh) = 7.11 day
Assuming you are not running the ac and the fridge is the biggest power draw (TV will likely be off as the internet may also be down so what is there to watch?). The average car could give you basic power for most of a week. But as always YMMV. Even some more worst case numbers you are still looking at several days if you are at all careful with power usage.
Another Crazy Idea:Depends on the car. Generally speaking that is even part of the renewable energies strategy - after all, most of all those huge batteries are never used. Using 20% of their capacity to store solar power on midday to release in the night is dirt cheap.
I don't have an electric car.
There's been thunderstorms rolling through. We had a power outage. I don't have a backup generator. I don't have solar (cloudy?) panels. Those who live in the areas where solar makes some sense often have a battery bank and inverter to serve the needs of their homes when the sun doesn't shine.
Can you use the battery of an electric car through an inverter to serve some of the needs of a home during power outages? It seems like getting an inverter and a plug to the car would be simpler than a backup generator.QuoteThis source gets a number of 6kWh of juice used per day for a refrigeratorAn AMERICAN SIZED, AGE OLD refrigerator. Modern (EU sized) ones are rated at about at 0,6kWh per day. And even big ones (2 doors) don't go above double that since the isolation is that is keeping the cold in, so the volume is not having a big effect after a certain minimum size.
Due to the inrush on motor starting of the refrigerator compressor it immediately knocked the generator out. How do inverters handle inrush? Will they need to be overrated for motor starting purposes?
I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.Maybe you'd feel differently if your EV had solar panels (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjoHimaqqfY)? (too bad this is unlikely to ever be sold in the US...)
Maybe you'd feel differently if your EV had solar panels (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjoHimaqqfY)? (too bad this is unlikely to ever be sold in the US...)
Solar panels on your house plus a bi-directional charging capable EV could handle extended power outages pretty well, I think.
I question whether I’d be brave enough to power my home with my EV - particularly if it was a primary vehicle. If the power didn’t return with a couple of days (or less) I’d have a dead car and still no power.Maybe you'd feel differently if your EV had solar panels (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjoHimaqqfY)? (too bad this is unlikely to ever be sold in the US...)
Solar panels on your house plus a bi-directional charging capable EV could handle extended power outages pretty well, I think.
I like that new buildouts in Denver are much more focused on local businesses, increased density, and higher walkability. It's enough that I've been able to convert my own life to having 90% of everything I need within walking distance. And since I work from home 100% of the time, my need to use my car has dropped precipitously. It's healthier and (more importantly) cheaper.
I'm well aware, as you might gather if read some of my other posts in this thread. However, we have to deal with the world as it is and hopefully come up with pragmatic solutions that can actually make the future better.Cars isn't a remotely workable solution. And people already know that, they are complaining about traffic all the time. Putting solar on a car does not make traffic go away. There is nothing pragmatic about going for a "solution" where you already know it's not working.
Saying cars very existence is the problem is a not remotely a workable solution. It's about 10 bridges too far for the normal person who balks at the very prospect of a bike lane or the horrors of public transit.
I'm well aware, as you might gather if read some of my other posts in this thread. However, we have to deal with the world as it is and hopefully come up with pragmatic solutions that can actually make the future better.Cars isn't a remotely workable solution. And people already know that, they are complaining about traffic all the time. Putting solar on a car does not make traffic go away. There is nothing pragmatic about going for a "solution" where you already know it's not working.
Saying cars very existence is the problem is a not remotely a workable solution. It's about 10 bridges too far for the normal person who balks at the very prospect of a bike lane or the horrors of public transit.
Paris has doubled the amount of trips taken by bike in 2 years. In most US cities that would require just 5 people biking, sounds managable.
Sarcasm aside, as in many cases the solution is easy, people just can't or don't want to see it. But it is already done in other places, so it's like you have to figure out Columbus' egg or the gordian knot on yourself.
Maybe you'd feel differently if your EV had solar panels (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjoHimaqqfY)? (too bad this is unlikely to ever be sold in the US...)
Solar panels on your house plus a bi-directional charging capable EV could handle extended power outages pretty well, I think.
That's amazing.
Update on Federal tax credit reform
https://electrek.co/2022/07/27/senate-moves-forward-ev-tax-credit-reform-tesla-tsla/
*sigh*Hard to say - the car market is bonkers right now, and with the increasing demand for EVs coupled with supply chain woes, I'm not sure it'll get better anytime soon. I will be selling my 2020 Model 3 soon and fully expect to get more back than I paid for it new.
Plz 2 facepunch.
The new credit almost makes looking at a new EV interesting, though I should probably wait the 7-8 years until our first kid is driving, and no new cars are available at any cost.
But buying a new car, even with all the incentives, just feels dumb. And the used market is insane, so... *shrug* Volt should last another half million miles, right?
*sigh*
Plz 2 facepunch.
The new credit almost makes looking at a new EV interesting, though I should probably wait the 7-8 years until our first kid is driving, and no new cars are available at any cost.
But buying a new car, even with all the incentives, just feels dumb. And the used market is insane, so... *shrug* Volt should last another half million miles, right?
But buying a new car, even with all the incentives, just feels dumb. And the used market is insane, so... *shrug* Volt should last another half million miles, right?
Hard to say - the car market is bonkers right now, and with the increasing demand for EVs coupled with supply chain woes, I'm not sure it'll get better anytime soon. I will be selling my 2020 Model 3 soon and fully expect to get more back than I paid for it new.
Yeah, I keep face-punching myself for ordering a new car, but with the incentives and the insane used market I'd pay **more** for a 3 year old EV than I would for one that was brand new and under warranty.
Sadly our existing car utterly failed inspection (20+ years, rust, more rust, and then rust on top of rust).
The new credit almost makes looking at a new EV interestingThe reform is supposed to add a $4k credit for purchasing a used EV. Though with how used car prices are right now I'm not sure if that's even going to be cheaper than a new car...
The reform is supposed to add a $4k credit for purchasing a used EV. Though with how used car prices are right now I'm not sure if that's even going to be cheaper than a new car...
On the other hand, all the new EVs are full in, doubled down on all the cell connection, all the time, big data analytics, ship it broken and patch it later. Does anyone even sell a car without a cell modem streaming all your driving data up to "various partners"?
By the time you conform to all the safety regulations*, you might as sell the data because you're 90% there with all the computer controls you've had to implement.
I like running EVs, but I also recognize they don't have an infinite lifespan like a gasser does.Actually EVs have a longer lifespan than gassers. Their battery might not have as long a lofe span as the gas motor is the only (and heaviest) point. The thought was that by the time you need a new one, they would be cheaper and more powerful at the same time.
The new credit almost makes looking at a new EV interestingThe reform is supposed to add a $4k credit for purchasing a used EV. Though with how used car prices are right now I'm not sure if that's even going to be cheaper than a new car...
I suppose I can look into removing the cell modem from the cars too, but I assume they're only twice as annoying as your typical heater core to replace.
I suppose I can look into removing the cell modem from the cars too, but I assume they're only twice as annoying as your typical heater core to replace.
Not necessarily. I saw on the web that the next older generation of our "good car" had a battery drain issue traced to the cell modem. The fix is to simply unplug it. It is located in the base of the center console and apparently easy to access. The 2G or 3G networks that our car relied on were shutdown and indeed the network icon on the touch screen has gone dark. I have considered unplugging the modem in our car but not made the effort.
Seriously just want an EV similar to our late-90s car. Motor, heat/air, radio, knobs. Back when advanced tech was power windows, airbags and ABS.
Oh yes! Kei-car sized. All you need as a single/pair.The new credit almost makes looking at a new EV interestingThe reform is supposed to add a $4k credit for purchasing a used EV. Though with how used car prices are right now I'm not sure if that's even going to be cheaper than a new car...
There is a $25k price cap and only one credit per VIN. It's going to be really messy trying to figure out what is covered and what isn't.
I would dearly love to get an Ioniq 5 except that its a 6 month wait (apart from the fact that I drive less than 1000 miles a month and spend barely anything on gas).By then Lithium will be in very short supply. Don't put you hopes up.
I would dearly love to get an Ioniq 5 except that its a 6 month wait (apart from the fact that I drive less than 1000 miles a month and spend barely anything on gas).By then Lithium will be in very short supply. Don't put you hopes up.
There may be substantial domestic (US) lithium production coming on line fairly soon:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/04/the-salton-sea-could-produce-the-worlds-greenest-lithium.html
If you believe the sudies of e.g. Morgan Stanley, then demand will outpace supply in this decade even if you take all planned production capacities. And it takes years to build one. Also the Lithium price ist still about 3 times higher than it was at the last peak 5 years ago.I would dearly love to get an Ioniq 5 except that its a 6 month wait (apart from the fact that I drive less than 1000 miles a month and spend barely anything on gas).By then Lithium will be in very short supply. Don't put you hopes up.
There may be substantial domestic (US) lithium production coming on line fairly soon:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/04/the-salton-sea-could-produce-the-worlds-greenest-lithium.html
So if were only about cost, everyone should scramble to get new production up, but I don't hear much about that.
So if were only about cost, everyone should scramble to get new production up, but I don't hear much about that.
Maybe it's different in western Europe, but here in N. America there's a tremendous scramble to ramp production, both in the US and in Canada. Estimates I'm seeing has domestic (US) production forecast to increase 300% in the next eight years. China and Canada are massively increasing their capacity as well.
In the early 2000s Australia produced roughly 30% of the global supply, with virtually zero coming from N. America. We may reach parity in production by the end of this decade, even as Australia continues to ramp up production as well.
Yeah, that's the point. 300% of a small regional amount is not much if you suppose a 5-fold increase in global demand at a minimum.
Actually EVs have a longer lifespan than gassers. Their battery might not have as long a lofe span as the gas motor is the only (and heaviest) point.
The thought was that by the time you need a new one, they would be cheaper and more powerful at the same time.
Battery packs are already starting to get to 500k miles, and 1M miles is on the near horizon.
That, plus the fact that nearly 100% of the chemicals can be recycled and the recycled batteries can be made to very close to 100% capacity of a brand new battery, means that in the long term, EV's are very green.
You seem to want churn of old cars to new cars to stop, that's just not going to happen.
Having a car with a battery that will outlast the rest of the car, and then is highly recyclable (and the recycling businesses are already kicking things off, see Redwood Materials), that's about as good as it's going to get.
But for some reason you seem bent on criticizing EV's because they aren't perfect.
The stacked packs in the [Polestar 2] can be individually replaced as parts fail. Parker said that if one component fails, the company collects that material back to form a closed-loop system. “We’re exploring remanufacturing and reusing those components that come back,” he said. Polestar also offers complete repair instruction and access to a catalog of parts that owners can purchase directly from the company itself, too.
You seem to want churn of old cars to new cars to stop, that's just not going to happen.
No, I want cars built to be repairable, and that includes things like battery packs. "Gluing together entirely custom cells you can't get anywhere else" (as Tesla is doing in their new packs) is the opposite of this approach, and leads to scrapping cars because the pack has lost capacity, and you can't get a replacement, and you can't build a replacement because it's all based around proprietary technology.
I would like car companies to consider more than the first 5 years of a car's life. I've owned many cars over the years where this was the case, and the car was designed to be maintained. The EA82 Subarus I owned several of were easily my favorite in this realm - every time I had to do something, it felt as though the engineers had pondered that this might have to be done at some point, and the task was "as not-annoying as possible." The engines were non-interference, the fuel pump was on a skid plate in front of the tank instead of in the tank, fuel filter was on the firewall in easy reach, and the engine bay had room to work. Oil filters were positioned to drain straight down (sideways filter with nothing under it), so you had very real "no mess" oil changes. Compare with things like Chevy Cavaliers of the era that had oil filters on the back of the engine, with no way to remove them that didn't drench the flex coupling in the exhaust pipe with oil...
But I'm mostly pointing out the absurdity of claiming a battery pack will outlast a gas engine.
I rebuilt ebike battery packs professionally for several years. I'm familiar with the issues, and "going to unmaintainable stuff that can't be rebuilt," as BionX did before going out of business, absolutely creates more waste than a pack that can be easily rebuilt with no heroics required. Their late 48V packs were unreliable trash compared to the older 37V ones, and it showed in how often they failed and how often people would scrap the rest of the parts out because you could no longer get a pack. They were actually more repairable on paper (modular connections instead of soldered), but BionX wouldn't sell parts, and wouldn't provide the software to reset the BMS, so you ended up with a lot of dead packs that were entirely dead, because the BMS latched the failure condition and self-bricked. Even a new bank of cells wouldn't recover it.QuoteHaving a car with a battery that will outlast the rest of the car, and then is highly recyclable (and the recycling businesses are already kicking things off, see Redwood Materials), that's about as good as it's going to get.
Having a car with a battery pack that can be rebuilt, with the rest of the car also being able to be rebuilt and maintained, is better than your proposed solution. But all the auto makers are using EVs as an excuse to build throwaway cellphone-like cars that get three software updates, changing the UI for no good reason, and then tell you that they're out of date and you should just buy a new one. It's worse for the planet, and worse for owners, than a maintainable solution, in every way.QuoteBut for some reason you seem bent on criticizing EV's because they aren't perfect.
See above. I like EVs, I drive a Volt, I've rebuilt ebike battery packs, I'm working to help a variety of people with local solar installs, but I have found, in every aspect of life, that "repairable" options are better than "glued together proprietary" options, and too many of the modern EVs are rushing to the second option, because something that can be repaired is likely to live a longer service life. Then, of course, they shove cell modems in and turn them into giant behavioral data extraction machines on wheels, which I also object in the strongest possible terms to. My car should not be sending data about my driving behavior upstream to be sold to "partners" who will then use it to try and influence my political and purchasing behaviors.
See above. I like EVs, I drive a Volt, I've rebuilt ebike battery packs, I'm working to help a variety of people with local solar installs, but I have found, in every aspect of life, that "repairable" options are better than "glued together proprietary" options, and too many of the modern EVs are rushing to the second option, because something that can be repaired is likely to live a longer service life. Then, of course, they shove cell modems in and turn them into giant behavioral data extraction machines on wheels, which I also object in the strongest possible terms to. My car should not be sending data about my driving behavior upstream to be sold to "partners" who will then use it to try and influence my political and purchasing behaviors.
No, I want cars built to be repairable, and that includes things like battery packs. "Gluing together entirely custom cells you can't get anywhere else"No ICE build in the last ~20 years is repairable without spare parts from either the producer or a knock-off. That's part of what comes if you make them better. You just can't file the accuracy you need for an modern engine (as a story from the GDR goes about a western car that was stranded in the communist hell, where the mechanic filed a part "good enough to get home").
No ICE build in the last ~20 years is repairable without spare parts from either the producer or a knock-off. That's part of what comes if you make them better. You just can't file the accuracy you need for an modern engine (as a story from the GDR goes about a western car that was stranded in the communist hell, where the mechanic filed a part "good enough to get home").
No, I want cars built to be repairable, and that includes things like battery packs. "Gluing together entirely custom cells you can't get anywhere else"No ICE build in the last ~20 years is repairable without spare parts from either the producer or a knock-off. That's part of what comes if you make them better. You just can't file the accuracy you need for an modern engine (as a story from the GDR goes about a western car that was stranded in the communist hell, where the mechanic filed a part "good enough to get home").
Putting that aside I am all in for right to repair etc.
No, I want cars built to be repairable, and that includes things like battery packs. "Gluing together entirely custom cells you can't get anywhere else"No ICE build in the last ~20 years is repairable without spare parts from either the producer or a knock-off. That's part of what comes if you make them better. You just can't file the accuracy you need for an modern engine (as a story from the GDR goes about a western car that was stranded in the communist hell, where the mechanic filed a part "good enough to get home").
Putting that aside I am all in for right to repair etc.
Part of why I sold my 1991 Toyota MR2 was because I couldn't buy certain parts anymore - finding used parts gets tough when they're all 20+ years old.
One example was my power steering rack was leaking and you couldn't get a new one (rebuilt/used was the only option, if I recall correctly).
See above. I like EVs, I drive a Volt, I've rebuilt ebike battery packs, I'm working to help a variety of people with local solar installs, but I have found, in every aspect of life, that "repairable" options are better than "glued together proprietary" options, and too many of the modern EVs are rushing to the second option, because something that can be repaired is likely to live a longer service life. Then, of course, they shove cell modems in and turn them into giant behavioral data extraction machines on wheels, which I also object in the strongest possible terms to. My car should not be sending data about my driving behavior upstream to be sold to "partners" who will then use it to try and influence my political and purchasing behaviors.
Yeah, I think we're in agreement on this. It is much better to be able to repair things than just have to throw them away.
One example was my power steering rack was leaking and you couldn't get a new one (rebuilt/used was the only option, if I recall correctly).
So pull the rack and replace the seals on it. It looks like both pump and rack seal kits for that year are easily obtained. That's usually all a "rebuilt" one is, replace the seals and call it good. It's not like you have to get a machine shop to fabricate new parts for it if it's leaking (assuming the usual seal wear is the cause). Though I've also had very good luck over the years with some of the "seal sweller" stop leak stuff in power steering systems that are starting to mark their territory.
Repairing complicated stuff is hard, it takes highly skilled humans, and products evolve so fast it is really hard to gain expertise on repairing things.
Complex products can be built by robots.
There is maybe $25 worth of raw material in a cell phone, and several thousand for a car. It is much more efficient to melt/crush them down and recycle the resources then fix them. Generally, speaking repaired things aren't as good as new, much less as capable as the new models. What we need to get better at is recycling the resources, which sadly we aren't doing.
Sure, in that particular case there was a fine alternate solution. But it is just one example of parts being discontinued.
Well said Synonyk.
Seriously just want an EV similar to our late-90s car. Motor, heat/air, radio, knobs. Back when advanced tech was power windows, airbags and ABS.
Here is a good visualization for how inefficient yourWouldn't an ICE vehicle be something like a dozen air conditioners then?electriccar is at moving you between physical spaces[...]
Here is a good visualization for how inefficient your electric car is at moving you between physical spaces, compared to, say, an e-bike (remember that half of all vehicle trips in this country are less than three miles):
"Along similar lines, most people don’t understand just how much electricity EVs use, so let me give you an example. Electric car owners today would generally be thrilled to get an efficiency of four miles per kilowatt-hour. Most get less. But if you’re traveling at 65 mph on the highway, that means using 16 kilowatts to travel for one hour. In that same time, a whole-home air conditioner running at full tilt is using something like four kilowatts. So driving on the highway uses, at a bare minimum, as much electricity as running four air conditioners at once. But realistically, most EVs get less than four miles per kwh, and most people drive faster than 65 mph on the highway, so the actual effect is probably more like five or even six air conditioners. " (https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkkpw/the-manchin-climate-compromise-doubles-down-on-car-culture)
Here is a good visualization for how inefficient yourWouldn't an ICE vehicle be something like a dozen air conditioners then?electriccar is at moving you between physical spaces[...]
But if you’re traveling at 65 mph on the highway, that means using 16 kilowatts to travel for one hour. In that same time, a whole-home air conditioner running at full tilt is using something like four kilowatts. So driving on the highway uses, at a bare minimum, as much electricity as running four air conditioners at once. But realistically, most EVs get less than four miles per kwh, and most people drive faster than 65 mph on the highway, so the actual effect is probably more like five or even six air conditioners.
Here is a good visualization for how inefficient your electric car is at moving you between physical spaces, compared to, say, an e-bike (remember that half of all vehicle trips in this country are less than three miles):
"Along similar lines, most people don’t understand just how much electricity EVs use, so let me give you an example. Electric car owners today would generally be thrilled to get an efficiency of four miles per kilowatt-hour. Most get less. But if you’re traveling at 65 mph on the highway, that means using 16 kilowatts to travel for one hour. In that same time, a whole-home air conditioner running at full tilt is using something like four kilowatts. So driving on the highway uses, at a bare minimum, as much electricity as running four air conditioners at once. But realistically, most EVs get less than four miles per kwh, and most people drive faster than 65 mph on the highway, so the actual effect is probably more like five or even six air conditioners. " (https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkkpw/the-manchin-climate-compromise-doubles-down-on-car-culture)
Once you get your energy from renewables, does that even matter?
Here is a good visualization for how inefficient your electric car is at moving you between physical spaces, compared to, say, an e-bike (remember that half of all vehicle trips in this country are less than three miles):
"Along similar lines, most people don’t understand just how much electricity EVs use, so let me give you an example. Electric car owners today would generally be thrilled to get an efficiency of four miles per kilowatt-hour. Most get less. But if you’re traveling at 65 mph on the highway, that means using 16 kilowatts to travel for one hour. In that same time, a whole-home air conditioner running at full tilt is using something like four kilowatts. So driving on the highway uses, at a bare minimum, as much electricity as running four air conditioners at once. But realistically, most EVs get less than four miles per kwh, and most people drive faster than 65 mph on the highway, so the actual effect is probably more like five or even six air conditioners. " (https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkkpw/the-manchin-climate-compromise-doubles-down-on-car-culture)
Once you get your energy from renewables, does that even matter?
Here is a good visualization for how inefficient your electric car is at moving you between physical spaces, compared to, say, an e-bike (remember that half of all vehicle trips in this country are less than three miles):
"Along similar lines, most people don’t understand just how much electricity EVs use, so let me give you an example. Electric car owners today would generally be thrilled to get an efficiency of four miles per kilowatt-hour. Most get less. But if you’re traveling at 65 mph on the highway, that means using 16 kilowatts to travel for one hour. In that same time, a whole-home air conditioner running at full tilt is using something like four kilowatts. So driving on the highway uses, at a bare minimum, as much electricity as running four air conditioners at once. But realistically, most EVs get less than four miles per kwh, and most people drive faster than 65 mph on the highway, so the actual effect is probably more like five or even six air conditioners. " (https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkkpw/the-manchin-climate-compromise-doubles-down-on-car-culture)
Once you get your energy from renewables, does that even matter?
Once you personally get all your energy from renewables, or once the whole grid gets its energy from renewables? In the second case, sure it probably doesn't matter. But we're a far ways from that, so in the meantime, reducing your own usage means more of that green energy can go to other customers and still decrease total grid reliance on gas/coal.
Now if you're operating with an entirely off-grid solar system and not feeding your extra back into the grid to serve other customers, then sure, do whatever.
What if I got all my power from nukes? Would that be almost as good?
Here is a good visualization for how inefficient your electric car is at moving you between physical spaces, compared to, say, an e-bike (remember that half of all vehicle trips in this country are less than three miles):
"Along similar lines, most people don’t understand just how much electricity EVs use, so let me give you an example. Electric car owners today would generally be thrilled to get an efficiency of four miles per kilowatt-hour. Most get less. But if you’re traveling at 65 mph on the highway, that means using 16 kilowatts to travel for one hour. In that same time, a whole-home air conditioner running at full tilt is using something like four kilowatts. So driving on the highway uses, at a bare minimum, as much electricity as running four air conditioners at once. But realistically, most EVs get less than four miles per kwh, and most people drive faster than 65 mph on the highway, so the actual effect is probably more like five or even six air conditioners. " (https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkkpw/the-manchin-climate-compromise-doubles-down-on-car-culture)
Once you get your energy from renewables, does that even matter?
Once you personally get all your energy from renewables, or once the whole grid gets its energy from renewables? In the second case, sure it probably doesn't matter. But we're a far ways from that, so in the meantime, reducing your own usage means more of that green energy can go to other customers and still decrease total grid reliance on gas/coal.
Now if you're operating with an entirely off-grid solar system and not feeding your extra back into the grid to serve other customers, then sure, do whatever.
I was going to put solar on my roof, but here in CO the local power company (Xcel Energy) gives you the option to get 100% of your energy from renewables. It's a bit more expensive, but it's worth it to me. So, yes, I do get 100% of my energy from renewables.
Now, just gotta buy an EV at some point, lol. I still have my 15 year old ICE car. I keep waiting for it to die, but it seems like it might never do that because I'm about 90% walkable/bikeable. So the car just sits there, mostly.
Here is a good visualization for how inefficient your electric car is at moving you between physical spaces, compared to, say, an e-bike (remember that half of all vehicle trips in this country are less than three miles):
"Along similar lines, most people don’t understand just how much electricity EVs use, so let me give you an example. Electric car owners today would generally be thrilled to get an efficiency of four miles per kilowatt-hour. Most get less. But if you’re traveling at 65 mph on the highway, that means using 16 kilowatts to travel for one hour. In that same time, a whole-home air conditioner running at full tilt is using something like four kilowatts. So driving on the highway uses, at a bare minimum, as much electricity as running four air conditioners at once. But realistically, most EVs get less than four miles per kwh, and most people drive faster than 65 mph on the highway, so the actual effect is probably more like five or even six air conditioners. " (https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkkpw/the-manchin-climate-compromise-doubles-down-on-car-culture)
Once you get your energy from renewables, does that even matter?
Once you personally get all your energy from renewables, or once the whole grid gets its energy from renewables? In the second case, sure it probably doesn't matter. But we're a far ways from that, so in the meantime, reducing your own usage means more of that green energy can go to other customers and still decrease total grid reliance on gas/coal.
Now if you're operating with an entirely off-grid solar system and not feeding your extra back into the grid to serve other customers, then sure, do whatever.
I was going to put solar on my roof, but here in CO the local power company (Xcel Energy) gives you the option to get 100% of your energy from renewables. It's a bit more expensive, but it's worth it to me. So, yes, I do get 100% of my energy from renewables.
Now, just gotta buy an EV at some point, lol. I still have my 15 year old ICE car. I keep waiting for it to die, but it seems like it might never do that because I'm about 90% walkable/bikeable. So the car just sits there, mostly.
Right, so the local power company has a certain amount of renewable energy available in the grid. That renewable energy is earmarked first to customers like you who are paying for renewable only (I do this too, it's definitely worthwhile). However, if not all the renewable energy is earmarked away, the rest still goes into the grid to serve other customers. So reducing your own use, even though you're on 100% renewables, still reduces the amount of fossil fuels used in the grid as a whole.
So I do think it still matters to consider energy efficiency, because less energy used by you directly improves the total fossil fuel use by your local electric company/grid. All energy is transferrable, and renewables tend to produce however much they produce, so all energy savings are likely to come out of the fossil fuel portion of the grid generation.
Well said Synonyk.
A bit before I bought my Ford, I was looking at a Kia hybrid. One of the things that impressed me was that they had the repair manual online. I had to pay for Ford Repair manual on CD.
This isn't the website I saw a few years back, but looks adequate.
https://www.allcarmanuals.com/models-Kia.html (https://www.allcarmanuals.com/models-Kia.html)
I miss Radio Shack. Their products were often sold with schematics.
Well said Synonyk.
A bit before I bought my Ford, I was looking at a Kia hybrid. One of the things that impressed me was that they had the repair manual online. I had to pay for Ford Repair manual on CD.
This isn't the website I saw a few years back, but looks adequate.
https://www.allcarmanuals.com/models-Kia.html (https://www.allcarmanuals.com/models-Kia.html)
I miss Radio Shack. Their products were often sold with schematics.
Starting about 1990 or so I always bought the factory repair manual for cars I owned. Its usually a big step up from the Haynes repair manual that is 65% generic information with a little customization for the car it is supposedly written for. I looked at one over the weekend for a GM product we own and the car in one illustration was actually a Ford Mustang. Recently I tried to locate a repair manual for my Honda product.
No more books from Honda but I can subscribe... $25 per day. $1300 for a year. One year...
https://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/logon.aspx
A proper factory manual might have cost me $125 in the past. I have one for my CRV. First repair paid for it.
I completely agree! Efficiency is important and cutting back on usage is important. That's why any new job I get, my #1 priority is that I can work 100% remotely. This alone cuts out 70% of the driving that I would do. The other thing is when I find a place to live, does it have grocery stores within walking/biking distance. That cuts out another 10% of driving. The only thing I have left that's regular driving is taking my daughter to school, which is only 4 miles away.
And, for anyone reading this thread, please contact your local utility to see if they offer an option to get your power from renewables. Having a lot of customers request it (and being able to charge more for it) really does drive future decisions of the electrical company about how/where they invest money for future buildouts. The more people that pay for it, combined with the falling cost of buildout, that really does tip the balance toward a renewable future.
Here is a good visualization for how inefficient your electric car is at moving you between physical spaces, compared to, say, an e-bike (remember that half of all vehicle trips in this country are less than three miles):
"Along similar lines, most people don’t understand just how much electricity EVs use, so let me give you an example. Electric car owners today would generally be thrilled to get an efficiency of four miles per kilowatt-hour. Most get less. But if you’re traveling at 65 mph on the highway, that means using 16 kilowatts to travel for one hour. In that same time, a whole-home air conditioner running at full tilt is using something like four kilowatts. So driving on the highway uses, at a bare minimum, as much electricity as running four air conditioners at once. But realistically, most EVs get less than four miles per kwh, and most people drive faster than 65 mph on the highway, so the actual effect is probably more like five or even six air conditioners. " (https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkkpw/the-manchin-climate-compromise-doubles-down-on-car-culture)
Once you get your energy from renewables, does that even matter?
You seem to want churn of old cars to new cars to stop, that's just not going to happen.
No, I want cars built to be repairable, and that includes things like battery packs. "Gluing together entirely custom cells you can't get anywhere else" (as Tesla is doing in their new packs) is the opposite of this approach, and leads to scrapping cars because the pack has lost capacity, and you can't get a replacement, and you can't build a replacement because it's all based around proprietary technology.
I subscribed to the equivalent from Toyota/Lexus and downloaded everything I needed to PDF during my (short) subscription window. :D
This situation keeps me from actually buying an EV right now as much as I think they are a good (not perfect) way forward and why I will wait for a simple EV to reach market.
The problem I see is that long term ownership will be tough when batteries are difficult to source for an older EV - and just crushing it in favor of another newer car isn't an option I am willing to entertain. Nor is buying an expensive EV that be impossible to get parts for in 15+ years.
Why scrap a whole car when a replaceable part is what wore out? People do it all the time though. A walk through many scrap yards will prove that.
Ideally for the environment we stop throwing stuff away and keep it longer. My technology is as good as I ever want. TV looks great. Car has a/c and ABS. Smartphone works great. I don't desire anything newer or flashier at this point. Computer is from 2011 and works great (Kubuntu Linux). Maybe my age is showing or something.
When I was in Seattle, almost all my coworkers thought I was a special sort of weird for doing my own work on cars, motorcycles, etc. Why wouldn't I? Apparently, the sort of activities that get grease under your nails are very blue collar, and therefore icky. We don't do that stuff, we pay people to do that stuff! I spent the better part of a nice Saturday redoing the front end of my truck's engine (thermostat replacement sort of went sideways, ended up doing the water pump, serpentine, and both main coolant hoses while I was in there because if you've got the coolant drained that far, may as well), and people were just baffled that I'd spent a day doing that. I figure I saved at least $1000 over shop costs to do it, and the water pump was leaking, so it needed doing anyway.
The good news is that if you're willing to repair stuff, there's a ton of nice stuff being discarded. But more and more it looks like EVs are being designed to inhibit that. Which is very annoying. I got around for a decade on the gap between when someone else thought a car should go to the junkyard and when I thought it should.
It has to start somewhere. Could be you!
There's quite a bit of cell re-use in the diy community. People use old tesla batteries for power walls and such. Then there is a fairly robust and growing community of lower power EV stuff - Ebikes, scooters, e-carts, RC, etc. I imagine it won't be too long until more people get on board the high-voltage, high power stuff, but it'll be niche due to the danger involved.
Right now 72V nominal (84V max 20s *4.2v) is about where the DIY community has topped out. Even with massive surge current capability, you're looking at applications of < 50hp (300A*84V ~= 25KW / .75 ~= 33hp).
Once high-voltage EVs have a longer history and better market penetration, the after market will hopefully start develop applications for it.
From my understanding it took the Ford flathead V8 being on the market in large numbers before the aftermarket hot rod community really grew into it's own.
There's quite a bit of cell re-use in the diy community. People use old tesla batteries for power walls and such.
I imagine it won't be too long until more people get on board the high-voltage, high power stuff, but it'll be niche due to the danger involved.
Once high-voltage EVs have a longer history and better market penetration, the after market will hopefully start develop applications for it.
There's quite a bit of cell re-use in the diy community. People use old tesla batteries for power walls and such.
Sure, but that's "using old car batteries and such for other storage," not generating new car batteries in most cases.QuoteI imagine it won't be too long until more people get on board the high-voltage, high power stuff, but it'll be niche due to the danger involved.
And you still can't rebuild, from new cells, almost anyone's EV packs. I literally can't get the cells for the Volt at this point except as used.QuoteOnce high-voltage EVs have a longer history and better market penetration, the after market will hopefully start develop applications for it.
Perhaps. And I expect Tesla to sue the first creator of aftermarket packs. You know, for "safety" reasons.
Curious, with your Volt, is it that the cells are unique, a software lock/BMS issue? I mean what's stopping you(or someone else) from building the rough equivalent with different cells?
It just needs a few folks with just enough experience in all of said disciplines to decide to make a thing. And while I'm sure the first response is, "that's too much work" -- so is Linux and the whole open source toolchains that make a Linux box go, if you were trying to build it from scratch rather than over the last few decades.
It has to start somewhere. Could be you!
So how about that new EV credit, due to be signed tomorrow? https://electrek.co/2022/08/15/biden-will-sign-inflation-reduction-act-tomorrow-affecting-ev-credits/
We had been looking at trading in the problem-child for a HI5 or EV6 but those won't qualify anymore. Maybe that'll mean we can find a HI5 Limited to test drive if sales slow down.
On the flip side, if Chevy doesn't raise the price in response, a 250+ mile Bolt EV for under 20 grand? That's crazy good, even with its kinda garbage DCFC speeds. CT or IL (and others?) and can take another 4-5k off. Priced under 15k after rebates? Madness. Put that on the ultium platform to fix the charging speed and they'd never catch up with demand.
https://gearjunkie.com/motors/california-new-gas-car-ban (https://gearjunkie.com/motors/california-new-gas-car-ban)
Not too many top-level news sources posting this yet, but I've seen it come up enough in my algorithmically shoved-down-my-throat suggested "news feed". It looks like California, thanks to the Biden administration's rollback of the Trump emissions rules (specifically for CA anyway), is set to create a rule which would cease the sales of new ICE vehicles by 2035.
Will this actually stick, through the inevitable flurry of lawsuits and through a couple more Presidencies? Who knows. But if it sticks around, it's likely to be adopted by a number of other states.
Ford's already (according to them) gearing up to be primarily an EV company by laying off a bunch of corporate staff, and Toyota recently lost a lawsuit against CA so now they have knelt before CARB and formally recognized the might of its authority.
Solar power trailers for Owyhee Mountain Power.
https://gearjunkie.com/motors/california-new-gas-car-ban (https://gearjunkie.com/motors/california-new-gas-car-ban)
Not too many top-level news sources posting this yet, but I've seen it come up enough in my algorithmically shoved-down-my-throat suggested "news feed". It looks like California, thanks to the Biden administration's rollback of the Trump emissions rules (specifically for CA anyway), is set to create a rule which would cease the sales of new ICE vehicles by 2035.
Will this actually stick, through the inevitable flurry of lawsuits and through a couple more Presidencies? Who knows. But if it sticks around, it's likely to be adopted by a number of other states.
Ford's already (according to them) gearing up to be primarily an EV company by laying off a bunch of corporate staff, and Toyota recently lost a lawsuit against CA so now they have knelt before CARB and formally recognized the might of its authority.
Those are cool!
https://gearjunkie.com/motors/california-new-gas-car-ban (https://gearjunkie.com/motors/california-new-gas-car-ban)
Not too many top-level news sources posting this yet, but I've seen it come up enough in my algorithmically shoved-down-my-throat suggested "news feed". It looks like California, thanks to the Biden administration's rollback of the Trump emissions rules (specifically for CA anyway), is set to create a rule which would cease the sales of new ICE vehicles by 2035.
Will this actually stick, through the inevitable flurry of lawsuits and through a couple more Presidencies? Who knows. But if it sticks around, it's likely to be adopted by a number of other states.
Ford's already (according to them) gearing up to be primarily an EV company by laying off a bunch of corporate staff, and Toyota recently lost a lawsuit against CA so now they have knelt before CARB and formally recognized the might of its authority.
To add some clarity to this, PHEVs will still be allowed to be sold after 2035 with this new mandate. So there will still be ICE's being sold/used in some capacity. Since many people may not have places to charge regularly, and public charging can be challenging, I'm going to bet that many of those PHEVs will rarely be charged up, and simply driven as standard hybrids by people in that situation. At least that's what's happening in Europe:
https://theicct.org/publication/real-world-phev-use-jun22/
That's likely still an improvement compared to the current situation, but it's probably not the ZEV picture that many people have in mind when they read articles like this.
On-demand gas services may kill off the remaining 'gas'-stations in some areas. https://www.gasitup.com/home
When people visit my area two things strike them:
1) We have A-LOT of churches, over four days a guest counted over forty.
2) We have A-LOT of convince stores, there are places that are not even that dense where there will be two 7-11's within blocks of each other. many without gas pumps.
Might be a function of lower land value, lower labor rates and some quirk of taxes? I dont know.
https://gearjunkie.com/motors/california-new-gas-car-ban (https://gearjunkie.com/motors/california-new-gas-car-ban)
Not too many top-level news sources posting this yet, but I've seen it come up enough in my algorithmically shoved-down-my-throat suggested "news feed". It looks like California, thanks to the Biden administration's rollback of the Trump emissions rules (specifically for CA anyway), is set to create a rule which would cease the sales of new ICE vehicles by 2035.
Will this actually stick, through the inevitable flurry of lawsuits and through a couple more Presidencies? Who knows. But if it sticks around, it's likely to be adopted by a number of other states.
Ford's already (according to them) gearing up to be primarily an EV company by laying off a bunch of corporate staff, and Toyota recently lost a lawsuit against CA so now they have knelt before CARB and formally recognized the might of its authority.
To add some clarity to this, PHEVs will still be allowed to be sold after 2035 with this new mandate. So there will still be ICE's being sold/used in some capacity. Since many people may not have places to charge regularly, and public charging can be challenging, I'm going to bet that many of those PHEVs will rarely be charged up, and simply driven as standard hybrids by people in that situation. At least that's what's happening in Europe:
https://theicct.org/publication/real-world-phev-use-jun22/
That's likely still an improvement compared to the current situation, but it's probably not the ZEV picture that many people have in mind when they read articles like this.
While true, my understanding is that PHEV's would have a minimum electric range of 50 miles. Although I can't find my original source for that information, so correct me if I'm wrong. So even those PHEV's will use pretty minimal gas.
With that big of a shift in the market, it's likely that there will be places in CA (and states that follow CA's lead) where you won't be able to find gas stations starting around 2040ish. Gas stations are already low-margin businesses that rely on a lot of foot traffic to survive. I recall reading that the "average" independent gas station generates something like $40k in profit per year for its owner, although that number is probably dated. I could see the gas station business model starting to fail with only a 10-20% drop in foot traffic.
I also don't see the gas station retail format being particularly useful for just adding EV chargers to, although gas stations will try. I think the EV charger networks will evolve to mix with retail/food locations that match a typical EV charge session time. For example, Starbucks is piloting an EV corridor from Denver to Seattle, and we'll probably see more EV chargers at grocery stores to encourage people to spend a few more minutes in the store while charging. There are real business models here beyond just selling electricity. Like gas stations, the money won't be made on the electricity, it will be made on everything purchased while people are charging.
Once gas stations start becoming an inconvenience to find, even PHEV's will have a hard time selling. It will be the inverse of today's situation with difficulty finding EV chargers in some places.
I do hope they use their incredibly large, empty roofs to put up solar panels at least. They don't have customers in the night anyway.
I also don't see the gas station retail format being particularly useful for just adding EV chargers to, although gas stations will try. I think the EV charger networks will evolve to mix with retail/food locations that match a typical EV charge session time. For example, Starbucks is piloting an EV corridor from Denver to Seattle, and we'll probably see more EV chargers at grocery stores to encourage people to spend a few more minutes in the store while charging. There are real business models here beyond just selling electricity. Like gas stations, the money won't be made on the electricity, it will be made on everything purchased while people are charging.
On-demand gas services may kill off the remaining 'gas'-stations in some areas. https://www.gasitup.com/home
When people visit my area two things strike them:
1) We have A-LOT of churches, over four days a guest counted over forty.
2) We have A-LOT of convince stores, there are places that are not even that dense where there will be two 7-11's within blocks of each other. many without gas pumps.
Might be a function of lower land value, lower labor rates and some quirk of taxes? I dont know.
"Save time - No one likes to waste time! The average driver spends at least 7 minutes per trip to the gas station. That adds up to 12 hours a year!" 7 minutes!
Just find that line amusing more than anything. Also approaching two trips to a gas station per week seems high to me.
To add some clarity to this, PHEVs will still be allowed to be sold after 2035 with this new mandate.
While true, my understanding is that PHEV's would have a minimum electric range of 50 miles. Although I can't find my original source for that information, so correct me if I'm wrong. So even those PHEV's will use pretty minimal gas.
On-demand gas services may kill off the remaining 'gas'-stations in some areas. https://www.gasitup.com/home
When people visit my area two things strike them:
1) We have A-LOT of churches, over four days a guest counted over forty.
2) We have A-LOT of convince stores, there are places that are not even that dense where there will be two 7-11's within blocks of each other. many without gas pumps.
Might be a function of lower land value, lower labor rates and some quirk of taxes? I dont know.
"Save time - No one likes to waste time! The average driver spends at least 7 minutes per trip to the gas station. That adds up to 12 hours a year!" 7 minutes!
Just find that line amusing more than anything. Also approaching two trips to a gas station per week seems high to me.
Sarcasm?
I do hope they use their incredibly large, empty roofs to put up solar panels at least. They don't have customers in the night anyway.
Just got back from a week at a cabin in the Cariboo region of BC. About 700 km (434 miles). Used our EV for the trip, with zero hassle.
Over the past couple of years various private operators, as well as BC Hydro (energy company) have set up fast charging stations at almost every little 1 horse town along the highways. In both directions we drove for a few hours, stopped at a fast charger for an hour and ate our lunch in a nice spot, then drove the rest of the way.
One of the fast chargers cost me $12 to 'fill up'. The other one the charge up was provided 'free' by the local small business association - it was right in the middle of the local business centre with multiple restaurants around. On that stop we did the obvious thing and enjoyed a restaurant lunch while the car 'filled up' for free (we ate packed sandwiches the other time).
Total fuel cost of the holiday: $12, plus whatever trivial electrical cost at my house before/after the trip.
If I drive for 3-4 hours I want a break anyway. In literally every way, our EV is better than any ICE I've ever owned. I'm not the only one to notice this, and I have zero doubt that the ICE is a doomed model outside of antiques and some novelty vehicles.
Em... no? Are your supermarkets open in the night? (even if they have, certainly far less than at the day, where the sun can charge the cars.Sarcasm?
I do hope they use their incredibly large, empty roofs to put up solar panels at least. They don't have customers in the night anyway.
Em... no? Are your supermarkets open in the night? (even if they have, certainly far less than at the day, where the sun can charge the cars.Sarcasm?
I do hope they use their incredibly large, empty roofs to put up solar panels at least. They don't have customers in the night anyway.
Em... no? Are your supermarkets open in the night? (even if they have, certainly far less than at the day, where the sun can charge the cars.Sarcasm?
I do hope they use their incredibly large, empty roofs to put up solar panels at least. They don't have customers in the night anyway.
Yes, our supermarkets are typically open late, with a lot of traffic. Looking at our two major chains in teh area, one closes at 10:00pm, the other at 11:00pm. Google tells me the peak shopping for both is from 4-7pm, with the most traffic around 6pm (coinciding with people getting home from work, I guess). In our neck of the woods that puts you at dusk/dark for about half the year.
FWIW I’m a big proponent of installing EV chargers at places like grocery stores, and I frequent one that offers charging for just that reason. Syonyk wrote a great article about why it’s literally better to give L2 charging for free in these places rather than pay to install a metered station such as ChargePoint. But the comment about not being open when it’s dark just struck me as odd, since most of my shopping is done exactly then. Different experiences in different locations, i guess…
hm..Em... no? Are your supermarkets open in the night? (even if they have, certainly far less than at the day, where the sun can charge the cars.Sarcasm?
I do hope they use their incredibly large, empty roofs to put up solar panels at least. They don't have customers in the night anyway.
Yes, our supermarkets are typically open late, with a lot of traffic. Looking at our two major chains in teh area, one closes at 10:00pm, the other at 11:00pm. Google tells me the peak shopping for both is from 4-7pm, with the most traffic around 6pm (coinciding with people getting home from work, I guess). In our neck of the woods that puts you at dusk/dark for about half the year.
FWIW I’m a big proponent of installing EV chargers at places like grocery stores, and I frequent one that offers charging for just that reason. Syonyk wrote a great article about why it’s literally better to give L2 charging for free in these places rather than pay to install a metered station such as ChargePoint. But the comment about not being open when it’s dark just struck me as odd, since most of my shopping is done exactly then. Different experiences in different locations, i guess…
After 2035 in CA - will people be able to import ICE cars from other states? If someone moves to CA, will they be able to bring their ICE car with them?
The California Air Resources Board voted unanimously today to implement perhaps its most significant regulation ever – the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation, which officially implements a planned ban on new gas car sales beginning in 2035 and could shake up the entire US auto market.
FWIW I’m a big proponent of installing EV chargers at places like grocery stores, and I frequent one that offers charging for just that reason. Syonyk wrote a great article about why it’s literally better to give L2 charging for free in these places rather than pay to install a metered station such as ChargePoint. But the comment about not being open when it’s dark just struck me as odd, since most of my shopping is done exactly then. Different experiences in different locations, i guess…
Syonyk's economic case is pretty compelling.
FWIW I’m a big proponent of installing EV chargers at places like grocery stores, and I frequent one that offers charging for just that reason. Syonyk wrote a great article about why it’s literally better to give L2 charging for free in these places rather than pay to install a metered station such as ChargePoint. But the comment about not being open when it’s dark just struck me as odd, since most of my shopping is done exactly then. Different experiences in different locations, i guess…
My local Safeway has free dumb L2 charging. Syonyk's economic case is pretty compelling. It costs a couple bucks an hour to operate. It a rounding error compared the cost of running the beer cooler. If you get even a couple more customers a day to stop in because they change it pays for itself. And the thought process is the same as selling cold beer as opposed to warm beer: You don't have to keep beer cold. But people buy more beer if you do keep it cold.
If you're ever coming through the Boise area, hit me up and I can let you know if we've got them out running somewhere! They're both out at the Nampa Farmer's Market most Saturdays, and various other places too. I tow the little one behind the Volt without trouble, and I can tow the big one, but I'd generally rather not - it's up on the limit of what I'm willing to tow with the Volt, so the guy with the pickup usually tows that one. He's running his well pump on it during the week too, so it just goes home with him. I'll probably have the big one this winter to back up my office, though. Beats generator use by a good amount.
Love to! Those things would be ideal for a food truck.
These also would be great for camping at a multi-day music festival. You could power mechanical refrigeration, outdoor fans, etc.
So just stumbled on this thread and wow, you guys know a ton about this stuff so going to drop my stupid questions here.
I have been interested in moving to an EV when it "makes sense". First question is best way to figure out when that is?
It is unclear to me on if you can really charge an everyday commuter without adding a charging station with higher voltage which significantly adds to the cost of the already costly EV. Am I understanding this correctly, or can an EV recharge fully overnight with just 120V?
We just took a trip from Ohio to Missouri for about 750 miles of travel. I had not seen any charging stations along the way but perhaps that is just because I am not looking for them. As I have EVs more and more on my mind I'm trying to observe if the things I do with a car make it reasonable to think an EV would work. I get over 500 miles on a full tank in our 2015 Sonata (145K miles) but I know EVs are about 200-300 at best. What's the "magic" distance for an EV to be a full replacement (commuter and long trips) in your opinion and why? In addition as politicians rail against free chargers, as noted upthread, seems this lack of chargers may get worse not better?
I've gone back a few pages reading mainly Syonyk's posts as I found them extremely informative, so it seems the battery longevity I felt concerned about is realistic. I think I understood the calendar versus cycle life of the battery talked about. Now that I work from home I drive much, much less, but that can obviously change if I suddenly need to make a job change, but if it does not seems like the calendar life would be my biggest issue (I drive maybe 5K a year now).
I keep waiting for decent EVs to appear in the sub 35K range and seems like 2025 might be it?
That's enough to get started.
On a side note, I used to do a lot of the basic maintenance on my cars too as you seem to love Syonyk. I never got good enough to do a lot of the major stuff, though as you note it's all learnable. No one is born knowing how to change a water pump. I've asked around town and no one will take used oil from an oil change you do yourself, so it makes it darn near impossible to even perform your own oil changes these days unless you want to violate the restrictions on dumping, so I do agree that the drive for decades of thrown away product, including cars, is terrible, just not sure it will ever change. Far too much profit in having people think the only way is to replace decent products or to build in ways the product itself makes its use unbearable after a certain period (tablets, cell phones, etc. with speed loss). It's the old light bulb example, where there have been rumors out there for decades that light bulbs exist that would never burn out but no one will make them as it would kill the market.
It is unclear to me on if you can really charge an everyday commuter without adding a charging station with higher voltage which significantly adds to the cost of the already costly EV. Am I understanding this correctly, or can an EV recharge fully overnight with just 120V?
I had not seen any charging stations along the way but perhaps that is just because I am not looking for them.
In addition as politicians rail against free chargers, as noted upthread, seems this lack of chargers may get worse not better?
I've asked around town and no one will take used oil from an oil change you do yourself, so it makes it darn near impossible to even perform your own oil changes these days...
It's the old light bulb example, where there have been rumors out there for decades that light bulbs exist that would never burn out but no one will make them as it would kill the market.
We just took a trip from Ohio to Missouri for about 750 miles of travel. I had not seen any charging stations along the way but perhaps that is just because I am not looking for them.
So just stumbled on this thread and wow, you guys know a ton about this stuff so going to drop my stupid questions here.
I have been interested in moving to an EV when it "makes sense". First question is best way to figure out when that is?
It is unclear to me on if you can really charge an everyday commuter without adding a charging station with higher voltage which significantly adds to the cost of the already costly EV. Am I understanding this correctly, or can an EV recharge fully overnight with just 120V?
We just took a trip from Ohio to Missouri for about 750 miles of travel. I had not seen any charging stations along the way but perhaps that is just because I am not looking for them. As I have EVs more and more on my mind I'm trying to observe if the things I do with a car make it reasonable to think an EV would work. I get over 500 miles on a full tank in our 2015 Sonata (145K miles) but I know EVs are about 200-300 at best. What's the "magic" distance for an EV to be a full replacement (commuter and long trips) in your opinion and why? In addition as politicians rail against free chargers, as noted upthread, seems this lack of chargers may get worse not better?
I've gone back a few pages reading mainly Syonyk's posts as I found them extremely informative, so it seems the battery longevity I felt concerned about is realistic. I think I understood the calendar versus cycle life of the battery talked about. Now that I work from home I drive much, much less, but that can obviously change if I suddenly need to make a job change, but if it does not seems like the calendar life would be my biggest issue (I drive maybe 5K a year now).
They will also take old batteries but most of us turn in our old vehicle batteries b/c of the core charge at replacement time. Like a bottle deposit.
[
For example, a 400 mile trip will take you a good 7-8 hours of driving. You could do that in one shot in your Sonata, but do you want to? You're probably going to want to stop at least once, maybe twice. You can't do that same trip in one shot in an EV (some EVs, but not most of them), so you'll have stop at least once, maybe twice. You'll have to stop for longer each time, but not a ton of difference really. And even if you want to do it in one shot, do you need to? Is it a capability you need to have? Maybe for some people, but that has to be a rare, niche case.
It is unclear to me on if you can really charge an everyday commuter without adding a charging station with higher voltage which significantly adds to the cost of the already costly EV. Am I understanding this correctly, or can an EV recharge fully overnight with just 120V?My wife was daily-driving our EV and we only needed to charge it once every 2-3 weeks (short commute). We have only been using the 120V at home. Expect maybe 3 miles or so of range gained per hour on 120V (depending on the EV).
We just took a trip from Ohio to Missouri for about 750 miles of travel. I had not seen any charging stations along the way but perhaps that is just because I am not looking for them. As I have EVs more and more on my mind I'm trying to observe if the things I do with a car make it reasonable to think an EV would work. I get over 500 miles on a full tank in our 2015 Sonata (145K miles) but I know EVs are about 200-300 at best. What's the "magic" distance for an EV to be a full replacement (commuter and long trips) in your opinion and why? In addition as politicians rail against free chargers, as noted upthread, seems this lack of chargers may get worse not better?There are a lot of rapid chargers now. For Ohio to Missouri you can make it the whole way on just Electrify America without ever needing to go more than 170 miles per charge:
I keep waiting for decent EVs to appear in the sub 35K range and seems like 2025 might be it?Depends on your definition of decent. There are already multiple 200+ mile range EVs for under $35k (Bolt, Kona, LEAF) before incentives. After incentives there are (/were?) quite a few additional options.
I've asked around town and no one will take used oil from an oil change you do yourself [...]In addition to auto parts stores Walmart should take the oil (yes, for free).
[
For example, a 400 mile trip will take you a good 7-8 hours of driving. You could do that in one shot in your Sonata, but do you want to? You're probably going to want to stop at least once, maybe twice. You can't do that same trip in one shot in an EV (some EVs, but not most of them), so you'll have stop at least once, maybe twice. You'll have to stop for longer each time, but not a ton of difference really. And even if you want to do it in one shot, do you need to? Is it a capability you need to have? Maybe for some people, but that has to be a rare, niche case.
Well I’d go further - it’s not even a question of whether you need to drive >300 miles without stopping, but whether a person ever should. And a whole bunch of research tells us that’s just a terrible idea. Bad for your muscles, bad for your body, bad for your mental acuity (which in turn makes it bad for everyone around you). Of course lots of people DO drive multiple hours without stopping, but that doesn’t make it wise.
[
For example, a 400 mile trip will take you a good 7-8 hours of driving. You could do that in one shot in your Sonata, but do you want to? You're probably going to want to stop at least once, maybe twice. You can't do that same trip in one shot in an EV (some EVs, but not most of them), so you'll have stop at least once, maybe twice. You'll have to stop for longer each time, but not a ton of difference really. And even if you want to do it in one shot, do you need to? Is it a capability you need to have? Maybe for some people, but that has to be a rare, niche case.
Well I’d go further - it’s not even a question of whether you need to drive >300 miles without stopping, but whether a person ever should. And a whole bunch of research tells us that’s just a terrible idea. Bad for your muscles, bad for your body, bad for your mental acuity (which in turn makes it bad for everyone around you). Of course lots of people DO drive multiple hours without stopping, but that doesn’t make it wise.
Eh, we do these types of drives somewhat regularly. It doesn't bother me at all...much prefer to minimize travel time. For example, we drive 600 miles/9 hours each way to visit my brother in Kansas twice a year. Typically a single <10 minute stop for gas+restroom. I've got no interest in doing that with an EV. I'm not opposed to the idea of owning one, but I would probably rent something else for longer trips.
Well I’d go further - it’s not even a question of whether you need to drive >300 miles without stopping, but whether a person ever should. And a whole bunch of research tells us that’s just a terrible idea. Bad for your muscles, bad for your body, bad for your mental acuity (which in turn makes it bad for everyone around you). Of course lots of people DO drive multiple hours without stopping, but that doesn’t make it wise.Totally true. But doctors also say you should make 15 pause every hour of screen time, and there is probably not one person on the whole globe doing that ;)
[
For example, a 400 mile trip will take you a good 7-8 hours of driving. You could do that in one shot in your Sonata, but do you want to? You're probably going to want to stop at least once, maybe twice. You can't do that same trip in one shot in an EV (some EVs, but not most of them), so you'll have stop at least once, maybe twice. You'll have to stop for longer each time, but not a ton of difference really. And even if you want to do it in one shot, do you need to? Is it a capability you need to have? Maybe for some people, but that has to be a rare, niche case.
Well I’d go further - it’s not even a question of whether you need to drive >300 miles without stopping, but whether a person ever should. And a whole bunch of research tells us that’s just a terrible idea. Bad for your muscles, bad for your body, bad for your mental acuity (which in turn makes it bad for everyone around you). Of course lots of people DO drive multiple hours without stopping, but that doesn’t make it wise.
Eh, we do these types of drives somewhat regularly. It doesn't bother me at all...much prefer to minimize travel time. For example, we drive 600 miles/9 hours each way to visit my brother in Kansas twice a year. Typically a single <10 minute stop for gas+restroom. I've got no interest in doing that with an EV. I'm not opposed to the idea of owning one, but I would probably rent something else for longer trips.
I know lots of people who do this. We also know its a bad idea. Kind of like texting while driving.
I have been interested in moving to an EV when it "makes sense". First question is best way to figure out when that is?
It is unclear to me on if you can really charge an everyday commuter without adding a charging station with higher voltage which significantly adds to the cost of the already costly EV. Am I understanding this correctly, or can an EV recharge fully overnight with just 120V?
We just took a trip from Ohio to Missouri for about 750 miles of travel. I had not seen any charging stations along the way but perhaps that is just because I am not looking for them. As I have EVs more and more on my mind I'm trying to observe if the things I do with a car make it reasonable to think an EV would work. I get over 500 miles on a full tank in our 2015 Sonata (145K miles) but I know EVs are about 200-300 at best. What's the "magic" distance for an EV to be a full replacement (commuter and long trips) in your opinion and why? In addition as politicians rail against free chargers, as noted upthread, seems this lack of chargers may get worse not better?
I've gone back a few pages reading mainly Syonyk's posts as I found them extremely informative, so it seems the battery longevity I felt concerned about is realistic. I think I understood the calendar versus cycle life of the battery talked about. Now that I work from home I drive much, much less, but that can obviously change if I suddenly need to make a job change, but if it does not seems like the calendar life would be my biggest issue (I drive maybe 5K a year now).
I keep waiting for decent EVs to appear in the sub 35K range and seems like 2025 might be it?
[
For example, a 400 mile trip will take you a good 7-8 hours of driving. You could do that in one shot in your Sonata, but do you want to? You're probably going to want to stop at least once, maybe twice. You can't do that same trip in one shot in an EV (some EVs, but not most of them), so you'll have stop at least once, maybe twice. You'll have to stop for longer each time, but not a ton of difference really. And even if you want to do it in one shot, do you need to? Is it a capability you need to have? Maybe for some people, but that has to be a rare, niche case.
Well I’d go further - it’s not even a question of whether you need to drive >300 miles without stopping, but whether a person ever should. And a whole bunch of research tells us that’s just a terrible idea. Bad for your muscles, bad for your body, bad for your mental acuity (which in turn makes it bad for everyone around you). Of course lots of people DO drive multiple hours without stopping, but that doesn’t make it wise.
Eh, we do these types of drives somewhat regularly. It doesn't bother me at all...much prefer to minimize travel time. For example, we drive 600 miles/9 hours each way to visit my brother in Kansas twice a year. Typically a single <10 minute stop for gas+restroom. I've got no interest in doing that with an EV. I'm not opposed to the idea of owning one, but I would probably rent something else for longer trips.
I know lots of people who do this. We also know its a bad idea. Kind of like texting while driving.
It's also not even saving that much time compared to stopping a couple more times a modern EV. For a 600-mile drive you could stop for 15 minutes at 150, 300, and 450 miles. So roughly 35 minutes extra over those 9 hours. Even less difference if you want to stop to eat anyway during that 9 hour period.
Bjørn Nyland has basically been doing this exact test: see how long it takes to drive 1000 km (621 miles) in an EV. He first tested a hybrid for comparison and it took exactly 9 hours. He did it in a Tesla Model 3 in 9 hours 15-20 minutes. Basically a rounding error. And there are several other EVs that are in that ballpark (and they're only getting better).
Full spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6ucyFGKWuSQzvI8lMzvvWJHrBS82echMVJH37kwgjE/edit#gid=15442336
And think about how much cumulative time is saved by not having to stop for fuel once per week like most people do, or taking an hour to change the oil in an ICE. People tend to focus on time added to a roadtrip, but they ignore the time saved on the day to day usage. If we were to calculate the actual minutes saved per year, I'd wager the EV comes out comfortably ahead unless the owner is doing long trips constantly.
They will also take old batteries but most of us turn in our old vehicle batteries b/c of the core charge at replacement time. Like a bottle deposit.
Yeah... those core charges have gotten a lot more aggressive recently, to my great dismay. I buy a lot of batteries for new trailer R&D work and builds, and I don't have cores. Nor will places let you play games like using a little UPS battery as a core for an L16. So I'm out typically $50-$100 per battery on the core charges, because they're not replacing existing batteries.
I don't mind them for automotive batteries, but, come on. They're not relevant for standalone solar focused storage batteries!
And think about how much cumulative time is saved by not having to stop for fuel once per week like most people do, or taking an hour to change the oil in an ICE. People tend to focus on time added to a roadtrip, but they ignore the time saved on the day to day usage. If we were to calculate the actual minutes saved per year, I'd wager the EV comes out comfortably ahead unless the owner is doing long trips constantly.
+1
Point not made often enough. Our commutes are managed with 120v overnight charging. I'm considering trading in our other car for a Bolt in January when GM becomes eligible for the new credit.
Especially where I live. First time I drove my leaf by a gas station it was just above freezing at dusk and the precipitation was coming down sideways. I was just so happy to keep on driving home and plug in in the comfort of my garage.And think about how much cumulative time is saved by not having to stop for fuel once per week like most people do, or taking an hour to change the oil in an ICE. People tend to focus on time added to a roadtrip, but they ignore the time saved on the day to day usage. If we were to calculate the actual minutes saved per year, I'd wager the EV comes out comfortably ahead unless the owner is doing long trips constantly.
+1
Point not made often enough. Our commutes are managed with 120v overnight charging. I'm considering trading in our other car for a Bolt in January when GM becomes eligible for the new credit.
I'll +1 that one as well. I never realized what a hassle going to the gas station was until I didn't have to do it. Even if the gas station is on your normal route it is a big time suck.
Aren't the core charges meant to encourage people to return batteries for recycling, at the end of their useful lives, rather than just dumping them into a landfill?They will also take old batteries but most of us turn in our old vehicle batteries b/c of the core charge at replacement time. Like a bottle deposit.
Yeah... those core charges have gotten a lot more aggressive recently, to my great dismay. I buy a lot of batteries for new trailer R&D work and builds, and I don't have cores. Nor will places let you play games like using a little UPS battery as a core for an L16. So I'm out typically $50-$100 per battery on the core charges, because they're not replacing existing batteries.
I don't mind them for automotive batteries, but, come on. They're not relevant for standalone solar focused storage batteries!
Aren't the core charges meant to encourage people to return batteries for recycling, at the end of their useful lives, rather than just dumping them into a landfill?
[
For example, a 400 mile trip will take you a good 7-8 hours of driving. You could do that in one shot in your Sonata, but do you want to? You're probably going to want to stop at least once, maybe twice. You can't do that same trip in one shot in an EV (some EVs, but not most of them), so you'll have stop at least once, maybe twice. You'll have to stop for longer each time, but not a ton of difference really. And even if you want to do it in one shot, do you need to? Is it a capability you need to have? Maybe for some people, but that has to be a rare, niche case.
Well I’d go further - it’s not even a question of whether you need to drive >300 miles without stopping, but whether a person ever should. And a whole bunch of research tells us that’s just a terrible idea. Bad for your muscles, bad for your body, bad for your mental acuity (which in turn makes it bad for everyone around you). Of course lots of people DO drive multiple hours without stopping, but that doesn’t make it wise.
Eh, we do these types of drives somewhat regularly. It doesn't bother me at all...much prefer to minimize travel time. For example, we drive 600 miles/9 hours each way to visit my brother in Kansas twice a year. Typically a single <10 minute stop for gas+restroom. I've got no interest in doing that with an EV. I'm not opposed to the idea of owning one, but I would probably rent something else for longer trips.
I know lots of people who do this. We also know its a bad idea. Kind of like texting while driving.
It's also not even saving that much time compared to stopping a couple more times a modern EV. For a 600-mile drive you could stop for 15 minutes at 150, 300, and 450 miles. So roughly 35 minutes extra over those 9 hours. Even less difference if you want to stop to eat anyway during that 9 hour period.
Bjørn Nyland has basically been doing this exact test: see how long it takes to drive 1000 km (621 miles) in an EV. He first tested a hybrid for comparison and it took exactly 9 hours. He did it in a Tesla Model 3 in 9 hours 15-20 minutes. Basically a rounding error. And there are several other EVs that are in that ballpark (and they're only getting better).
Full spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6ucyFGKWuSQzvI8lMzvvWJHrBS82echMVJH37kwgjE/edit#gid=15442336
And think about how much cumulative time is saved by not having to stop for fuel once per week like most people do, or taking an hour to change the oil in an ICE. People tend to focus on time added to a roadtrip, but they ignore the time saved on the day to day usage. If we were to calculate the actual minutes saved per year, I'd wager the EV comes out comfortably ahead unless the owner is doing long trips constantly.
Not all minutes are created equally. I don't mind stopping for a few minutes every few weeks on my way home from work. Making multiple extra 15+ minute stops with the whole family in tow? I'd rather not.
I'm absolutely interested in owning an EV, and will seriously consider one for my next vehicle purchase. I'd personally be most interested in some type of inexpensive econo-minivanish-EV with a smaller battery and something like 150 mile range, and then just spend the $35/day on a rental for longer trips. I'm hopefully years away from my next vehicle purchase, so haven't put nearly as much thought into the true practicalities and limitations of the various options as many of you have.
I've got a trip coming up this weekend...I'd be genuinely interested in anyone's assessment of how this would look with an EV (route/charging plan, travel time, recommended vehicle, etc.) Maybe my concerns are misplaced.
Trip Plan:
- 6 passengers
- Leave Peoria, IL around 4:30pm after work/school. Dinner at home before leaving
- 450mi drive
- Arrive at destination within Chequamegan National Forest, a few miles north of Loretta, WI in time to roll into bed just before Midnight
- Return trip Monday after lunch w/ a stop for dinner on the road. Home for kids 8:00 bedtime
- *Note: No electricity available at destination*
So, why not just pass the core charges on to the customers who buy the trailers from you, and explain to them that they'll get their money back when the batteries inevitably wear out and they exchange them for new ones? Without core charges, batteries end up in landfills or, worse, in a ditch on the side of the road.Aren't the core charges meant to encourage people to return batteries for recycling, at the end of their useful lives, rather than just dumping them into a landfill?
Yes, but the way that they're typically implemented is that you pay the core charge when you buy a new battery, unless you're bringing an old battery in at the same time. You can, later on, return the old battery for a refund of the core charge (if you swapped batteries in your car).
That works fine for that, but it doesn't work well when you're buying new batteries for a power trailer or off-grid office or such. If I'm replacing those batteries, I can return the old ones for a core charge, but when I'm building something new, I've nothing to trade in, so it's just a (substantial) additional cost per battery.
Some years back, when I built my office, there wasn't a core charge on the batteries intended for solar installs - I have the T105REs in my office as opposed to the regular T105s, because the -REs didn't have a core charge and as such were about the same cost as the regular T105s plus core charge.
But that's changed, so I'm out a couple hundred per power trailer on core charges I can't get refunded until end of life of the batteries in the trailers... which we're building to sell to other people. It's a bit silly in that case.
[
For example, a 400 mile trip will take you a good 7-8 hours of driving. You could do that in one shot in your Sonata, but do you want to? You're probably going to want to stop at least once, maybe twice. You can't do that same trip in one shot in an EV (some EVs, but not most of them), so you'll have stop at least once, maybe twice. You'll have to stop for longer each time, but not a ton of difference really. And even if you want to do it in one shot, do you need to? Is it a capability you need to have? Maybe for some people, but that has to be a rare, niche case.
Well I’d go further - it’s not even a question of whether you need to drive >300 miles without stopping, but whether a person ever should. And a whole bunch of research tells us that’s just a terrible idea. Bad for your muscles, bad for your body, bad for your mental acuity (which in turn makes it bad for everyone around you). Of course lots of people DO drive multiple hours without stopping, but that doesn’t make it wise.
Eh, we do these types of drives somewhat regularly. It doesn't bother me at all...much prefer to minimize travel time. For example, we drive 600 miles/9 hours each way to visit my brother in Kansas twice a year. Typically a single <10 minute stop for gas+restroom. I've got no interest in doing that with an EV. I'm not opposed to the idea of owning one, but I would probably rent something else for longer trips.
I know lots of people who do this. We also know its a bad idea. Kind of like texting while driving.
It's also not even saving that much time compared to stopping a couple more times a modern EV. For a 600-mile drive you could stop for 15 minutes at 150, 300, and 450 miles. So roughly 35 minutes extra over those 9 hours. Even less difference if you want to stop to eat anyway during that 9 hour period.
Bjørn Nyland has basically been doing this exact test: see how long it takes to drive 1000 km (621 miles) in an EV. He first tested a hybrid for comparison and it took exactly 9 hours. He did it in a Tesla Model 3 in 9 hours 15-20 minutes. Basically a rounding error. And there are several other EVs that are in that ballpark (and they're only getting better).
Full spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6ucyFGKWuSQzvI8lMzvvWJHrBS82echMVJH37kwgjE/edit#gid=15442336
And think about how much cumulative time is saved by not having to stop for fuel once per week like most people do, or taking an hour to change the oil in an ICE. People tend to focus on time added to a roadtrip, but they ignore the time saved on the day to day usage. If we were to calculate the actual minutes saved per year, I'd wager the EV comes out comfortably ahead unless the owner is doing long trips constantly.
Not all minutes are created equally. I don't mind stopping for a few minutes every few weeks on my way home from work. Making multiple extra 15+ minute stops with the whole family in tow? I'd rather not.
I've got a trip coming up this weekend...I'd be genuinely interested in anyone's assessment of how this would look with an EV (route/charging plan, travel time, recommended vehicle, etc.) Maybe my concerns are misplaced.
Trip Plan:
- 6 passengers
- Leave Peoria, IL around 4:30pm after work/school. Dinner at home before leaving
- 450mi drive
- Arrive at destination within Chequamegan National Forest, a few miles north of Loretta, WI in time to roll into bed just before Midnight
- Return trip Monday after lunch w/ a stop for dinner on the road. Home for kids 8:00 bedtime
- *Note: No electricity available at destination*
Google says it's just over 7hrs straight through with no stopping of any kind, and no traffic. With 6 people on board, I'm guessing there will be at least 3 bathroom stops in a 7hr period. And that's assuming your bodies are synched up better than any 6 humans that I've ever road tripped with. Probably closer to 8hrs of travel time than 7hrs if we're being realistic.
1000 km in 11 hours is an average of 91 km/h or 56 mph. Interstate speed limits in the USA typically range from 65 to 80 mph.Google says it's just over 7hrs straight through with no stopping of any kind, and no traffic. With 6 people on board, I'm guessing there will be at least 3 bathroom stops in a 7hr period. And that's assuming your bodies are synched up better than any 6 humans that I've ever road tripped with. Probably closer to 8hrs of travel time than 7hrs if we're being realistic.
I think your numbers are off (or maybe American speed limits are way higher than ours over here). We lived pretty far into Northern Ontario when I was a kid, and would often take trips down to Toronto for shopping and to visit relatives - it was about 1000 km or 600 miles each way. The driving time alone would take about 11 hrs.
FWIW, two kids two adults and a dog would usually end up requiring two stops. One longish (30 min) stop for lunch (because dad refused to let kids eat in his car) and one shorter stop (5-10 min) in the afternoon to pee.
1000 km in 11 hours is an average of 91 km/h or 56 mph. Interstate speed limits in the USA typically range from 65 to 80 mph.Google says it's just over 7hrs straight through with no stopping of any kind, and no traffic. With 6 people on board, I'm guessing there will be at least 3 bathroom stops in a 7hr period. And that's assuming your bodies are synched up better than any 6 humans that I've ever road tripped with. Probably closer to 8hrs of travel time than 7hrs if we're being realistic.
I think your numbers are off (or maybe American speed limits are way higher than ours over here). We lived pretty far into Northern Ontario when I was a kid, and would often take trips down to Toronto for shopping and to visit relatives - it was about 1000 km or 600 miles each way. The driving time alone would take about 11 hrs.
FWIW, two kids two adults and a dog would usually end up requiring two stops. One longish (30 min) stop for lunch (because dad refused to let kids eat in his car) and one shorter stop (5-10 min) in the afternoon to pee.
1000 km in 11 hours is an average of 91 km/h or 56 mph. Interstate speed limits in the USA typically range from 65 to 80 mph.Google says it's just over 7hrs straight through with no stopping of any kind, and no traffic. With 6 people on board, I'm guessing there will be at least 3 bathroom stops in a 7hr period. And that's assuming your bodies are synched up better than any 6 humans that I've ever road tripped with. Probably closer to 8hrs of travel time than 7hrs if we're being realistic.
I think your numbers are off (or maybe American speed limits are way higher than ours over here). We lived pretty far into Northern Ontario when I was a kid, and would often take trips down to Toronto for shopping and to visit relatives - it was about 1000 km or 600 miles each way. The driving time alone would take about 11 hrs.
FWIW, two kids two adults and a dog would usually end up requiring two stops. One longish (30 min) stop for lunch (because dad refused to let kids eat in his car) and one shorter stop (5-10 min) in the afternoon to pee.
Limits do, but average speed doesn't. I guess unless you live in the middle of nowhere where you can actually drive 75mph for 8 hours straight.
1000 km in 11 hours is an average of 91 km/h or 56 mph. Interstate speed limits in the USA typically range from 65 to 80 mph.Google says it's just over 7hrs straight through with no stopping of any kind, and no traffic. With 6 people on board, I'm guessing there will be at least 3 bathroom stops in a 7hr period. And that's assuming your bodies are synched up better than any 6 humans that I've ever road tripped with. Probably closer to 8hrs of travel time than 7hrs if we're being realistic.
I think your numbers are off (or maybe American speed limits are way higher than ours over here). We lived pretty far into Northern Ontario when I was a kid, and would often take trips down to Toronto for shopping and to visit relatives - it was about 1000 km or 600 miles each way. The driving time alone would take about 11 hrs.
FWIW, two kids two adults and a dog would usually end up requiring two stops. One longish (30 min) stop for lunch (because dad refused to let kids eat in his car) and one shorter stop (5-10 min) in the afternoon to pee.
Limits do, but average speed doesn't. I guess unless you live in the middle of nowhere where you can actually drive 75mph for 8 hours straight.
Google says it's just over 7hrs straight through with no stopping of any kind, and no traffic. With 6 people on board, I'm guessing there will be at least 3 bathroom stops in a 7hr period. And that's assuming your bodies are synched up better than any 6 humans that I've ever road tripped with. Probably closer to 8hrs of travel time than 7hrs if we're being realistic.
I think your numbers are off (or maybe American speed limits are way higher than ours over here). We lived pretty far into Northern Ontario when I was a kid, and would often take trips down to Toronto for shopping and to visit relatives - it was about 1000 km or 600 miles each way. The driving time alone would take about 11 hrs.
FWIW, two kids two adults and a dog would usually end up requiring two stops. One longish (30 min) stop for lunch (because dad refused to let kids eat in his car) and one shorter stop (5-10 min) in the afternoon to pee.
1000 km in 11 hours is an average of 91 km/h or 56 mph. Interstate speed limits in the USA typically range from 65 to 80 mph.Google says it's just over 7hrs straight through with no stopping of any kind, and no traffic. With 6 people on board, I'm guessing there will be at least 3 bathroom stops in a 7hr period. And that's assuming your bodies are synched up better than any 6 humans that I've ever road tripped with. Probably closer to 8hrs of travel time than 7hrs if we're being realistic.
I think your numbers are off (or maybe American speed limits are way higher than ours over here). We lived pretty far into Northern Ontario when I was a kid, and would often take trips down to Toronto for shopping and to visit relatives - it was about 1000 km or 600 miles each way. The driving time alone would take about 11 hrs.
FWIW, two kids two adults and a dog would usually end up requiring two stops. One longish (30 min) stop for lunch (because dad refused to let kids eat in his car) and one shorter stop (5-10 min) in the afternoon to pee.
Limits do, but average speed doesn't. I guess unless you live in the middle of nowhere where you can actually drive 75mph for 8 hours straight.
It's really region-specific. I live in an area where 75mph interstate speed limits are the norm (and the only efficient way of getting from town A to town B), and the flow of traffic is ~90mph (lock your cruise control at 89mph and the state troopers won't give you a passing glance).
When I worked as a Census enumerator and spent most of my time driving I frequently averaged >70 mph, point-to-point, including in-town segments.
There's a whole lotta country out there connect by high-speed interstates...
So, why not just pass the core charges on to the customers who buy the trailers from you, and explain to them that they'll get their money back when the batteries inevitably wear out and they exchange them for new ones? Without core charges, batteries end up in landfills or, worse, in a ditch on the side of the road.
If you have to pile the stuff on the roof, that's going to shorten range.
I think your numbers are off (or maybe American speed limits are way higher than ours over here).
First a new question before comments. I have always been leery of buying an EV used because I've heard that if they did not charge it well and just the life of batteries and such that you could have a very sub-optimal experience. Thoughts?Are you referring to battery degradation? That was really only an issue for the Nissan LEAF with its passively cooled battery. Basically a non-issue. Current batteries are warrantied for at least 8 years/100k miles and are expected to last 15-20 years/200k+ miles. Tesla is also talking about a million-mile battery, so this stuff is only getting better.
Right now our road trip process would not fit with what is suggested with EVs. My wife like to get the drive over with and many times I'm fighting a bit to stop even at 250 miles. In essence unless we need to have a bathroom break she'd rather just go. So that usually means 4-6 hour stretches between stops. We also then will work to get fuel/bathroom/food stops done at the same time to minimize stops. It's possible for an EV (which she if very pro for. She drives a Prius now, 2011 which we bought used in 2017) she might change that stance but every 150 miles? It seems a big move for her, but she might surprise me. For this last trip for example, we left about 6 AM, did not stop until about 11:30 to eat lunch and fuel. It was fast food so perhaps 15-20 minutes. Then we stopped at about 3:30 next for bathroom and snacks, so perhaps 15 minutes. Then made it to our destination at 6:30 (there was time change in there so was really 7:30). That would not have worked with an EV. She was OK with that trip. When we head down to Disney (which will happen less now that kids are grown) we leave at 2-3 AM and arrive late the same day so between 16-20 hours of travel depending on stops.
The daily commute needs at least 60 miles round trip and if there are more stops (different students each day of the week) could be more but probably never more than 100. So it seems that the 120V would not be an option. Not sure what all the costs would be to get the 240V service added etc. I can work with electricity in the house, wiring up ceiling fans, changing switches, outlets, etc. but for something like this I do not have the knowledge to even know what I don't know. I know our current service is 100A not 200A that you see in some homes, so I assume I'd at minimum need electric company to expand that and would need to research those costs with them.
This is not an imminent thing for us. I'm hoping to make it to at least 2025 with my existing car to over 200K miles perhaps, but will likely stick with it until it dies and the cost to repair exceeds the cost to continue. I figured that would allow the newer models to be introduced, be tested in real world conditions and it can help me make a better decision, but it seems that it is not going to be a cost savings no matter what so I'd have to justify the move based on lifestyle, climate impact, etc. from what everyone says.
Aptera site states minimum investment $1000. Share price for this round $10.50 (last round was $9.20).
https://invest.aptera.us/
[
For example, a 400 mile trip will take you a good 7-8 hours of driving. You could do that in one shot in your Sonata, but do you want to? You're probably going to want to stop at least once, maybe twice. You can't do that same trip in one shot in an EV (some EVs, but not most of them), so you'll have stop at least once, maybe twice. You'll have to stop for longer each time, but not a ton of difference really. And even if you want to do it in one shot, do you need to? Is it a capability you need to have? Maybe for some people, but that has to be a rare, niche case.
Well I’d go further - it’s not even a question of whether you need to drive >300 miles without stopping, but whether a person ever should. And a whole bunch of research tells us that’s just a terrible idea. Bad for your muscles, bad for your body, bad for your mental acuity (which in turn makes it bad for everyone around you). Of course lots of people DO drive multiple hours without stopping, but that doesn’t make it wise.
Eh, we do these types of drives somewhat regularly. It doesn't bother me at all...much prefer to minimize travel time. For example, we drive 600 miles/9 hours each way to visit my brother in Kansas twice a year. Typically a single <10 minute stop for gas+restroom. I've got no interest in doing that with an EV. I'm not opposed to the idea of owning one, but I would probably rent something else for longer trips.
I know lots of people who do this. We also know its a bad idea. Kind of like texting while driving.
It's also not even saving that much time compared to stopping a couple more times a modern EV. For a 600-mile drive you could stop for 15 minutes at 150, 300, and 450 miles. So roughly 35 minutes extra over those 9 hours. Even less difference if you want to stop to eat anyway during that 9 hour period.
Bjørn Nyland has basically been doing this exact test: see how long it takes to drive 1000 km (621 miles) in an EV. He first tested a hybrid for comparison and it took exactly 9 hours. He did it in a Tesla Model 3 in 9 hours 15-20 minutes. Basically a rounding error. And there are several other EVs that are in that ballpark (and they're only getting better).
Full spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6ucyFGKWuSQzvI8lMzvvWJHrBS82echMVJH37kwgjE/edit#gid=15442336
And think about how much cumulative time is saved by not having to stop for fuel once per week like most people do, or taking an hour to change the oil in an ICE. People tend to focus on time added to a roadtrip, but they ignore the time saved on the day to day usage. If we were to calculate the actual minutes saved per year, I'd wager the EV comes out comfortably ahead unless the owner is doing long trips constantly.
Not all minutes are created equally. I don't mind stopping for a few minutes every few weeks on my way home from work. Making multiple extra 15+ minute stops with the whole family in tow? I'd rather not.
I've got a trip coming up this weekend...I'd be genuinely interested in anyone's assessment of how this would look with an EV (route/charging plan, travel time, recommended vehicle, etc.) Maybe my concerns are misplaced.
Trip Plan:
- 6 passengers
- Leave Peoria, IL around 4:30pm after work/school. Dinner at home before leaving
- 450mi drive
- Arrive at destination within Chequamegan National Forest, a few miles north of Loretta, WI in time to roll into bed just before Midnight
- Return trip Monday after lunch w/ a stop for dinner on the road. Home for kids 8:00 bedtime
- *Note: No electricity available at destination*
The average person isn't stopping for fuel "once every few weeks" though. They're stopping once or twice every week. Even if the gas station requires no diverting or waiting to get to, and there's no line at the pump, and you only swipe, fuel and go it's going to take at least 5min per stop. Nevermind if you have to leave your normal route to get the station, or wait at a stoplight to enter and/or exit the station, or the pumps are slow, etc, etc, etc. I'd bet an average fueling stop requires closer to 10 minutes when all of the time associated with it is accounted for. That adds up when you're doing it 50-100 times per year like so many do. And yet it's just brushed under the rug, while the road trip time to charge is seemingly this huge obstacle for so many.
As for your trip, going deep into remote locations is always difficult for EVs. Google says it's just over 7hrs straight through with no stopping of any kind, and no traffic. With 6 people on board, I'm guessing there will be at least 3 bathroom stops in a 7hr period. And that's assuming your bodies are synched up better than any 6 humans that I've ever road tripped with. Probably closer to 8hrs of travel time than 7hrs if we're being realistic.
https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=a162a7ea-54b9-4ee7-801c-699cdef47b77
The EV charging route planner above isn't necessarily optimized. It's my first time using that site, and I'm unfamiliar with the details. I just plugged in the starting point and the closest end point that I could find (Park Falls, WI). It's showing 3 stops for a total of 75min of charging. For some reason, the first stop is just 8 minutes, and charging from 23%->44%, but the second stop is 48 minutes and charging from 10% ->96% state of charge. I'm guessing a big chunk of the 48 minutes spent at stop #2 is due to the slower charging below 20% and above 80%. So I'd think that staying at Stop#1 a bit longer to get more charge there, and arriving at Stop#2 with more than 10% capacity could shave off some total time. You could also leave Stop#2 before hitting 96% charge, and arrive at Stop#3 with something like 30% charge remaining to again reduce the total time spent at Stop#2.
So the actual travel time for the EV probably adds 20-30 minutes to each leg of your trip over ICE. The real world issues are the lack of electricity at your destination (There are currently some Level 2 chargers not too far away that typically add 20-30 miles of range per hour of time charging) , and the lack of EVs available in North America that can haul 6 people and their stuff (pretty much just the Model X, and that might be tight). If you have to pile the stuff on the roof, that's going to shorten range. If the bathroom stops don't overlap with the charging stops, then you're adding time. If the trip happens in the dead of winter, you're losing range.
EVs aren't perfect for everybody all the time. Long road trips to remote locations are definitely an edge case that's better suited to ICEs or hybrids, but that may not necessarily mean that it's impossible in an EV either. To make that trip frequently in an EV, you'd be hoping that with time the charging infrastructure would improve, and so would the availability of large EVs with substantial range.
That ABRP site is really neat, thanks for pointing me to it! I played around a bit using my actual start/end points, and made it a round trip to account for lack of charging at destination:
Chrysler T&C (Baseline)
- Seats: 7
- Distance: 918mi
- Driving time: 14h38m
- Stops: 2
- Stop time: 30m
- Total travel time: 15h8m
Tesla Model X - Long Range
- Seats: 7
- Distance: 986mi (+68mi)
- Driving time: 16h19m (+1h41m)
- Stops: 4 (+2)
- Stop time: 2h30m (+2h)
- Total travel time: 18h49m (+3h41m)
Rivian R1S - Large Pack
- Seats: 7
- Distance: 990mi (+72mi)
- Driving time: 16h37m (+1h59m)
- Stops: 5 (+3)
- Stop time: 3h1m (+2h31m)
- Total travel time: 19h38m (+4h30m)
Ford F150 Lightning - Long Range
- Seats: 5 (-1 MIL)
- Distance: 991mi (+73mi)
- Driving time: 16h45m (+2h7m)
- Stops: 6 (+4)
- Stop time: 3h18m (+2h48m)
- Total travel time: 20h4m (+4h56m)
Ford F150 Lightning - Standard Range
- Seats: 5 (-1 MIL)
- Distance: 1028mi (+110mi)
- Driving time: 18h28m (+3h50m)
- Stops: 9 (+7)
- Stop time: 6h33m (+6h3m)
- Total travel time: 25h2m (+9h54m)
That ABRP site is really neat, thanks for pointing me to it! I played around a bit using my actual start/end points, and made it a round trip to account for lack of charging at destination:
Chrysler T&C (Baseline)
- Seats: 7
- Distance: 918mi
- Driving time: 14h38m
- Stops: 2
- Stop time: 30m
- Total travel time: 15h8m
Tesla Model X - Long Range
- Seats: 7
- Distance: 986mi (+68mi)
- Driving time: 16h19m (+1h41m)
- Stops: 4 (+2)
- Stop time: 2h30m (+2h)
- Total travel time: 18h49m (+3h41m)
Rivian R1S - Large Pack
- Seats: 7
- Distance: 990mi (+72mi)
- Driving time: 16h37m (+1h59m)
- Stops: 5 (+3)
- Stop time: 3h1m (+2h31m)
- Total travel time: 19h38m (+4h30m)
Ford F150 Lightning - Long Range
- Seats: 5 (-1 MIL)
- Distance: 991mi (+73mi)
- Driving time: 16h45m (+2h7m)
- Stops: 6 (+4)
- Stop time: 3h18m (+2h48m)
- Total travel time: 20h4m (+4h56m)
Ford F150 Lightning - Standard Range
- Seats: 5 (-1 MIL)
- Distance: 1028mi (+110mi)
- Driving time: 18h28m (+3h50m)
- Stops: 9 (+7)
- Stop time: 6h33m (+6h3m)
- Total travel time: 25h2m (+9h54m)
That site seems like it could be a nifty tool, but I'm honestly not sure that it's very accurate. Between the weird charging time strategy that they implemented on my estimate, and some of the stuff here it just seems 'off'. For example, some of those times don't make sense to me. I can understand adding some distance to the trips with the EVs to reach chargers vs the ICE, but they seem to add a disproportionate amount of time for the amount of distance added.
The Model X adds 68 miles of distance to the trip, but they estimate that additional distance will add nearly 1hr41min of 'drive time' in addition to the charging time?
The Rivian (which isn't in production yet as far as I know) adds 72 miles to the trip, but those 72 miles somehow add 2hrs of drive time?
The differences in the two Lightnings is similarly weird.
The long range adds 73 miles (Why not 72 like the Rivian when they'd be using the same chargers?) and over 2hrs of "drive time", while the short range adds 110 miles and nearly 4hrs of driving?!
It seems like they're almost doubling the additional time that I'd estimate to add those miles. Are all of these chargers way down roads with 25mph speed limits or something?
On another note the inflation reduction act potentially resets chevy's sales cap for the $7,500 tax credit on the Bolt, assuming chevy can meet the requirements or lobby to change the requirements. The MSRP for the 2023 Bolt EV base model is $25,600. Does that mean we could possibly see a a brand new 259 mile range EV costing a net $18,100 next year?We don’t know what the car market will look like in 2023, but if it is anything like what it is now, I doubt we will be able to find them at MSRP.
Exciting to see EV's potentially being sales price competitive with gas economy cars
On another note the inflation reduction act potentially resets chevy's sales cap for the $7,500 tax credit on the Bolt, assuming chevy can meet the requirements or lobby to change the requirements. The MSRP for the 2023 Bolt EV base model is $25,600. Does that mean we could possibly see a a brand new 259 mile range EV costing a net $18,100 next year?
Exciting to see EV's potentially being sales price competitive with gas economy cars
Well, I had previously decided that I would only buy EV’s going forward, but I wasn’t in any rush as my current cars have plenty of life left on them.
My tentative plan was to eventually buy one small and cheap EV for around town trips, and a more expensive (probably face-punch worthy) EV capable of road trips. Our family can mostly get by with one car, but we’ve found enough exceptions that we’re not quite ready to go to single vehicle.
Here’s my assumptions, and please tell me if I’m missing anything:
1. I will be above the inflation reduction act income limits, so I expect no tax credits in the future.
2. I can still get the old tax credit for manufacturers that still qualify if I make the purchase by the end of the year.
Did I get that right?
Pretty much the only inventory available near me is the Nissan Leaf. I might pull the trigger on that now if it’s a $7,500 difference in incentives.
Well, I had previously decided that I would only buy EV’s going forward, but I wasn’t in any rush as my current cars have plenty of life left on them.
My tentative plan was to eventually buy one small and cheap EV for around town trips, and a more expensive (probably face-punch worthy) EV capable of road trips. Our family can mostly get by with one car, but we’ve found enough exceptions that we’re not quite ready to go to single vehicle.
Here’s my assumptions, and please tell me if I’m missing anything:
1. I will be above the inflation reduction act income limits, so I expect no tax credits in the future.
2. I can still get the old tax credit for manufacturers that still qualify if I make the purchase by the end of the year.
Did I get that right?
Pretty much the only inventory available near me is the Nissan Leaf. I might pull the trigger on that now if it’s a $7,500 difference in incentives.
If you buy before the end of the year all the old rules apply except for that final assembly must be in North America. To the best of my knowledge this includes the Nissan LEAF, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Ford F-150 Lightning, and the Chattanooga-built Volkswagen ID.4.
Starting in 2023 the the sales limit caps will be lifted, restoring eligibility of Chevy, Tesla, and Toyota (assuming they meet the rest of the rules). At the same time restrictions will be added for income caps, MSRP caps, and possibly battery-sourcing requirements.
I would check that real careful like. My understanding was the income limits landed immediately on the president signing the bill. I could certainly be wrong. I hadn't tracked it that close as I wasn't supposed to be in the market anymore.I agree that it is important to confirm. This is only my interpretation from reading multiple articles and the text itself.
What is the expected etiquette at the airport when you drive yourself with an EV and will be gone more than a day? Just park with all the ice cars and plain ahead so the drainage while you are gone still leaves enough to get home? Guess it would be nice to have trickle chargers at a large number of spots.Honestly? Leave your car at home and get there some other way. Or get there early enough to charge it and move it to other spots and/ or do the same at the other end of the trip.
So at the airport today to pick up my wife and not one of the 5 EV chargers was available. I like to take some of the free electricity home with me in my Leaf when I'm there so I was somewhat disappointed.
What is the expected etiquette at the airport when you drive yourself with an EV and will be gone more than a day? Just park with all the ice cars and plain ahead so the drainage while you are gone still leaves enough to get home? Guess it would be nice to have trickle chargers at a large number of spots.
Not sure if this was directed at me, but I usually leave within 30 minutes when I do this because I can get out of the lot for free. I would never leave our car on a public charger for more than a couple hours under any circumstances. Today at the airport was different - wife's bag actually arrived on an earlier flight and took an over 30 extra minutes to find it (should have been at most 5 in hindsight - that the bag might have beaten my wife's plane to the airport didn't occur to anyone involved). All 5 cars I saw today were still on the chargers when we left and at least 1 wasn't even plugged in - the Leaf I saw when dropped wife off last week.So at the airport today to pick up my wife and not one of the 5 EV chargers was available. I like to take some of the free electricity home with me in my Leaf when I'm there so I was somewhat disappointed.
Taking up an EV spot at a high volume area like an airport when you're not actually low on charge is a jerk move.
Our leaf was parked at home for 3 weeks straight (unexpected trip extension due to Covid) and had plenty of charge to get wherever I might have needed to when we got home. Didn't charge it to full or notate where it was at before leaving so no idea on how much drain, if any, there might have been, but good to know for future reference.What is the expected etiquette at the airport when you drive yourself with an EV and will be gone more than a day? Just park with all the ice cars and plain ahead so the drainage while you are gone still leaves enough to get home? Guess it would be nice to have trickle chargers at a large number of spots.
The Bolt and Lightning have basically no drain. Rivian is pretty bad, Tesla is not bad at all if Sentry mode is disabled.
Not sure if this was directed at me, but I usually leave within 30 minutes when I do this because I can get out of the lot for free. I would never leave our car on a public charger for more than a couple hours under any circumstances. Today at the airport was different - wife's bag actually arrived on an earlier flight and took an over 30 extra minutes to find it (should have been at most 5 in hindsight - that the bag might have beaten my wife's plane to the airport didn't occur to anyone involved). All 5 cars I saw today were still on the chargers when we left and at least 1 wasn't even plugged in - the Leaf I saw when dropped wife off last week.So at the airport today to pick up my wife and not one of the 5 EV chargers was available. I like to take some of the free electricity home with me in my Leaf when I'm there so I was somewhat disappointed.
Taking up an EV spot at a high volume area like an airport when you're not actually low on charge is a jerk move.
If that car really was parked there for the whole week, could be the valet doing this now that I think about it - I cannot imagine someone who owns and EV would do that, but a valet at a fairly low traffic regional airport? Could be, and anyone paying for valet parking would certainly want the car charged while gone.
Growing up in a Chevy family and thinking "Ford Stinks", it's funny how I'm kind of a fan lately. The Mach-e, the Maverick and the F-150 Lightning are all good moves (in my opinion.) (As an aside, I think GM is making weird moves. The Bolt is one of the best EV values now, but it's far from a mainstream option with the current design, and the Silverado looks like it was inspired by the Cybertruck "but with curves" -- in a very bad way.)
This is an interesting, in-depth article evaluating Ford's decision to build the Lightning on their existing truck platform, and why they think it was the right call to make.
https://www.theautopian.com/the-2022-ford-lightning-is-just-a-standard-f-150-with-an-electric-powertrain-and-thats-why-its-going-to-change-the-world/
As an aside, I think GM is making weird moves.The Blazer EV and Equinox EV that are supposed to come out next year should be pretty compelling. Equinox is targeting $30k before incentives, I believe (https://insideevs.com/news/609079/2024-chevrolet-equinox-ev-revealed-detailed/).
This is an interesting, in-depth article evaluating Ford's decision to build the Lightning on their existing truck platform, and why they think it was the right call to make.
But it's probably not the most efficient/profitable approach to building EVs at scale. I'm not sure the Mach E and Lightning share any major components actually which probably makes some accountants pretty displeased.
To be clear, I think the Lightning is super compelling and it makes me want to ditch both my PHEV daily driver and my old truck to consolidate my needs into a single vehicle (I won't because I'm not willing to shell out $65k for a vehicle). The part that appeals to me the most is that it's an F150 that happens to be electric, rather than an all new EV truck.
But I also appreciate GM's approach which seems to be pretty thorough and well planned with modular batteries, a handful of motors that can be mix/matched, and wireless battery management. It seems like they're actually planning to make a whole bunch of EVs using this stuff in an organized manner where they can share lots of components among different vehicles. They still have to stick the execution and quality but I'm impressed by the forethought they've invested.
As an aside, I think GM is making weird moves.The Blazer EV and Equinox EV that are supposed to come out next year should be pretty compelling. Equinox is targeting $30k before incentives, I believe (https://insideevs.com/news/609079/2024-chevrolet-equinox-ev-revealed-detailed/).
To be clear, I think the Lightning is super compelling and it makes me want to ditch both my PHEV daily driver and my old truck to consolidate my needs into a single vehicle (I won't because I'm not willing to shell out $65k for a vehicle). The part that appeals to me the most is that it's an F150 that happens to be electric, rather than an all new EV truck.
You and me both... I could probably get $30k+ out of my existing truck (super low miles F350 CCLB with the 7.3), but I need the 10k towing capability and that puts me into the $90k range and extended pack, which... no. Sorry. Just no. But waaaaant!QuoteBut I also appreciate GM's approach which seems to be pretty thorough and well planned with modular batteries, a handful of motors that can be mix/matched, and wireless battery management. It seems like they're actually planning to make a whole bunch of EVs using this stuff in an organized manner where they can share lots of components among different vehicles. They still have to stick the execution and quality but I'm impressed by the forethought they've invested.
I don't think Ford's approach would prohibit that in the future. But I do think kicking ass and taking names with the F150 Lightning, which they're clearly doing, sets them up very well for the future in terms of "We make the best trucks. Oh, yeah, and they're electric."
Any ER Lightning with the tow package can tow 10k -- you don't need the Platinum. A Lariat ER with basically everything is around $81k before the federal tax credit, and an XLT is a few grand cheaper than that.
If you're towing more than 100 miles at a time though, I would keep the superduty.
Any ER Lightning with the tow package can tow 10k -- you don't need the Platinum. A Lariat ER with basically everything is around $81k before the federal tax credit, and an XLT is a few grand cheaper than that.
Right, but that's "list price," and until that whole "No Haggle Price" thing shows up, I fully expect $10k-$50k in "Because we got one and you want it!" fees tacked on. Yet another reason I probably won't ever own one.QuoteIf you're towing more than 100 miles at a time though, I would keep the superduty.
Yeah, that's about where I am. I mostly do shorter stuff, but if we're taking the car trailer somewhere with the old car in it, that's just not easy, especially over mountain passes. I'm not sure those trips would be actually feasible with the EV. What I want, which means it will never exist, is a decent PHEV SuperDuty class truck. A 100 mile battery pack and a decent little turbodiesel for longer trips.
A PHEV superduty would be amazing, but also check out the F150 hybrid -- EPA 24/24mpg (real world seems to show lower though) and available 7.2 kW Pro Power onboard, available tow capacity up to 12,700 lbs.
A PHEV superduty would be amazing, but also check out the F150 hybrid -- EPA 24/24mpg (real world seems to show lower though) and available 7.2 kW Pro Power onboard, available tow capacity up to 12,700 lbs.
I just don't move enough miles to justify a $100k class vehicle. Even if my existing truck is appreciating.
I also don't really want anything with cell modems in it. I accept that the next vehicle I purchase will involve some rapid post-purchase surgery to remove the cell antenna, because I don't think anyone is going to sell anything without that sweet, sweet behavioral surplus stream allowing for post-sale profits.
A 2022 F150 XL crew cab 5.5' bed 2wd hybrid with the towing package is $47,200 including destination/acquisition fees. I get it, you don't want to buy a new truck and that's fine - but calling it a "$100k class vehicle" is ridiculous.
A 2022 F150 XL crew cab 5.5' bed 2wd hybrid with the towing package is $47,200 including destination/acquisition fees. I get it, you don't want to buy a new truck and that's fine - but calling it a "$100k class vehicle" is ridiculous.
Eh, OK. A 2WD truck is pointless for most uses, but... fair. I thought the hybrid and power inverter added a lot more.
Mostly, I just round house costs down to the nearest $100k, round vehicles to the nearest $50k, and try to avoid spending "rounded costs on vehicle" that equal "rounded costs on house." I've fucked up buying a new car once, would rather not do that again. Though I will need another vehicle at some point when the kids start driving.
Just out of curiosity I priced out a replacement for my current truck.
2014 XLT SuperCab 3.5L EB 8ft 4x4, max trailer, max payload. I paid $33K for it new off the lot.
2022 Equivalent $56K. That's a 7% rate of inflation.
I bike most days and only use the truck when needed, so it only has 58,000 miles on it. Seeing how prices are going, hopefully it lasts another 15+ years.
The counterpoint to most trucks operating in 2wd almost all of the time is that most people who own pickups don’t actually use them as anything other than an oversized passenger car. Sure, there are plenty of work trucks that only drive on surface streets, but I’d wager there are even more that have not a scratch in the bed and have never had a trailer ball installed on the hitch.
Oh. Yeah, if you don't have an order already you're not getting one anywhere near MSRP unless you have lottery-winner luck. I have heard tale of a couple people getting a surprise from one of their local dealers who had an order holder back out/etc and they sold at MSRP, but it's vanishingly rare.
I also don't really want anything with cell modems in it. I accept that the next vehicle I purchase will involve some rapid post-purchase surgery to remove the cell antenna, because I don't think anyone is going to sell anything without that sweet, sweet behavioral surplus stream allowing for post-sale profits.
Additionally, these higher-tiered dealers will be required to invest 900k into fast charger infrastructure with an additional 300k investment required by 2026.
Just out of curiosity I priced out a replacement for my current truck.
2014 XLT SuperCab 3.5L EB 8ft 4x4, max trailer, max payload. I paid $33K for it new off the lot.
2022 Equivalent $56K. That's a 7% rate of inflation.
I bike most days and only use the truck when needed, so it only has 58,000 miles on it. Seeing how prices are going, hopefully it lasts another 15+ years.
I also don't really want anything with cell modems in it. I accept that the next vehicle I purchase will involve some rapid post-purchase surgery to remove the cell antenna, because I don't think anyone is going to sell anything without that sweet, sweet behavioral surplus stream allowing for post-sale profits.
I also don't really want anything with cell modems in it. I accept that the next vehicle I purchase will involve some rapid post-purchase surgery to remove the cell antenna, because I don't think anyone is going to sell anything without that sweet, sweet behavioral surplus stream allowing for post-sale profits.
Agreed.
I also don't really want anything with cell modems in it. I accept that the next vehicle I purchase will involve some rapid post-purchase surgery to remove the cell antenna, because I don't think anyone is going to sell anything without that sweet, sweet behavioral surplus stream allowing for post-sale profits.
Agreed.
Do you also not have cell phones?
Do you also not have cell phones?
I don't have a cell phone. Or a car with internal cell antenna.96% of 18-29year olds have a cell phone. As the age gets greater, the percentage drops to 61% of those 65 and older. Over all ages it is near 90%.
An electric car doesn't require that it be unfinished, with beta software, and a cell modem to report everything you do.
It's just that it's profitable to do that, so everyone is using the new drivetrain tech as an excuse to cram those anti-features in.
OnStar debuted in 1997, but sure - blame EVs.
I don't have a cell phone. Or a car with internal cell antenna.96% of 18-29year olds have a cell phone. As the age gets greater, the percentage drops to 61% of those 65 and older. Over all ages it is near 90%.
Once upon a time, only luxury cars once had electric windows and locks and now a very small minority of people still purchase vehicles without electric windows and locks. Lower tech vehicles(including ICE) won't go away, but they will increasingly be in a shrinking minority of the population. In the same way smart phones took over the cell phone world, the electric car is taking over the automotive world. It is because people are realizing they want it, whether because of word of mouth or because of all the negative press on them, and it's happening quickly.
I don't have a cell phone. Or a car with internal cell antenna.96% of 18-29year olds have a cell phone. As the age gets greater, the percentage drops to 61% of those 65 and older. Over all ages it is near 90%.
I'm aware that they're popular. They even seem useful in a few circumstances. But they're also disposable electronic waste. I've saved tens of thousands of dollars over my life by not having one.Once upon a time, only luxury cars once had electric windows and locks and now a very small minority of people still purchase vehicles without electric windows and locks. Lower tech vehicles(including ICE) won't go away, but they will increasingly be in a shrinking minority of the population. In the same way smart phones took over the cell phone world, the electric car is taking over the automotive world. It is because people are realizing they want it, whether because of word of mouth or because of all the negative press on them, and it's happening quickly.
Electric windows and locks are standard equipment on most cars. It's not necessarily that people don't want them - there's no option not to have them any more.
I don't have anything against electric cars. I don't love many 'features' being bundled with all modern cars (including electric) though. Like cell phone tracking, the car fighting the driver for control, backup cameras, etc.
I don't have a cell phone. Or a car with internal cell antenna.96% of 18-29year olds have a cell phone. As the age gets greater, the percentage drops to 61% of those 65 and older. Over all ages it is near 90%.
I'm aware that they're popular. They even seem useful in a few circumstances. But they're also disposable electronic waste. I've saved tens of thousands of dollars over my life by not having one.Once upon a time, only luxury cars once had electric windows and locks and now a very small minority of people still purchase vehicles without electric windows and locks. Lower tech vehicles(including ICE) won't go away, but they will increasingly be in a shrinking minority of the population. In the same way smart phones took over the cell phone world, the electric car is taking over the automotive world. It is because people are realizing they want it, whether because of word of mouth or because of all the negative press on them, and it's happening quickly.
Electric windows and locks are standard equipment on most cars. It's not necessarily that people don't want them - there's no option not to have them any more.
I don't have anything against electric cars. I don't love many 'features' being bundled with all modern cars (including electric) though. Like cell phone tracking, the car fighting the driver for control, backup cameras, etc.
By "the car fighting driver for control" do you mean "the car refusing to depart the lane without signaling" or "car refusing to hit pedestrian at full speed"?
I get the objection to cell phone tracking, but basic safety features like backup cameras and automatic emergency braking exist for a reason. IMO it's not worth thousands of lives to make technology-averse people happy.
I don't have a cell phone. Or a car with internal cell antenna.96% of 18-29year olds have a cell phone. As the age gets greater, the percentage drops to 61% of those 65 and older. Over all ages it is near 90%.
I'm aware that they're popular. They even seem useful in a few circumstances. But they're also disposable electronic waste. I've saved tens of thousands of dollars over my life by not having one.Once upon a time, only luxury cars once had electric windows and locks and now a very small minority of people still purchase vehicles without electric windows and locks. Lower tech vehicles(including ICE) won't go away, but they will increasingly be in a shrinking minority of the population. In the same way smart phones took over the cell phone world, the electric car is taking over the automotive world. It is because people are realizing they want it, whether because of word of mouth or because of all the negative press on them, and it's happening quickly.
Electric windows and locks are standard equipment on most cars. It's not necessarily that people don't want them - there's no option not to have them any more.
I don't have anything against electric cars. I don't love many 'features' being bundled with all modern cars (including electric) though. Like cell phone tracking, the car fighting the driver for control, backup cameras, etc.
By "the car fighting driver for control" do you mean "the car refusing to depart the lane without signaling" or "car refusing to hit pedestrian at full speed"?
I get the objection to cell phone tracking, but basic safety features like backup cameras and automatic emergency braking exist for a reason. IMO it's not worth thousands of lives to make technology-averse people happy.
My mother's Toyota Corolla with lane assist doesn't handle snowy conditions very well. A couple years ago I was driving it with cruise control and lane assist on down a stretch of road where maybe a cm of snow had blown half across the lane, blocking the black tarmac. The steering wheel abruptly 'assisted' me half into the oncoming traffic lane to deal with the changing road conditions. I didn't appreciate needing to yank the wheel back into my lane to avoid oncoming traffic, and certainly didn't feel safer after narrowly avoiding an accident.
Backup cameras I don't have a problem with - provided that the car isn't redesigned so that they're required equipment to back up safely. My mother's car is extremely difficult to see out the rear window when backing up. My older Corolla does not have or need backup cameras because it's easy to see where the rear of the car is using the rear window. Having a backup camera with the rear of the car redesigned so you can't back up any way is not a step forward.
I'm not technology averse at all. (I'm currently typing this on an i7 PC with M.2 drives that I built a couple months ago.) But I don't just accept that technology is better simply because it's new . . . so I'm not wiring my house with hackable devices that offer no advantage to me from internet connectivity. I don't want my TV to report my viewing habits to it's manufacturers. I don't want my car to be tracking my movements through cell towers. These aren't benefits.
This is somewhat off topic, but I bet somebody will know.I don't know what "older" means (no car head at all), but most of the lack of end efficiency increase was going to A) more horsepower B) more safety - airbags are additional weight for example C) more comfort: Instead of your hand getting wondows up, it's a 3kg motor each. Oh, and you got more space, cars have gotten longer and wider (even the car with the same name). And I wonder how much a climate weights?
Years ago I had an older Honda Civic that I got over 40 mpg with. I've noticed that mileage figures seem to drop for even the smaller cars in the intervening 30+ years since that car was built. I've wondered why. Is it emission controls? The engines themselves seem to be increasingly sophisticated, so I would think the reverse would have been true.
I had an "older" civic 1970s don't remember the year, maybe 78? It got 40+ mpg; but it was a tin can on wheels.Yes, with leaded gas and no catalytic converter it's amazing the fuel economy (and/or power) you can achieve.
I had an "older" civic 1970s don't remember the year, maybe 78? It got 40+ mpg; but it was a tin can on wheels.Yes, with leaded gas and no catalytic converter it's amazing the fuel economy (and/or power) you can achieve.
I had an "older" civic 1970s don't remember the year, maybe 78? It got 40+ mpg; but it was a tin can on wheels.Yes, with leaded gas and no catalytic converter it's amazing the fuel economy (and/or power) you can achieve.
It had both a cat and used unleaded. Perhaps you missed the 1200cc? It could hit 80 on a flat straight stretch, but any significant hill was a 45mph endeavor. According to google, it was rated at 52hp which sounds about right. The only thing separating you from the outside world was some pretty thin sheet metal. In fact now that I think about it, the floorboards were rusted through in a couple places and you could see the road whizzing by.
Edit: For comparison, I also drove a 1984 Chevy Citation II for a couple years, and that was a significantly more substantial car.
This is somewhat off topic, but I bet somebody will know.
Years ago I had an older Honda Civic that I got over 40 mpg with. I've noticed that mileage figures seem to drop for even the smaller cars in the intervening 30+ years since that car was built. I've wondered why. Is it emission controls? The engines themselves seem to be increasingly sophisticated, so I would think the reverse would have been true.
I had an "older" civic 1970s don't remember the year, maybe 78? It got 40+ mpg; but it was a tin can on wheels.Yes, with leaded gas and no catalytic converter it's amazing the fuel economy (and/or power) you can achieve.
It had both a cat and used unleaded. Perhaps you missed the 1200cc? It could hit 80 on a flat straight stretch, but any significant hill was a 45mph endeavor. According to google, it was rated at 52hp which sounds about right. The only thing separating you from the outside world was some pretty thin sheet metal. In fact now that I think about it, the floorboards were rusted through in a couple places and you could see the road whizzing by.
Edit: For comparison, I also drove a 1984 Chevy Citation II for a couple years, and that was a significantly more substantial car.
This is somewhat off topic, but I bet somebody will know.
Years ago I had an older Honda Civic that I got over 40 mpg with. I've noticed that mileage figures seem to drop for even the smaller cars in the intervening 30+ years since that car was built. I've wondered why. Is it emission controls? The engines themselves seem to be increasingly sophisticated, so I would think the reverse would have been true.
In addition to the added size, weight and power of modern vehicles, modern gasoline has ethanol blended in it which reduces fuel economy compared to 100% gasoline.
This is somewhat off topic, but I bet somebody will know.
Years ago I had an older Honda Civic that I got over 40 mpg with. I've noticed that mileage figures seem to drop for even the smaller cars in the intervening 30+ years since that car was built. I've wondered why. Is it emission controls? The engines themselves seem to be increasingly sophisticated, so I would think the reverse would have been true.
This is somewhat off topic, but I bet somebody will know.
Years ago I had an older Honda Civic that I got over 40 mpg with. I've noticed that mileage figures seem to drop for even the smaller cars in the intervening 30+ years since that car was built. I've wondered why. Is it emission controls? The engines themselves seem to be increasingly sophisticated, so I would think the reverse would have been true.
In addition to the added size, weight and power of modern vehicles, modern gasoline has ethanol blended in it which reduces fuel economy compared to 100% gasoline.
And drastically more strict tailpipe emission standards. The clean air act gradually phased in the first emission standards in the mid 1970s, and then they became progressively more strict on everything from particulates to NOx and CO. This has largely been achieved by more complex engine systems using computer controlled fuel injection and oxygen sensors.
As Dieselgate showed, when you change how those are regulated a car can get higher mpg but with prohibited tailpipe emissions.
I did see the 1200cc, but couldn't find anything conclusion. This article seems to imply Honda did not use catalytic converters at all through at least 1978:
https://www.designnews.com/stub/we-make-it-simple-how-honda-outsmarted-catalytic-converters
This is somewhat off topic, but I bet somebody will know.
Years ago I had an older Honda Civic that I got over 40 mpg with. I've noticed that mileage figures seem to drop for even the smaller cars in the intervening 30+ years since that car was built. I've wondered why. Is it emission controls? The engines themselves seem to be increasingly sophisticated, so I would think the reverse would have been true.
See also the 2017 EPA changes:
https://www.cars.com/articles/epa-recalculates-mpg-ratings-for-2017-1420690830380/
For example, I believe the Honda Fit was rated for roughly 33 city, 38 highway before the change, but 29 city, 35 highway after the change.
That wouldn't explain personally observed lower numbers, of course, but why you might see lower numbers while doing research.
Diesel != gas. Modern emissions systems on gas motors don't have significant effect on gas mileage. Newer engines extract more usable energy from gasoline than any older engine with a lot of tricks old engines just didn't have. Variable cam timing, even variable valve lift on some engines, precise fuel metering and ignition timing, CVT transmissions, etc.
About the only advantage older engines had was higher compression ratios due to lead. But the more advanced engine controls more than make up for it.
More usable hp from each gallon of gas, but they just need to do more work hauling the weight around. My civic weighed about 1600 lbs! A modern civic weighs about double that ~3000+lbs.
Diesel != gas. Modern emissions systems on gas motors don't have significant effect on gas mileage. Newer engines extract more usable energy from gasoline than any older engine with a lot of tricks old engines just didn't have. Variable cam timing, even variable valve lift on some engines, precise fuel metering and ignition timing, CVT transmissions, etc.
About the only advantage older engines had was higher compression ratios due to lead. But the more advanced engine controls more than make up for it.
More usable hp from each gallon of gas, but they just need to do more work hauling the weight around. My civic weighed about 1600 lbs! A modern civic weighs about double that ~3000+lbs.
Yes, I realize diesel != gas. And yes modern engines are more fuel efficient, but all those items you mentioned carry a weight penalty. Not nearly as much as the additional steel to meet crash-test standards, but it’s all connected. The major car makers didn’t add this complexity to engines to improve performance (or even to increase power) - it was largely done to meet increasingly stringent fuel standards.
Ok, you’ve convinced me I was wrong
Diesel != gas. Modern emissions systems on gas motors don't have significant effect on gas mileage. Newer engines extract more usable energy from gasoline than any older engine with a lot of tricks old engines just didn't have. Variable cam timing, even variable valve lift on some engines, precise fuel metering and ignition timing, CVT transmissions, etc.
About the only advantage older engines had was higher compression ratios due to lead. But the more advanced engine controls more than make up for it.
More usable hp from each gallon of gas, but they just need to do more work hauling the weight around. My civic weighed about 1600 lbs! A modern civic weighs about double that ~3000+lbs.
Yes, I realize diesel != gas. And yes modern engines are more fuel efficient, but all those items you mentioned carry a weight penalty. Not nearly as much as the additional steel to meet crash-test standards, but it’s all connected. The major car makers didn’t add this complexity to engines to improve performance (or even to increase power) - it was largely done to meet increasingly stringent fuel standards.
Except that's just not true. Modern engines are significantly lighter even with the additional controls. The blocks are all aluminum with plasma coated cylinder bores. Early blocks were all iron, then iron with aluminum heads, then aluminum with iron sleeves, then finally many current blocks are virtually entirely aluminum (some exotic design even use magnesium). OHC and DOHC heads can be heavier, but Chevy's LS engines are famously lightweight and still use a single cam in block design. Electric water pumps, electric fuel pumps, the complete removal of mechanical distributors means at most modern controls are a wash weight wise.
And that's completely ignoring the fact that efficiency improvements have led to significant downsizing of engine displacement. A modern naturally aspirated 2.0L (~122 cu in) 4 cyl engine weighs way less and produces way more power than V8s of old.
Manual transmissions were lighter, but modern automatics are generally lighter (with more gears) than their historic counterparts.
.
This is somewhat off topic, but I bet somebody will know.
Years ago I had an older Honda Civic that I got over 40 mpg with. I've noticed that mileage figures seem to drop for even the smaller cars in the intervening 30+ years since that car was built. I've wondered why. Is it emission controls? The engines themselves seem to be increasingly sophisticated, so I would think the reverse would have been true.
See also the 2017 EPA changes:
https://www.cars.com/articles/epa-recalculates-mpg-ratings-for-2017-1420690830380/
For example, I believe the Honda Fit was rated for roughly 33 city, 38 highway before the change, but 29 city, 35 highway after the change.
That wouldn't explain personally observed lower numbers, of course, but why you might see lower numbers while doing research.
Those look like generational differences on the fit. 28/35, 33 combined is correct for the 2009 model year as of 2009 based on my memory. We own one of those and average below 30 but we mostly don't drive highway miles, so it is mostly reporting town driving.
Newer generations are less boxy (mostly the tail got swept, instead of an essentially flat hatch) and get better MPG as a pretty direct result.
If you read reviews [...]You can also view the original and revised EPA ratings side-by-side on fueleconomy.gov by clicking on "View Original EPA MPG".
I don't see the "view older" although I do see two 2009 fits which seem identical with different mileage so that's weird. Could be sport/non-sport, but I didn't think the trims rated any different, other than the manual transmission which I think rated lower?
Review: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15143108/2009-honda-fit-sport-road-test/
Feds: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=26019&id=26021
What is the expected etiquette at the airport when you drive yourself with an EV and will be gone more than a day? Just park with all the ice cars and plain ahead so the drainage while you are gone still leaves enough to get home? Guess it would be nice to have trickle chargers at a large number of spots.Not sure how many spots they have, but one of the parking operators adjacent to the airport has free L2 charging.
How do you all feel about longevity and resale value for EVs? One of my concerns is the life of the battery. Every day they get a little worse, so buying a new vs 10-year-old EV seems like you are losing a lot by getting the pre-owned vehicle.
How long can EVs be expected to last and stay near their new buy driving ranges? And what does reselling an EV look like if after 5 years it can only drive 75% or less as far as it could when you bought it?
How do you all feel about longevity and resale value for EVs? One of my concerns is the life of the battery. Every day they get a little worse, so buying a new vs 10-year-old EV seems like you are losing a lot by getting the pre-owned vehicle.
Do you also not have cell phones?
(1) They're optional to bring with, and I frequently leave mine at home, or shut it off and toss it in a bag.
(2) I have somewhat greater confidence in what's leaving my phone, based on permissions I've granted or denied the few apps on it. I also generally don't leave accurate location services enabled unless I really need them.
Anecdotally, I remember barely getting over 20 mpg with a tiny 1999 Honda CR-V (AWD, 2.4L if I recall correctly), but getting as high as 35 mpg in a 2013 Mazda CX-5 FWD (2.0L). Our current 2014 Mazda CX-5 AWD (2.5L) gets 26-28 mpg (I think, but I don't monitor it closely.) Subaru has also improved the gas mileage of their lineup greatly.
Starting with an EV with ~250 miles of range when your most common usage profile requires under ~50 miles of range gives your EV many years of useful service ahead of it as the battery ages.
Starting with an EV that got ~75 miles of range when it was new delivers far fewer years of service before it degrades to ~50 miles of range.
There's just way less stuff to break in an EV engine than in an ICE engine. That alone will make EV's much simpler/easier to maintain:
There's just way less stuff to break in an EV engine than in an ICE engine. That alone will make EV's much simpler/easier to maintain:
Ok, first, most engines don't look like a BMW monstrosity.
Second, you should show the insides of the inverter electronics and such, if you want to make a complexity argument. Solid state switching equipment doesn't last forever.
I could make the opposite image with plenty of vehicles I've owned vs the guts of all the electronics that make a Tesla run and play Cuphead or whatever the hell else they've added to their giant, non-automotive-grade screens.
But, yes, right now, we should be building PHEVs.
Are you under the impression that ICE cars don't have computers? There are literally dozens of them in modern cars. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the computer system in a Tesla is simpler than one in a comparable ICE vehicle.
Are you under the impression that ICE cars don't have computers? There are literally dozens of them in modern cars. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the computer system in a Tesla is simpler than one in a comparable ICE vehicle.
Making pointless "But look at the complexity!" visual comparisons is stupid no matter which way you do it. Tell me what you want me to prove and I'll create an idiotic image macro to "prove" it on Twitter.
The reality is that modern ICEs are quite reliable, as are most EVs, so I don't see any real point to that sort of content-free rubbish.
Talking about the limited production of battery capacity and how to maximize what you're doing with, though, is far more relevant, and looks like PHEVs right now.
Starting with an EV with ~250 miles of range when your most common usage profile requires under ~50 miles of range gives your EV many years of useful service ahead of it as the battery ages.
Starting with an EV that got ~75 miles of range when it was new delivers far fewer years of service before it degrades to ~50 miles of range.
This could arguably be overdone though. Optimization/efficiency isn't gained by overbuilding our environment. Using 100kWh battery pack when 50kWh will do just fine means we saved half the resources to get the same utility. In other words, comparing a 250mile/range vehicle to a 75mile one isn't what is happening; really you should compare it to three 75mile vehicles. Also noting that at the end of the service life, a new vehicle will be made of better battery technology. There are other caveats of course, such as the materials/energy needed to make the rest of the car. Considering batteries are the bottleneck of our conversion to cleaner fuels (grid batteries, renewables, vehicles, etc), putting extras in vehicles is a practice in gluttony. It could even be argued that we should stick to hybrids & phev's as a balance between resource availability and reduction of carbon footprints.
This can be summed up in the example "Anyone with sufficient time and resources can make a bridge that holds a truck. It takes and engineer to make a bridge that can just barely hold a truck"
Are you under the impression that ICE cars don't have computers? There are literally dozens of them in modern cars. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the computer system in a Tesla is simpler than one in a comparable ICE vehicle.
Making pointless "But look at the complexity!" visual comparisons is stupid no matter which way you do it. Tell me what you want me to prove and I'll create an idiotic image macro to "prove" it on Twitter.
The reality is that modern ICEs are quite reliable, as are most EVs, so I don't see any real point to that sort of content-free rubbish.
Talking about the limited production of battery capacity and how to maximize what you're doing with, though, is far more relevant, and looks like PHEVs right now.
And?
You called out the (lack of) longevity of computers. I pointed out that ICE cars have as many or more computers as EVs.
You called out the (lack of) longevity of computers. I pointed out that ICE cars have as many or more computers as EVs.
You called out the (lack of) longevity of computers. I pointed out that ICE cars have as many or more computers as EVs.
Actually, I pointed out the problems with high power switching solid state gizmos in the inverters. That's a different bit of hardware from the computers. They're long lived, but not indefinite life.
Going back to the post in question, the statement was: there’s just way less stuff to break in an EV…
I agree with Syonyk that the accompanying photos were designed to look compelling but aren’t actually informative. We can look at REAL DATA at this point and see where EVs do better (and where they have issues most ICE vehicles don’t) without resorting to “gotcha” photos not terribly representative of the issue
Starting with an EV with ~250 miles of range when your most common usage profile requires under ~50 miles of range gives your EV many years of useful service ahead of it as the battery ages.
Starting with an EV that got ~75 miles of range when it was new delivers far fewer years of service before it degrades to ~50 miles of range.
This could arguably be overdone though. Optimization/efficiency isn't gained by overbuilding our environment. Using 100kWh battery pack when 50kWh will do just fine means we saved half the resources to get the same utility. In other words, comparing a 250mile/range vehicle to a 75mile one isn't what is happening; really you should compare it to three 75mile vehicles. Also noting that at the end of the service life, a new vehicle will be made of better battery technology. There are other caveats of course, such as the materials/energy needed to make the rest of the car. Considering batteries are the bottleneck of our conversion to cleaner fuels (grid batteries, renewables, vehicles, etc), putting extras in vehicles is a practice in gluttony. It could even be argued that we should stick to hybrids & phev's as a balance between resource availability and reduction of carbon footprints.
This can be summed up in the example "Anyone with sufficient time and resources can make a bridge that holds a truck. It takes and engineer to make a bridge that can just barely hold a truck"
Realistically I'm not buying an EV anytime soon despite admiring several right now. When I do buy one it'll be a used EV with the largest battery I can afford. For now I'll just keep driving what I already own.
Fine.
To be very fucking specific, since apparently nobody here actually reads the relevant shit or has worked on power electronics, inverters, etc:
The high power switching electronics used in the inverter to drive the electric motors - typically IGBTs, MOSFETs, or similar silicon technology designed for high current switching operation, do not have an infinite service life under typical operational conditions, through a variety of failure modes either of the silicon, of the insulation, or from thermal stress. In addition, the larger capacitors typically used in such equipment also don't have an indefinite service life - electrolytic capacitors dry up with age and use and need replacement.
The replacement of these items is neither trivial nor easy, so to point to an external photo of a motor and claim that the EV is far simpler because you've not opened the case on the integrated inverter or such, is entirely absurd. They have their own failure modes, unique and independent from ICE failure modes.
The best you can reasonably claim is that lifetime maintenance costs are about half the cost with a BEV or PHEV vs an ICE (BEV and PHEV come in very close to each other, both being about half that of an ICE), and that there are long term maintenance costs associated with both, in a different manner for each, based on the nature of their power electronics.
And then people like me show up and more or less print money fixing the weird, obscure, "This is solid state and won't fail!" sort of stuff that has failed in the field. I rebuilt a lot of BionX battery packs, and did board level repair on at least some of the older boards (the newer ones just fried in some irreparable way, they latched the failure state and wouldn't power on again, yay modular crap you can't actually rebuild). And I charged accordingly for it. I paid for a decent bit of our house on EV repair for a few years. And that's before you get into things like motors having magnets come loose and locking the motor. Only an issue on permanent magnet motors, but rather catastrophic when it happens. Fortunately rare.
We don't have any long term data on EV reliability past about 10 years, which isn't even the average age of the US automotive fleet (currently at 11 or 12 years). I don't find "first 10 years" reliability for a vehicle the slightest bit interesting except for sorting out lemon brands (of which there are some, and don't look too hard at Tesla repair costs). The second and third decade are where you sort out well built vehicles and maintainable vehicles from the crap that's rusting in a junkyard inside 15 years, and we literally don't have any that old. You can do all the accelerated lifecycle testing you want, but it only simulates aging, it doesn't actually reflect real world aging.
And one of the flagship EV makers is violently opposed to any sort of serviceability of their cars, leading to what I termed about 5 years back "throwaway vehicles," and they've changed nothing since then.
Posting fucking meme grade images as some sort of reasoned argument is just stupid, though. Hopefully the lot of you can agree on that. I'm out for a while.
Anonymous angry “expert” retires.
I was being facetious because he’s made broad assumptions about everyone’s own research and how his experience gives him credibility to determine if today’s ICE vehicles are as easy to maintain and/or as complex as state of the art EV tech. There are engineers who tear down today’s cars, ICE and EV, for a living whose opinions I find more credible.
Fwiw, the summary that PHEVs and BEVs are fairly close in repair cost is useful info for me. I would like to advocate for PHEVs in some non-anonymous platforms where I have an audience. For that, non-anonymous sources are useful. Does anyone have a comprehensive analysis of BEV vs PHEV repair costs from a non-anonymous source?
(https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2021/1/11/37628986-16104254235986686_origin.png)
It seems like some people are defensive of ICE vehicles, mostly because they need them to maintain their desired way of living, usually on acreage in sparsely populated areas, where they have to drive long distances to get where they need to go on a daily basis. I support Americans' freedumb to live wherever they like. I also support taxing the living shit out of them and using that money to pay for real high speed rail between cities and good public transport within metro areas, where 80%+ of Americans already live. Also support vastly increasing government subsidized, dense public housing options on public transit lines within metro areas of cities. If we built good-quality public housing, kinda like the government in Vienna, Austria does, many more Americans would voluntarily move into dense cities, where everything they need to do on a daily basis is within easy walking/biking/public transit distance from their homes. You want to live 50 miles from your work and the nearest supermarket, library, hardware store? No problem. Every time you fire up that engine on your car, though, your bank account should bleed money that can be used to make better, more sustainable, transportation options for the vast majority of our citizens, who aren't insisting on their freedumb to live in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Anonymous angry “expert” retires.
They're right that we have very limited lifespan of EVs to look at so far - but the other side of that coin is we have 100+ years of engineering into ICE cars. EVs are in their infancy and will only get better with time. They're also missing the point that all the electronics in ICE cars will also eventually fail with age, and also missing that literally nobody said EVs have an infinite service life. A whole army of strawmen, struck down in anger...
Is planned obsolescence a thing of the past? Prior to the Japanese invasion of highter quality vehicles in the 1970s, the automotive market was ruled by the big three American automotive manufacturers. Automobiles were designed for a three year life span. It was intentional. The bean counters who ruled the industry liked a continuous cash flow. It took quite a while before the idea of quality permeated the American car industry.
Electric cars are new. They are beginning to make serious inroads in the vehicle market around the world. Will the bean counters once again order the engineers to take the margin out of components to limit the useful life of the product? Heat is the enemy of electronics. I could see them easily cutting corners on heat sinks.
Anonymous angry “expert” retires.
They're right that we have very limited lifespan of EVs to look at so far - but the other side of that coin is we have 100+ years of engineering into ICE cars. EVs are in their infancy and will only get better with time. They're also missing the point that all the electronics in ICE cars will also eventually fail with age, and also missing that literally nobody said EVs have an infinite service life. A whole army of strawmen, struck down in anger...
Well the marketing departments have made a point to say that EV motors could potentially last 1M miles in various car promotional ---errr, car review articles around the web. And the motor may last that long but the rest of the car - the interior, the suspension, the chassis, etc won't. ;)
Visit a junkyard. People quit maintaining a car long before it is junkyard material. In fact they ensure it is junkyard material.
Low cost car meet low budget owner. Junkyard reservation confirmed...
In my part of the country cars generally don't rust out, they get neglected to death. I'm curious if the new higher price tags on today's new cars will put them into the junkyard faster (more expensive to maintain) or if people will hang on to them a little tighter and care a little longer.
Good post @Syonyk.
It seems like some people are defensive of ICE vehicles, mostly because they need them to maintain their desired way of living, usually on acreage in sparsely populated areas, where they have to drive long distances to get where they need to go on a daily basis. I support Americans' freedumb to live wherever they like. I also support taxing the living shit out of them and using that money to pay for real high speed rail between cities and good public transport within metro areas, where 80%+ of Americans already live. Also support vastly increasing government subsidized, dense public housing options on public transit lines within metro areas of cities. If we built good-quality public housing, kinda like the government in Vienna, Austria does, many more Americans would voluntarily move into dense cities, where everything they need to do on a daily basis is within easy walking/biking/public transit distance from their homes. You want to live 50 miles from your work and the nearest supermarket, library, hardware store? No problem. Every time you fire up that engine on your car, though, your bank account should bleed money that can be used to make better, more sustainable, transportation options for the vast majority of our citizens, who aren't insisting on their freedumb to live in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Oh good, we get to go back through this discussion again, except this time with more profanity and insults!
Yeah, mass transit and denser living options are great to offer people. They're not going to happen overnight, and they're not going to be adopted by everybody. Wouldn't it be nice to have cleaner, more efficient options for everybody to use in the mean time as those changes can be adopted? And then those options would continue for the people that do choose a different lifestyle to the one that you prefer? This thread is about those options, and the impact that they can make more than it's about completely rebuilding society to your ideal.
Also, I'm not sure that 80% of the US population living in a "Metro Area" is really meaningful considering what is and is not considered a "Metro Area". There are a whole lot of sparsely populated places that aren't easily served by public transit, or that require commutes in "Metro Areas":
(https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/census-bureau-metropolitan-area-map-united-states-small.jpg)
It seems like some people are defensive of ICE vehicles, mostly because they need them to maintain their desired way of living, usually on acreage in sparsely populated areas, where they have to drive long distances to get where they need to go on a daily basis. I support Americans' freedumb to live wherever they like. I also support taxing the living shit out of them and using that money to pay for real high speed rail between cities and good public transport within metro areas, where 80%+ of Americans already live. Also support vastly increasing government subsidized, dense public housing options on public transit lines within metro areas of cities. If we built good-quality public housing, kinda like the government in Vienna, Austria does, many more Americans would voluntarily move into dense cities, where everything they need to do on a daily basis is within easy walking/biking/public transit distance from their homes. You want to live 50 miles from your work and the nearest supermarket, library, hardware store? No problem. Every time you fire up that engine on your car, though, your bank account should bleed money that can be used to make better, more sustainable, transportation options for the vast majority of our citizens, who aren't insisting on their freedumb to live in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Oh good, we get to go back through this discussion again, except this time with more profanity and insults!
Yeah, mass transit and denser living options are great to offer people. They're not going to happen overnight, and they're not going to be adopted by everybody. Wouldn't it be nice to have cleaner, more efficient options for everybody to use in the mean time as those changes can be adopted? And then those options would continue for the people that do choose a different lifestyle to the one that you prefer? This thread is about those options, and the impact that they can make more than it's about completely rebuilding society to your ideal.
Also, I'm not sure that 80% of the US population living in a "Metro Area" is really meaningful considering what is and is not considered a "Metro Area". There are a whole lot of sparsely populated places that aren't easily served by public transit, or that require commutes in "Metro Areas":
(https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/census-bureau-metropolitan-area-map-united-states-small.jpg)
Sorry, I'm just sick and fucking tired of Americans and their cars. I don't give a shit if they're EVs or ICE. I want them all gone. My 13 year old daughter and one of her classmates have been commuting back and forth to 8th grade on their bikes, and many days they report that it's completely impossible for them to cross the street IN A MARKED FUCKING CROSSWALK to get to the bike path that's just 2 blocks from our home, because entitled adults, who are speeding through our neighborhood at 10 to 20mph over the speed limit, refuse to follow the law that requires them to stop when pedestrians are crossing the street in a marked crosswalk. After 5 or 10 minutes of waiting for adults in their cars to stop to allow them to cross, my daughter and her classmate have been pushing their bikes down the sidewalk for ~1/2 mile to the nearest traffic light, where they dutifully push the beg button and stand there waiting to be allowed to cross the fucking street. This is not okay. It has to stop. I give zero fucks if my tone or language upsets you or anyone else. Fuck anybody who thinks it's okay to speed by on their way to work without stopping to let two little girls cross the street.
Is planned obsolescence a thing of the past? Prior to the Japanese invasion of highter quality vehicles in the 1970s, the automotive market was ruled by the big three American automotive manufacturers. Automobiles were designed for a three year life span. It was intentional. The bean counters who ruled the industry liked a continuous cash flow. It took quite a while before the idea of quality permeated the American car industry.
Electric cars are new. They are beginning to make serious inroads in the vehicle market around the world. Will the bean counters once again order the engineers to take the margin out of components to limit the useful life of the product? Heat is the enemy of electronics. I could see them easily cutting corners on heat sinks.
I think EV's only win if they are fundamentally better than ICE cars in most categories, including longevity and cost of ownership. I think the EV maker that comes out with cars that have the greatest range driveable, shortest charging times and best reliability is going to win. Right now we are in a growth phase so corner's won't be cut now, IMO because there's too much cash to be made by creating a compelling product and grabbing market share. In the future, when growth is stagnant, that's when you see the bean counters come out.
You see that pattern not just with cars, but all kinds of businesses. Like McDonals, or Starbucks. They made a (relatively higher) quality product when they were still rapidly growing, but now have cut corners and lowered quality as growth has slowed.
Hear HearIt seems like some people are defensive of ICE vehicles, mostly because they need them to maintain their desired way of living, usually on acreage in sparsely populated areas, where they have to drive long distances to get where they need to go on a daily basis. I support Americans' freedumb to live wherever they like. I also support taxing the living shit out of them and using that money to pay for real high speed rail between cities and good public transport within metro areas, where 80%+ of Americans already live. Also support vastly increasing government subsidized, dense public housing options on public transit lines within metro areas of cities. If we built good-quality public housing, kinda like the government in Vienna, Austria does, many more Americans would voluntarily move into dense cities, where everything they need to do on a daily basis is within easy walking/biking/public transit distance from their homes. You want to live 50 miles from your work and the nearest supermarket, library, hardware store? No problem. Every time you fire up that engine on your car, though, your bank account should bleed money that can be used to make better, more sustainable, transportation options for the vast majority of our citizens, who aren't insisting on their freedumb to live in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Oh good, we get to go back through this discussion again, except this time with more profanity and insults!
Yeah, mass transit and denser living options are great to offer people. They're not going to happen overnight, and they're not going to be adopted by everybody. Wouldn't it be nice to have cleaner, more efficient options for everybody to use in the mean time as those changes can be adopted? And then those options would continue for the people that do choose a different lifestyle to the one that you prefer? This thread is about those options, and the impact that they can make more than it's about completely rebuilding society to your ideal.
Also, I'm not sure that 80% of the US population living in a "Metro Area" is really meaningful considering what is and is not considered a "Metro Area". There are a whole lot of sparsely populated places that aren't easily served by public transit, or that require commutes in "Metro Areas":
(https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/census-bureau-metropolitan-area-map-united-states-small.jpg)
Sorry, I'm just sick and fucking tired of Americans and their cars. I don't give a shit if they're EVs or ICE. I want them all gone. My 13 year old daughter and one of her classmates have been commuting back and forth to 8th grade on their bikes, and many days they report that it's completely impossible for them to cross the street IN A MARKED FUCKING CROSSWALK to get to the bike path that's just 2 blocks from our home, because entitled adults, who are speeding through our neighborhood at 10 to 20mph over the speed limit, refuse to follow the law that requires them to stop when pedestrians are crossing the street in a marked crosswalk. After 5 or 10 minutes of waiting for adults in their cars to stop to allow them to cross, my daughter and her classmate have been pushing their bikes down the sidewalk for ~1/2 mile to the nearest traffic light, where they dutifully push the beg button and stand there waiting to be allowed to cross the fucking street. This is not okay. It has to stop. I give zero fucks if my tone or language upsets you or anyone else. Fuck anybody who thinks it's okay to speed by on their way to work without stopping to let two little girls cross the street.
We don't have any long term data on EV reliability past about 10 years, which isn't even the average age of the US automotive fleet (currently at 11 or 12 years). I don't find "first 10 years" reliability for a vehicle the slightest bit interesting except for sorting out lemon brands (of which there are some, and don't look too hard at Tesla repair costs). The second and third decade are where you sort out well built vehicles and maintainable vehicles from the crap that's rusting in a junkyard inside 15 years, and we literally don't have any that old. You can do all the accelerated lifecycle testing you want, but it only simulates aging, it doesn't actually reflect real world agingNo long term data on EV reliability? Ahem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhnjMdzGusc
It seems like some people are defensive of ICE vehicles, mostly because they need them to maintain their desired way of living, usually on acreage in sparsely populated areas, where they have to drive long distances to get where they need to go on a daily basis. I support Americans' freedumb to live wherever they like. I also support taxing the living shit out of them and using that money to pay for real high speed rail between cities and good public transport within metro areas, where 80%+ of Americans already live. Also support vastly increasing government subsidized, dense public housing options on public transit lines within metro areas of cities. If we built good-quality public housing, kinda like the government in Vienna, Austria does, many more Americans would voluntarily move into dense cities, where everything they need to do on a daily basis is within easy walking/biking/public transit distance from their homes. You want to live 50 miles from your work and the nearest supermarket, library, hardware store? No problem. Every time you fire up that engine on your car, though, your bank account should bleed money that can be used to make better, more sustainable, transportation options for the vast majority of our citizens, who aren't insisting on their freedumb to live in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Oh good, we get to go back through this discussion again, except this time with more profanity and insults!
Yeah, mass transit and denser living options are great to offer people. They're not going to happen overnight, and they're not going to be adopted by everybody. Wouldn't it be nice to have cleaner, more efficient options for everybody to use in the mean time as those changes can be adopted? And then those options would continue for the people that do choose a different lifestyle to the one that you prefer? This thread is about those options, and the impact that they can make more than it's about completely rebuilding society to your ideal.
Also, I'm not sure that 80% of the US population living in a "Metro Area" is really meaningful considering what is and is not considered a "Metro Area". There are a whole lot of sparsely populated places that aren't easily served by public transit, or that require commutes in "Metro Areas":
(https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/census-bureau-metropolitan-area-map-united-states-small.jpg)
Sorry, I'm just sick and fucking tired of Americans and their cars. I don't give a shit if they're EVs or ICE. I want them all gone. My 13 year old daughter and one of her classmates have been commuting back and forth to 8th grade on their bikes, and many days they report that it's completely impossible for them to cross the street IN A MARKED FUCKING CROSSWALK to get to the bike path that's just 2 blocks from our home, because entitled adults, who are speeding through our neighborhood at 10 to 20mph over the speed limit, refuse to follow the law that requires them to stop when pedestrians are crossing the street in a marked crosswalk. After 5 or 10 minutes of waiting for adults in their cars to stop to allow them to cross, my daughter and her classmate have been pushing their bikes down the sidewalk for ~1/2 mile to the nearest traffic light, where they dutifully push the beg button and stand there waiting to be allowed to cross the fucking street. This is not okay. It has to stop. I give zero fucks if my tone or language upsets you or anyone else. Fuck anybody who thinks it's okay to speed by on their way to work without stopping to let two little girls cross the street.
How do you all feel about longevity and resale value for EVs? One of my concerns is the life of the battery. Every day they get a little worse, so buying a new vs 10-year-old EV seems like you are losing a lot by getting the pre-owned vehicle.
How long can EVs be expected to last and stay near their new buy driving ranges? And what does reselling an EV look like if after 5 years it can only drive 75% or less as far as it could when you bought it?
Yeah, people suck! Sounds to me like you just live near too many other people :) Instead of expecting the many people around me to change, I just removed myself from the people around me.
Traffic isn't a problem for me out here in rural, car-dependent BFE. We walk and cycle in the road just fine. I'd probably feel the same way as you if I were living where you are, constantly surrounded by people being rude, inconsiderate asses.
Unfortunately, there are always trade offs in locations. If you want to live in the middle of everything, you're going to have to deal with all of the people. If you want to avoid all of the people, you're going to have to deal with fewer amenities and some travel time. I don't begrudge those who want to live a different lifestyle than my preference, and I don't really understand the vitriol coming the other way. We can all choose where we live based on our priorities and budget. If you're unhappy in the current place, maybe consider a change? You can try to change society, and you might be successful. But it's always easier to change your own position than it is to change society.
Yeah, people suck! Sounds to me like you just live near too many other people :) Instead of expecting the many people around me to change, I just removed myself from the people around me.
Traffic isn't a problem for me out here in rural, car-dependent BFE. We walk and cycle in the road just fine. I'd probably feel the same way as you if I were living where you are, constantly surrounded by people being rude, inconsiderate asses.
Unfortunately, there are always trade offs in locations. If you want to live in the middle of everything, you're going to have to deal with all of the people. If you want to avoid all of the people, you're going to have to deal with fewer amenities and some travel time. I don't begrudge those who want to live a different lifestyle than my preference, and I don't really understand the vitriol coming the other way. We can all choose where we live based on our priorities and budget. If you're unhappy in the current place, maybe consider a change? You can try to change society, and you might be successful. But it's always easier to change your own position than it is to change society.
I am really tired of the vitriol directed against cars. The environmental impact of EVs is substantially less than ICE cars today, and as we move to renewable energy it will decrease even more.
Trains are very fuel efficient especially for moving freight. Still, it is very likely that we will have diesel locomotives contributing to global warming, long after the last ICE car has been produced.
Cars are everywhere and here to stay, if you want to tilt at windmills and get them removed, I guess it is important to have hobbies in retirement. Just don't surprise at the pushback.
The city where we live is totally fine. What's not fine is the distracted, entitled sub/exurbanites zooming through our neighborhoods in their cars like the city's their own little private race track. Also feeling triggered by seeing pictures of village idiot Joe Biden posing in a new Hummer EV with a big smile on his face. He has to know that that shiny, new, 9Klb EV is going to kill even more people than the ICE ones. Our children, old people, handicapped people, and poor people who have to catch buses and trains, shouldn't have to die just to shave a few minutes off of entitled suburbanites' commute times. The battery in the Hummer EV alone weighs 2Klbs - more than many entire cars. The Hummer EV weighs as much as an actual tank. We could make 4 Nissan Leaf batteries or 380 e-bike batteries, with the same amount of materials it takes to make the battery for just one Hummer EV. I'm sorry, but EVs like this are NOT an improvement over conventional ICE vehicles. In some ways, EVs can be worse than ICE, because they lull Americans into believing it's just fine to continue consuming multiples more resources from our planet than most other humans. That our president is seemingly placing his seal of approval on this monument to American gluttony is sad, imho. Instead, as the people's representatives, our government should be taxing the shit out of anyone who thinks it might be a good idea to drive around in something like this, and our government should be locking drivers up when they murder our children and old people with their make-believe-military-style vehicles.
"Rather than celebrating the Hummer EV, the Biden admin should be proposing weight-based fees to restrain truck bloat and encourage smaller cars. A promising model: The District of Columbia’s new sliding scale of car registration fees."
(https://twitter.com/DavidZipper/status/1568580454478974976)
Yeah, people suck! Sounds to me like you just live near too many other people :) Instead of expecting the many people around me to change, I just removed myself from the people around me.
Traffic isn't a problem for me out here in rural, car-dependent BFE. We walk and cycle in the road just fine. I'd probably feel the same way as you if I were living where you are, constantly surrounded by people being rude, inconsiderate asses.
Unfortunately, there are always trade offs in locations. If you want to live in the middle of everything, you're going to have to deal with all of the people. If you want to avoid all of the people, you're going to have to deal with fewer amenities and some travel time. I don't begrudge those who want to live a different lifestyle than my preference, and I don't really understand the vitriol coming the other way. We can all choose where we live based on our priorities and budget. If you're unhappy in the current place, maybe consider a change? You can try to change society, and you might be successful. But it's always easier to change your own position than it is to change society.
People aren't the issue. Bad transportation design is the issue. See also, Not Just Bikes.
We design our roads to make the 10-20 mph over thing safe and most people drive the speed that feels safe.
And, as NJB points out, this isn't "oh its just the Dutch being special." Their cities were car-infested hell-holes in the 60s/70s and they decided to prioritize people (walking, biking) over cars and amazingly it works.
Does anyone watch Monro and Associates?
And typical smallish cars have ergonomics that leave me wanting something different as I get older. Harder to enter and exit a Miata than a small SUV such as an HRV - although the recent HRV grew by 400-500 lbs from the previous generation so no longer what I would describe as small.
It will be cheaper/more-efficient to recycle and replace.
What I don't support is railing against people on the other side of the country as dumb assholes because some assholes speed down your street. It's fine to make cities more appealing to live in if there's demand for that. Not everybody wants that, and frankly we need people to live in less dense places too. Suburban sprawl is bad, but that doesn't mean that rural living is bad and I think that distinction gets pretty opaque for a lot of people here.
It will be cheaper/more-efficient to recycle and replace.
Just like with plastics!
That turned out good for us, right? Plastic recycling wasn't a giant scam, and we didn't dump so many plastics into the environment that the average person now eats 5g of plastic a week now without knowing it.
Blind faith in new technology and not looking too closely at the results has certainly worked out well so far!
It is preferable to burn fossil fuels in ICE over the making the switch to EVs where we at least have the potential to recycle batteries?
Plastics were off to a rocky start, but are much improved now no?Hell no.
What has eluded me so far - perhaps one of the proponents of massively overhauling the U.S. infrastructure can speak to this?If anyone would be able to answer that with certainty, that person would a jackpot lottery winner every few weeks.
Question 1:
What would the U.S. look like with an optimal infrastructure? i.e. what would the population density be? What would the typical housing look like for everyone?
Question 2:
What would the timeline be assuming everything comes up roses, everyone votes to support this, every politician finds the money to incentivize the changes?
It is preferable to burn fossil fuels in ICE over the making the switch to EVs where we at least have the potential to recycle batteries?
I dont think there are plans to recycle burned fossil fuels just yet.
The chassis is shared between both ICE and EV.
ICE has fuels/fluids/oils/tubes/hoses/engine/transmission.
EV has batteries and electric motor.
It is preferable to burn fossil fuels in ICE over the making the switch to EVs where we at least have the potential to recycle batteries?
I dont think there are plans to recycle burned fossil fuels just yet.
The chassis is shared between both ICE and EV.
ICE has fuels/fluids/oils/tubes/hoses/engine/transmission.
EV has batteries and electric motor.
It's preferable in most cases to use existing vehicles rather than building new ones. Scrapping perfectly good older vehicles to buy shiny new EVs is going to be very difficult to overcome environmentally speaking. This is doubly true for most Mustachians who tend to drive more efficient options.
The engines, transmissions, etc of an ICE can all be recycled fairly easily. In many cases they can be reused to keep existing vehicles on the road, prolonging their life and spreading out their carbon impact further.
You're not getting the electrons back into a battery any sooner than you're getting the fuel back into an ICE. They both consume fuel, it's just a different type.
EVs have fluids for brakes and battery heating/cooling too. A Model S has 11 Liters of battery coolant. An Accord has less than 7 Liters of coolant for the engine. EVs also often have 2 AC systems in place (1 for battery and 1 for cabin), and all of the associated plumbing and extra refrigerant.
It will be cheaper/more-efficient to recycle and replace.
Just like with plastics!
That turned out good for us, right? Plastic recycling wasn't a giant scam, and we didn't dump so many plastics into the environment that the average person now eats 5g of plastic a week now without knowing it.
Blind faith in new technology and not looking too closely at the results has certainly worked out well so far!
Plastics were off to a rocky start, but are much improved now no?
Not sure I understand your position. You would suggest we just do nothing then?
It is preferable to burn fossil fuels in ICE over the making the switch to EVs where we at least have the potential to recycle batteries?
I dont think there are plans to recycle burned fossil fuels just yet.
The chassis is shared between both ICE and EV.
ICE has fuels/fluids/oils/tubes/hoses/engine/transmission.
EV has batteries and electric motor.
It is preferable to burn fossil fuels in ICE over the making the switch to EVs where we at least have the potential to recycle batteries?
I dont think there are plans to recycle burned fossil fuels just yet.
The chassis is shared between both ICE and EV.
ICE has fuels/fluids/oils/tubes/hoses/engine/transmission.
EV has batteries and electric motor.
It's preferable in most cases to use existing vehicles rather than building new ones. Scrapping perfectly good older vehicles to buy shiny new EVs is going to be very difficult to overcome environmentally speaking. This is doubly true for most Mustachians who tend to drive more efficient options.
The engines, transmissions, etc of an ICE can all be recycled fairly easily. In many cases they can be reused to keep existing vehicles on the road, prolonging their life and spreading out their carbon impact further.
You're not getting the electrons back into a battery any sooner than you're getting the fuel back into an ICE. They both consume fuel, it's just a different type.
EVs have fluids for brakes and battery heating/cooling too. A Model S has 11 Liters of battery coolant. An Accord has less than 7 Liters of coolant for the engine. EVs also often have 2 AC systems in place (1 for battery and 1 for cabin), and all of the associated plumbing and extra refrigerant.
This seems to be a nonsensical argument -- I can't think of anybody I've ever met who would scrap a car they could sell or trade. People are not going to simply stop buying new cars entirely and maintain old ones forever, Cuba-style. Who is scrapping perfectly good older vehicles?
You're also making unfair / unrealistic comparisons. There is no service interval for the battery cooling fluid in my Model 3. ICE vehicles need periodic coolant flushes, water pump replacements, and also operate under much higher temperatures and pressures, all of which result in more stress on all involved components. Brake fluid in EVs barely does anything, because the bulk of braking is does via regen (incidentally a method of recapturing energy that ICE can't do).
As far as "they both use fuel" -- last I checked, my solar system doesn't generate gasoline.
It will be cheaper/more-efficient to recycle and replace.
Just like with plastics!
That turned out good for us, right? Plastic recycling wasn't a giant scam, and we didn't dump so many plastics into the environment that the average person now eats 5g of plastic a week now without knowing it.
Blind faith in new technology and not looking too closely at the results has certainly worked out well so far!
Plastics were off to a rocky start, but are much improved now no?
Hahahahahahahaha. Wait, are you being serious?
The plastics that can be recycled are often not economically feasible to do so, a huge number of them cannot be recycled, and we have flooded the Earth with them. It's pretty fucked up that the average person is currently eating 5g of plastics each week. Especially as there is mounting evidence that the hormone mimicking chemicals leeched by plastics are causing some strange changes in human sexual development.
No, plastics are a huge problem. And that kind of shows my point. Much as the ad men will promise otherwise, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.Not sure I understand your position. You would suggest we just do nothing then?
Nope. It's vital that we do things that will address climate change. My main concern is that we're spending too much time and effort and money trying to maintain comforts that we've grown accustomed to that are not ever going to really be sustainable.It is preferable to burn fossil fuels in ICE over the making the switch to EVs where we at least have the potential to recycle batteries?
I dont think there are plans to recycle burned fossil fuels just yet.
The chassis is shared between both ICE and EV.
ICE has fuels/fluids/oils/tubes/hoses/engine/transmission.
EV has batteries and electric motor.
We need to fundamentally rethink the idea of vehicles for private transportation - full stop.
Is a private EV better than a private ICE vehicle? Sure. Is a private EV better than an ICE bus though? My most measures, no. Is is better than a diesel train? Definitely no.
We're focused on optimizing a terrible choice, and that just doesn't seem very realistic to me. We need to spend much more of our time and energy in rethinking the broken idea.
There are threads here on an increasing basis where people want to trade in their perfectly good ICEs for new EVs because they think they're automatically better for the environment. It's like the recent memes shared in this thread that are at best misguided.
I just wanted to push back on that type of thinking a bit. EVs can certainly be good. There are some coming out that I find really desirable. But they're not just a couple of wires and some laptop batteries like so many people believe. They still require lots of resources to manufacture, including some that people don't readily consider. Consumption is bad for the environment, and anything that increases consumption is going to take a long time to payoff, if it ever does. So everybody here rushing into long range EVs might be misguided in the bigger picture. Keeping existing stuff going is pretty much always going to be better environmentally than being responsible for the creation of new stuff, even if the new stuff is more efficient.
This assumes that when a person trades in their working ICE for an EV, the ICE is sunk in the middle of the ocean and never seen again. 99% of the time someone else buys that vehicle, and continues to use it.
This is how the economy works. There are lots of trickle down effects. So moving from the ICE to the EV is not entirely wasteful, it prevented that other person from buying a new ICE/EV on their own, no?
Ok so ban all plastics. Now what? Do you have a better polymer we should be using? Its so very easy to strawman your way through life and only point out the negatives. What is your solution? That works for 7B humans? Of all income classes.
No one is saying to ban all plastics. No one. It's not even directly part of the conversation, just an example of how the promises of a technology don't usually include negative externalizes, some of which are irreversible and quite serious. Plastics can still be fine, we just need to have a serious look at the accounting of their benefits vs. burdens.
Bus will never work in non-dense citires. Do you want to force all humans into dense sky-scrapers, with an assigned 48sqft per child, and 96sqft per adult .. + 12sqft for the dog? We have public transport no? Very few opt to use it, unless forced.
EV taxis + FSD could help. Public or private ownership, but vehicles that operate 24/7. I'd personally buy 10 more tesla vehicles if Elon can bring that idea to fruition.
All I know is that I've done part, to the best ability that I can at the present time. I produce 22,000kwh of electricity per year via solar, and have 2 EVs. I an NET negative on the CA grid. You are welcome.
But I'd highly recommend reading some Strong Towns content or NJB. It is very good stuff that could very well help you make good life decisions (similar to MMM).
Thanks for taking up the solar panels that could be used for a hospital and the batteries that could be used for 100 ebikes ;)
Ok so ban all plastics. Now what? Do you have a better polymer we should be using? Its so very easy to strawman your way through life and only point out the negatives. What is your solution? That works for 7B humans? Of all income classes.
Bus will never work in non-dense citires. Do you want to force all humans into dense sky-scrapers, with an assigned 48sqft per child, and 96sqft per adult .. + 12sqft for the dog? We have public transport no? Very few opt to use it, unless forced.
EV taxis + FSD could help. Public or private ownership, but vehicles that operate 24/7. I'd personally buy 10 more tesla vehicles if Elon can bring that idea to fruition.
All I know is that I've done part, to the best ability that I can at the present time. I produce 22,000kwh of electricity per year via solar, and have 2 EVs. I an NET negative on the CA grid. You are welcome.
This seems like a good point in history to encourage everyone to limit themselves to one child...
But I'd highly recommend reading some Strong Towns content or NJB. It is very good stuff that could very well help you make good life decisions (similar to MMM).
Thanks for taking up the solar panels that could be used for a hospital and the batteries that could be used for 100 ebikes ;)
MMM himself bought a new EV a few years ago. Shame on him for using up e-bike batteries, aye?
43,000 people died in traffic violence in 2021 in the US. 8000 of them children. That's > 21 children a day, or a Uvalde every day on our roads. I apologize that some might find the comparison crass, but I find it appalling how this country just seems to be fine with this. Car-centric development has to go. Much of the rest of the developed world is realizing this, but like many things the US seemingly will be 50 years late.
Bus will never work in non-dense citires. Do you want to force all humans into dense sky-scrapers, with an assigned 48sqft per child, and 96sqft per adult .. + 12sqft for the dog? We have public transport no? Very few opt to use it, unless forced.
Bikes are really only viable transportation method for young folks, without kids, in some areas of the country, and during decent weather.
43,000 people died in traffic violence in 2021 in the US. 8000 of them children. That's > 21 children a day, or a Uvalde every day on our roads. I apologize that some might find the comparison crass, but I find it appalling how this country just seems to be fine with this. Car-centric development has to go. Much of the rest of the developed world is realizing this, but like many things the US seemingly will be 50 years late.
According to the CDC, "Nearly 1,000 bicyclists die and over 130,000 are injured in crashes that occur on roads in the United States every year." even though bicycle account for 1% of all trips. This means on trip bases bikes are twice as deadly as cars. The normal metric in transportation measurement is passenger seat miles. e.g. US airlines get 58 MPG/passenger seat miles. Since bike trips are much shorter than automobile trips, and cars can carry multiple people per trip. On a passenger seat mile basis bike are 3-5 times more deadly. So if bike trip rose went from 1 to 30% of all trips we expect to see 63,000+ total transportation deaths and at least 1,200 dead children.
From the CDC
-Adults ages 55-69 have the highest bicycle death rates.
- Adolescents, teens, and young adults have the highest rates of bicycle-related injuries treated in emergency departments (EDs).
- People ages 10-24 account for nearly one-third of all bicycle-related injuries seen in US EDs.
This fits with my anecdotal evidence. In addition to the friend's brother who died in bicycle accident last week. I have 8 friends (mostly folks I keep in contact via Facebook) age 50-72 who routinely do century rides. While it is true that are in far better physical shape than most of their peers, six of the eight have been hospitalized due to bicycle accidents in the last decade.
Bikes are really only viable transportation method for young folks, without kids, in some areas of the country, and during decent weather.
43,000 people died in traffic violence in 2021 in the US. 8000 of them children. That's > 21 children a day, or a Uvalde every day on our roads. I apologize that some might find the comparison crass, but I find it appalling how this country just seems to be fine with this. Car-centric development has to go. Much of the rest of the developed world is realizing this, but like many things the US seemingly will be 50 years late.
According to the CDC, "Nearly 1,000 bicyclists die and over 130,000 are injured in crashes that occur on roads in the United States every year." even though bicycle account for 1% of all trips. This means on trip bases bikes are twice as deadly as cars. The normal metric in transportation measurement is passenger seat miles. e.g. US airlines get 58 MPG/passenger seat miles. Since bike trips are much shorter than automobile trips, and cars can carry multiple people per trip. On a passenger seat mile basis bike are 3-5 times more deadly. So if bike trip rose went from 1 to 30% of all trips we expect to see 63,000+ total transportation deaths and at least 1,200 dead children.
Bikes are really only viable transportation method for young folks, without kids, in some areas of the country, and during decent weather.
….huh? How do you account for all the people who do not fit this demographic that nonetheless use a bicycle for transportation? Are you speaking for and only about people within the US?
[...] and during decent weather.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
Bus will never work in non-dense citires. Do you want to force all humans into dense sky-scrapers, with an assigned 48sqft per child, and 96sqft per adult .. + 12sqft for the dog? We have public transport no? Very few opt to use it, unless forced.Typical american reaction. It may surprise you, but there are other variants of living space than suburbia with big houses on big lots between big streets, where buses are indeed economically unsustainable (as are cars, but that is always ignored. How many private cars make a profit?) and equally stupid skyscapers. Practically everything in between.
"Nearly 1,000 bicyclists die and over 130,000 are injured in crashes that occur on roads in the United States every year." even though bicycle account for 1% of all trips. This means on trip bases bikes are twice as deadly as cars.
Bikes are really only viable transportation method for young folks, without kids, in some areas of the country, and during decent weather.Is that a joke? If not you should watch the Not Just Bikes video titled "Why Canadians can't bike in the winter and Swedens can" or something like that.
43,000 people died in traffic violence in 2021 in the US. 8000 of them children. That's > 21 children a day, or a Uvalde every day on our roads. I apologize that some might find the comparison crass, but I find it appalling how this country just seems to be fine with this. Car-centric development has to go. Much of the rest of the developed world is realizing this, but like many things the US seemingly will be 50 years late.
According to the CDC, "Nearly 1,000 bicyclists die and over 130,000 are injured in crashes that occur on roads in the United States every year." even though bicycle account for 1% of all trips. This means on trip bases bikes are twice as deadly as cars. The normal metric in transportation measurement is passenger seat miles. e.g. US airlines get 58 MPG/passenger seat miles. Since bike trips are much shorter than automobile trips, and cars can carry multiple people per trip. On a passenger seat mile basis bike are 3-5 times more deadly. So if bike trip rose went from 1 to 30% of all trips we expect to see 63,000+ total transportation deaths and at least 1,200 dead children.
From the CDC
-Adults ages 55-69 have the highest bicycle death rates.
- Adolescents, teens, and young adults have the highest rates of bicycle-related injuries treated in emergency departments (EDs).
- People ages 10-24 account for nearly one-third of all bicycle-related injuries seen in US EDs.
This fits with my anecdotal evidence. In addition to the friend's brother who died in bicycle accident last week. I have 8 friends (mostly folks I keep in contact via Facebook) age 50-72 who routinely do century rides. While it is true that are in far better physical shape than most of their peers, six of the eight have been hospitalized due to bicycle accidents in the last decade.
Bikes are really only viable transportation method for young folks, without kids, in some areas of the country, and during decent weather.
The city where we live is totally fine. What's not fine is the distracted, entitled sub/exurbanites zooming through our neighborhoods in their cars like the city's their own little private race track. Also feeling triggered by seeing pictures of village idiot Joe Biden posing in a new Hummer EV with a big smile on his face. He has to know that that shiny, new, 9Klb EV is going to kill even more people than the ICE ones. Our children, old people, handicapped people, and poor people who have to catch buses and trains, shouldn't have to die just to shave a few minutes off of entitled suburbanites' commute times. The battery in the Hummer EV alone weighs 2Klbs - more than many entire cars. The Hummer EV weighs as much as an actual tank. We could make 4 Nissan Leaf batteries or 380 e-bike batteries, with the same amount of materials it takes to make the battery for just one Hummer EV. I'm sorry, but EVs like this are NOT an improvement over conventional ICE vehicles. In some ways, EVs can be worse than ICE, because they lull Americans into believing it's just fine to continue consuming multiples more resources from our planet than most other humans. That our president is seemingly placing his seal of approval on this monument to American gluttony is sad, imho. Instead, as the people's representatives, our government should be taxing the shit out of anyone who thinks it might be a good idea to drive around in something like this, and our government should be locking drivers up when they murder our children and old people with their make-believe-military-style vehicles.
"Rather than celebrating the Hummer EV, the Biden admin should be proposing weight-based fees to restrain truck bloat and encourage smaller cars. A promising model: The District of Columbia’s new sliding scale of car registration fees."
(https://twitter.com/DavidZipper/status/1568580454478974976)
There's some hyperbole in there (Even at 10k lbs, the Hummer doesn't weigh anywhere near as much as an actual tank, and no car in the US has weighed under 2k lbs in a very long time), but I actually agree in general. It's way excessive, and potentially worse for the environment than something like a Prius. I also have concerns about giving Joe Schmoe the keys to 5-10k lb machines with 700+hp (ICE or EV) without increasing licensing requirements.
That being said, the lack of tailpipe emissions from the Hummer EV is still a huge improvement over a comparable ICE vehicle (HD pickup truck, potentially diesel).
43,000 people died in traffic violence in 2021 in the US. 8000 of them children. That's > 21 children a day, or a Uvalde every day on our roads. I apologize that some might find the comparison crass, but I find it appalling how this country just seems to be fine with this. Car-centric development has to go. Much of the rest of the developed world is realizing this, but like many things the US seemingly will be 50 years late.
According to the CDC, "Nearly 1,000 bicyclists die and over 130,000 are injured in crashes that occur on roads in the United States every year." even though bicycle account for 1% of all trips. This means on trip bases bikes are twice as deadly as cars. The normal metric in transportation measurement is passenger seat miles. e.g. US airlines get 58 MPG/passenger seat miles. Since bike trips are much shorter than automobile trips, and cars can carry multiple people per trip. On a passenger seat mile basis bike are 3-5 times more deadly. So if bike trip rose went from 1 to 30% of all trips we expect to see 63,000+ total transportation deaths and at least 1,200 dead children.
From the CDC
-Adults ages 55-69 have the highest bicycle death rates.
- Adolescents, teens, and young adults have the highest rates of bicycle-related injuries treated in emergency departments (EDs).
- People ages 10-24 account for nearly one-third of all bicycle-related injuries seen in US EDs.
This fits with my anecdotal evidence. In addition to the friend's brother who died in bicycle accident last week. I have 8 friends (mostly folks I keep in contact via Facebook) age 50-72 who routinely do century rides. While it is true that are in far better physical shape than most of their peers, six of the eight have been hospitalized due to bicycle accidents in the last decade.
Bikes are really only viable transportation method for young folks, without kids, in some areas of the country, and during decent weather.
43,000 people died in traffic violence in 2021 in the US. 8000 of them children. That's > 21 children a day, or a Uvalde every day on our roads. I apologize that some might find the comparison crass, but I find it appalling how this country just seems to be fine with this. Car-centric development has to go. Much of the rest of the developed world is realizing this, but like many things the US seemingly will be 50 years late.
According to the CDC, "Nearly 1,000 bicyclists die and over 130,000 are injured in crashes that occur on roads in the United States every year." even though bicycle account for 1% of all trips. This means on trip bases bikes are twice as deadly as cars. The normal metric in transportation measurement is passenger seat miles. e.g. US airlines get 58 MPG/passenger seat miles. Since bike trips are much shorter than automobile trips, and cars can carry multiple people per trip. On a passenger seat mile basis bike are 3-5 times more deadly. So if bike trip rose went from 1 to 30% of all trips we expect to see 63,000+ total transportation deaths and at least 1,200 dead children.
From the CDC
-Adults ages 55-69 have the highest bicycle death rates.
- Adolescents, teens, and young adults have the highest rates of bicycle-related injuries treated in emergency departments (EDs).
- People ages 10-24 account for nearly one-third of all bicycle-related injuries seen in US EDs.
This fits with my anecdotal evidence. In addition to the friend's brother who died in bicycle accident last week. I have 8 friends (mostly folks I keep in contact via Facebook) age 50-72 who routinely do century rides. While it is true that are in far better physical shape than most of their peers, six of the eight have been hospitalized due to bicycle accidents in the last decade.
Bikes are really only viable transportation method for young folks, without kids, in some areas of the country, and during decent weather.
Dude, you need to get out more. I mean, by North American standards, The Bus isn't horrible, but public transit on Oahu, generally, is a joke compared to the rest of the world. The fact that, after over 50 years of planning, Oahu still hasn't even managed to complete a single light rail line, is a pretty clear indication of how entrenched car culture is on the island. Maybe, try visiting Copenhagen or Amsterdam or Berlin or London or Oslo or Hong Kong or, literally anywhere not in North America, and you'll see that it's completely possible to live a good quality life without needing to own a personal automobile.
* I’m arbitrarily defining “car-lite” as a family Who owns one car and drives fewer than 6,000 miles per year actoss all family members. If you prioritize living close to where you need to go on a daily basis (eg work/school) it’s remarkable how little you actually need to drive, and renting a car or taking Uber suddenly makes more economic sense than owning.We've averaged 3,400 miles per year over the last four years (two working adults). Officially nereo-certified car-lite™! If you exclude road trips it's probably closer to 1,500-2,000 miles/year.
This seems to be a nonsensical argument -- I can't think of anybody I've ever met who would scrap a car they could sell or trade. P
This seems to be a nonsensical argument -- I can't think of anybody I've ever met who would scrap a car they could sell or trade. P
Actually I've witnessed multiple people over the years park a car that had something break that they could not repair cheaply. If they had sold it immediately it might have been worth $1500 or more. Instead it sat there until it was covered in mold and began to rust. Rather than take a discount on the car - they let it rot. I could point out a dozen+ cars within a few miles of where I live where this has happened. We even have a local man that is buying antique cars to place around his property and then letting them rust away. These were restorable cars - one is a 1960s convertible. The convertible is parked with the top down. It has a full interior that is going to ruin.
So yes, people do this...
[...] and during decent weather.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
This seems to be a nonsensical argument -- I can't think of anybody I've ever met who would scrap a car they could sell or trade. P
Actually I've witnessed multiple people over the years park a car that had something break that they could not repair cheaply. If they had sold it immediately it might have been worth $1500 or more. Instead it sat there until it was covered in mold and began to rust. Rather than take a discount on the car - they let it rot. I could point out a dozen+ cars within a few miles of where I live where this has happened. We even have a local man that is buying antique cars to place around his property and then letting them rust away. These were restorable cars - one is a 1960s convertible. The convertible is parked with the top down. It has a full interior that is going to ruin.
So yes, people do this...
After they broke, sure -- but the implication I was responding to was that people would scrap perfectly good cars (instead of continuing to drive them) to buy a shiny new EV.
This seems to be a nonsensical argument -- I can't think of anybody I've ever met who would scrap a car they could sell or trade. P
Actually I've witnessed multiple people over the years park a car that had something break that they could not repair cheaply. If they had sold it immediately it might have been worth $1500 or more. Instead it sat there until it was covered in mold and began to rust. Rather than take a discount on the car - they let it rot. I could point out a dozen+ cars within a few miles of where I live where this has happened. We even have a local man that is buying antique cars to place around his property and then letting them rust away. These were restorable cars - one is a 1960s convertible. The convertible is parked with the top down. It has a full interior that is going to ruin.
So yes, people do this...
After they broke, sure -- but the implication I was responding to was that people would scrap perfectly good cars (instead of continuing to drive them) to buy a shiny new EV.
Agree that zero-emission EVs are generally better than ICE vehicles. Just think it's good, at least every once in a while, to take a step back to look at the bigger picture. The low-hanging fruit in North America is voluntary reduction of use of personal automobiles, not just switching from ICE to EVs. We need to stop assuming that the default transportation mode for everyone has to be a car or truck, and start designing our world starting from the assumption that the lives of people not inside 4Klb+ metal boxes are just as valuable as those of people driving cars.
This seems to be a nonsensical argument -- I can't think of anybody I've ever met who would scrap a car they could sell or trade. P
Actually I've witnessed multiple people over the years park a car that had something break that they could not repair cheaply. If they had sold it immediately it might have been worth $1500 or more. Instead it sat there until it was covered in mold and began to rust. Rather than take a discount on the car - they let it rot. I could point out a dozen+ cars within a few miles of where I live where this has happened. We even have a local man that is buying antique cars to place around his property and then letting them rust away. These were restorable cars - one is a 1960s convertible. The convertible is parked with the top down. It has a full interior that is going to ruin.
So yes, people do this...
After they broke, sure -- but the implication I was responding to was that people would scrap perfectly good cars (instead of continuing to drive them) to buy a shiny new EV.
That's not how I read that at all. I read that as people unnecessarily upgrading their vehicle to posses an EV. The old car will be resold of course.
My example was about $1500-$2500 cars that need a transmission or a head gasket. Perhaps not economical to pay a shop $2K for a repair but still there sits a perfectly good vehicle that could be economically repaired by a DIY type and have cheap transportation that could last 2-5 years more perhaps.
Many of my neighbors would benefit from $500 in their pocket today from a junkyard (parts yard) rather than letting their car waste away until it is worth $50 at the scrapyard (crusher).
That's money in the bank for a motivated person as they won't have any car payments (and the required insurance upgrades) for 2-5 years if not more.
But people teach each other that cars are too complicated to repair in 2022. They aren't. We have the internet. I guess the DIY gene is recessive in 2022.
https://locations.lkqpickyourpart.com
https://www.pullapart.com
https://www.ebay.com
Also, are the average junkyards elsewhere stripping plastic parts for recycling b/c I'm not seeing that at all. Perhaps when the cars are shredded the materials are better sorted?
Scrapping perfectly good older vehicles to buy shiny new EVs is going to be very difficult to overcome environmentally speaking.
Agree that zero-emission EVs are generally better than ICE vehicles. Just think it's good, at least every once in a while, to take a step back to look at the bigger picture. The low-hanging fruit in North America is voluntary reduction of use of personal automobiles, not just switching from ICE to EVs. We need to stop assuming that the default transportation mode for everyone has to be a car or truck, and start designing our world starting from the assumption that the lives of people not inside 4Klb+ metal boxes are just as valuable as those of people driving cars.
Unfortunately due to the design of urban spaces in NA, voluntary reduction isn't low hanging fruit. Urban NA is too designed for the car and it is going to take time we don't have (environmentally speaking) to get them reconfigured to support bus/bike/walk. We should be pursuing that in parallel (and, perhaps, more vigorously than) with electrification, but let's be honest with ourselves that "less car" isn't low hanging fruit ripe for the picking. Even if you could wave a wand and make the best separated bike infrastructure on the public right of way, the design of the suburb subdivision is such that it extends the distance a bus/bike/pedestrian must travel to render such a journey impractical. Between non-mixed-use zoning (destinations are further away as the crow flies to start with) and the intentionally twisty and opaque subdivision street design (to eliminate through traffic), the vast majority of urban area we have simply can't support non-car lifestyles.
If you hold the people near-constant (US at < 1% pop growth rate), then your only option is less area. To achieve that you basically need to bulldoze modern subdivisions (and the power centers/strip malls while you're at it) and rebuild denser, over less area. And to do that you encounter "but mah land rights" NIMBYs.
What we really need is a bunch of like-minded folks with location flexibility and a surplus of free time (perhaps from early retirement?) to pick one city to all move to and get active in local politics to convert it into a Dutch-style mobility paradise. Proof is in the pudding, as they say, and too many Americans have never left the country, so they have no idea things can be different and better.
What we really need is a bunch of like-minded folks with location flexibility and a surplus of free time (perhaps from early retirement?) to pick one city to all move to and get active in local politics to convert it into a Dutch-style mobility paradise. Proof is in the pudding, as they say, and too many Americans have never left the country, so they have no idea things can be different and better.
Okay, let's do it! :)
What we really need is a bunch of like-minded folks with location flexibility and a surplus of free time (perhaps from early retirement?) to pick one city to all move to and get active in local politics to convert it into a Dutch-style mobility paradise. Proof is in the pudding, as they say, and too many Americans have never left the country, so they have no idea things can be different and better.
Okay, let's do it! :)
I wish. With parents nearby (2-3 hrs) and DW and DS and friends here, I'm not currently mobile enough to pull it off, even with a fully-remote position.
I do need to drop a mail to some of my city council folks and start poking around the, "Have you heard of strong towns? What's your plan for dealing with the infrastructure replacement costs due to the sprawl that started in the 80s? How are you going to prevent that problem getting worse and prevent more cashflow-negative sprawl?"
So unless everyone picks where I am, that'll be a tough sell with DW. Now, I'm not in an awful place -- at a big 10 college town. We actually have good bus service, at least in the core of downtown/campus. It's the sprawl at the edges where it get sketchy. And they are starting to get good, at least Dutch-adjacent bike infrastructure going around campus. It is out into the community that good bike infra is lacking.
Yes... I have about 30 papers of reference for a research paper I've done on this subject. Bicycle & pedestrian usage is most strongly correlated to infrastructure. Family units, weather, health, etc are all rounding errors in magnitude compared to simple access of the means of transportation.I would love to see those papers @StashingAway
Of course there are use cases where people can't bike, just as there are for people who can't drive or fly or walk or swim. But the primary deciding factor is unarguably infrastructure.
Been working on it for 2 years now with some great success. Website is linked below, and I'm totally onboard if people want to use the name (insert your city here) and set up your own local chapter. Site needs to get updated, but I'm spending most of my current advocacy time participating in local government meetings and such.What we really need is a bunch of like-minded folks with location flexibility and a surplus of free time (perhaps from early retirement?) to pick one city to all move to and get active in local politics to convert it into a Dutch-style mobility paradise. Proof is in the pudding, as they say, and too many Americans have never left the country, so they have no idea things can be different and better.
Okay, let's do it! :)
Been working on it for 2 years now with some great success. Website is linked below, and I'm totally onboard if people want to use the name (insert your city here) and set up your own local chapter. Site needs to get updated, but I'm spending most of my current advocacy time participating in local government meetings and such.
https://www.wyld.net/atacp/
What is the difference between a Kia Niro and a Hyundai Kona? Same car in a different wrapper?
Has anyone had any experience with the Kia Niro? Apparently it's a small SUV that comes in three options - all electric, hybrid, or PHEV. The plug in version for 2023 gets 33 miles of electric range and 53 mpg. I believe it's also eligible for the full tax credit, and is around $30k before any credits. I understand Kia has become more of a reliable brand, although I have no experience with it personally.Do you have sources that it is eligible for the tax credit? From everything I’ve heard around the inflation reduction act, Kia and Hyundai vehicles are NOT eligible.
Has anyone had any experience with the Kia Niro? Apparently it's a small SUV that comes in three options - all electric, hybrid, or PHEV. The plug in version for 2023 gets 33 miles of electric range and 53 mpg. I believe it's also eligible for the full tax credit, and is around $30k before any credits. I understand Kia has become more of a reliable brand, although I have no experience with it personally.Do you have sources that it is eligible for the tax credit? From everything I’ve heard around the inflation reduction act, Kia and Hyundai vehicles are NOT eligible.
Unless something changed, the final assembly requirement was in effect the moment Biden signed. Meaning all Kia and Hyundai vehicles and many others were immediately disqualified from the old credit.Has anyone had any experience with the Kia Niro? Apparently it's a small SUV that comes in three options - all electric, hybrid, or PHEV. The plug in version for 2023 gets 33 miles of electric range and 53 mpg. I believe it's also eligible for the full tax credit, and is around $30k before any credits. I understand Kia has become more of a reliable brand, although I have no experience with it personally.Do you have sources that it is eligible for the tax credit? From everything I’ve heard around the inflation reduction act, Kia and Hyundai vehicles are NOT eligible.
I think they would be eligible for the tax credit under the current year. Next year I don't think so.
What is the difference between a Kia Niro and a Hyundai Kona? Same car in a different wrapper?
The two hybrids look pretty similar in terms of fuel economy, but I don't think the Kona comes in a plug in version.
Interesting. There’s a PHEV Kona in my neighborhood (2022…?). Wonder where s/he got it.What is the difference between a Kia Niro and a Hyundai Kona? Same car in a different wrapper?
The two hybrids look pretty similar in terms of fuel economy, but I don't think the Kona comes in a plug in version.
I was curious during lunch so I did some reading. Plug in version = BEV?
There is a Kona ICE and Konda BEV. No PHEV version though available in the USA. It exists elsewhere.
https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/2021-kona-electric
The Niro comes as hybrid, ICE, PHEV and BEV.
Hyundai Kona = Kia Seltos. Same platform, different bodywork.
Sorry if I'm derailing the discussion here and/or asking something that's already been answered, but....
Does anyone know of a good website that maintains a list of all currently available BEVs in the US, and their general specs (range, MSRP, MPGe, etc?).
My old ICE car is on it's last legs, but I'm hoping to have it limp along for another 12 months or so. Since the wait-lists/time seem to be so long for most EVs, I figured I'd start looking around now and potentially put down a deposit for a car that can be delivered to me sometime next year.
I don't want a 'higher end' EV, don't want a Tesla, but also don't think I want to buy a Nissan Leaf due to the lack of active battery cooling/management. I would be open to getting a used EV, has anyone in this thread done that before?
Just trying to start laying out my option space before I really start investigating. Thanks!
Sorry if I'm derailing the discussion here and/or asking something that's already been answered, but....
Does anyone know of a good website that maintains a list of all currently available BEVs in the US, and their general specs (range, MSRP, MPGe, etc?).
My old ICE car is on it's last legs, but I'm hoping to have it limp along for another 12 months or so. Since the wait-lists/time seem to be so long for most EVs, I figured I'd start looking around now and potentially put down a deposit for a car that can be delivered to me sometime next year.
I don't want a 'higher end' EV, don't want a Tesla, but also don't think I want to buy a Nissan Leaf due to the lack of active battery cooling/management. I would be open to getting a used EV, has anyone in this thread done that before?
Just trying to start laying out my option space before I really start investigating. Thanks!
I have one of the $39k Standard range Tesla Model Y and now a Ford F150 Lightning. The Tesla is the better vehicle by far, but the F150L is simply massive (main reason we bought it).
I don't want a 'higher end' EV, don't want a Tesla, but also don't think I want to buy a Nissan Leaf due to the lack of active battery cooling/management. I would be open to getting a used EV, has anyone in this thread done that before?
I have one of the $39k Standard range Tesla Model Y and now a Ford F150 Lightning. The Tesla is the better vehicle by far, but the F150L is simply massive (main reason we bought it).
Why would you intentionally buy a vehicle because it's "massive"?
I have one of the $39k Standard range Tesla Model Y and now a Ford F150 Lightning. The Tesla is the better vehicle by far, but the F150L is simply massive (main reason we bought it).
Why would you intentionally buy a vehicle because it's "massive"?
Something like this fits your needs. finger facepunch
I have one of the $39k Standard range Tesla Model Y and now a Ford F150 Lightning. The Tesla is the better vehicle by far, but the F150L is simply massive (main reason we bought it).
Why would you intentionally buy a vehicle because it's "massive"?
Hah. Fair response :).
We have 3 kids under the age of 5. 3 bulky car seats. 2-3 strollers. Assorted baby items. Snacks galore. We wanted a vehicle that could fit everyone
"At Some Point" - is the V2H setup not actually available yet? The fancy charger (with a fancier price I'm sure) was one of the big selling points.
Something like this fits your needs. finger facepunch
I have one of the unicorn $39k Standard range Tesla Model Y and now a Ford F150 Lightning. The Tesla is the better vehicle by far, but the F150L is simply massive (main reason we bought it).
Why would you intentionally buy a vehicle because it's "massive"?
Hah. Fair response :).
We have 3 kids under the age of 5. 3 bulky car seats. 2-3 strollers. Assorted baby items. Snacks galore. We wanted a vehicle that could fit everyone
My boss drives a similar one with 3 kids under 10.
Not EV of course.
I too bought a used Leaf. I got a 2015 Leaf in 2018. Such a cute car. The battery degradation was next to nothing. Only reason I am no longer driving it is because it got totaled when a giant late model Cadillac driver failed to stop at his red light.I don't want a 'higher end' EV, don't want a Tesla, but also don't think I want to buy a Nissan Leaf due to the lack of active battery cooling/management. I would be open to getting a used EV, has anyone in this thread done that before?
I bought a used EV, a Leaf as it turns out, thanks to some good advice provided by @sol . Model year 2016 Leafs got a battery upgrade, so as the 2013 era Leafs came off lease many owners upgraded to the new model. As a result, dealers were dumping them in huge numbers. I'm happy with it. Very little battery degradation and right now a 2013 Leaf with the same trim sells for more than I paid.
In Tallahassee Florida in 2020 that 240V twist-lock plug and interlock kit cost something like $600 installed if I'm remembering correctly. Less than that I think. I actually someone I know that modifies cars if anything like the Ford Pro-Power is available as an after-market, because even our lowly 2014 Nissan Leaf would run the critical stuff for a day or so if we could plug it in to that port (I mean with us managing the load - obviously not nearly that long if we draw the full 7.2 that the F150 can provide through that plug). Doesn't seem to be a thing that I can find - there's a $3,000+ device that will plug into our chademo port and output at 5KW, but I'm with you on that going too much considering the gas generator cost about $800 total at Costco."At Some Point" - is the V2H setup not actually available yet? The fancy charger (with a fancier price I'm sure) was one of the big selling points.
For the fancy setup, you need not only the extended range battery (10-30k more) but also to buy the $9,500+ sunpower HIS system which enables the seamless V2G. No thanks there. This adds an inverter to your home to convert DC into AC.
As is you have multiple 110V plugs and one 7.2kwh 240V plug in the bed of the truck. You can manually run cords to run appliances or could have a manual (generator) transfer switch installed. That’d be the path I will follow.
We can also now use the F150L to charge any other EV at 30A - should the need ever arise.
What's your budget? What size vehicle?
There are probably 10,000 lists out there - here is one :)
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/electric-vehicles
...
Here is the list of US BEVs (https://evadoption.com/ev-models/bev-models-currently-available-in-the-us/#bevs-currently-available-in-the-us/?view_29_sort=field_37|asc)
If you do any kind of serious looking for new models you will find that most everything is 'higher end' depending on your definition(the avg cost of all types of new vehicles is over 40k). You either have the bolt, leaf in the 25-40k base range or you have everything else(including Tesla) in the 40-60k base range.
...
What's your budget? What size vehicle?
There are probably 10,000 lists out there - here is one :)
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/electric-vehicles
...
Here is the list of US BEVs (https://evadoption.com/ev-models/bev-models-currently-available-in-the-us/#bevs-currently-available-in-the-us/?view_29_sort=field_37|asc)
If you do any kind of serious looking for new models you will find that most everything is 'higher end' depending on your definition(the avg cost of all types of new vehicles is over 40k). You either have the bolt, leaf in the 25-40k base range or you have everything else(including Tesla) in the 40-60k base range.
...
Thanks guys- I was hoping to spend $40k or under (out the door), so if I can get ~$10k off in tax credits then I guess I could look at $50k models if I'm careful?). Also, I actually don't care about the car type, as long as it can hold 4 passengers and has a range of over 150 miles. I only commute 2 times a week, but when I do I typically drive 60-80 miles on those days. Also, nothing against Tesla owners and I do believe they are amazing cars, but I do not want to purchase one for a variety of reasons (some posted earlier in this thread). I know that seriously limits my choices, so I'm hoping to test drive and do some comparisons on whatever BEV models fit that criteria.
What's your budget? What size vehicle?
There are probably 10,000 lists out there - here is one :)
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/electric-vehicles
...
Here is the list of US BEVs (https://evadoption.com/ev-models/bev-models-currently-available-in-the-us/#bevs-currently-available-in-the-us/?view_29_sort=field_37|asc)
If you do any kind of serious looking for new models you will find that most everything is 'higher end' depending on your definition(the avg cost of all types of new vehicles is over 40k). You either have the bolt, leaf in the 25-40k base range or you have everything else(including Tesla) in the 40-60k base range.
...
Thanks guys- I was hoping to spend $40k or under (out the door), so if I can get ~$10k off in tax credits then I guess I could look at $50k models if I'm careful?). Also, I actually don't care about the car type, as long as it can hold 4 passengers and has a range of over 150 miles. I only commute 2 times a week, but when I do I typically drive 60-80 miles on those days. Also, nothing against Tesla owners and I do believe they are amazing cars, but I do not want to purchase one for a variety of reasons (some posted earlier in this thread). I know that seriously limits my choices, so I'm hoping to test drive and do some comparisons on whatever BEV models fit that criteria.
+1What's your budget? What size vehicle?
There are probably 10,000 lists out there - here is one :)
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/electric-vehicles
...
Here is the list of US BEVs (https://evadoption.com/ev-models/bev-models-currently-available-in-the-us/#bevs-currently-available-in-the-us/?view_29_sort=field_37|asc)
If you do any kind of serious looking for new models you will find that most everything is 'higher end' depending on your definition(the avg cost of all types of new vehicles is over 40k). You either have the bolt, leaf in the 25-40k base range or you have everything else(including Tesla) in the 40-60k base range.
...
Thanks guys- I was hoping to spend $40k or under (out the door), so if I can get ~$10k off in tax credits then I guess I could look at $50k models if I'm careful?). Also, I actually don't care about the car type, as long as it can hold 4 passengers and has a range of over 150 miles. I only commute 2 times a week, but when I do I typically drive 60-80 miles on those days. Also, nothing against Tesla owners and I do believe they are amazing cars, but I do not want to purchase one for a variety of reasons (some posted earlier in this thread). I know that seriously limits my choices, so I'm hoping to test drive and do some comparisons on whatever BEV models fit that criteria.
FWIW I'd be looking at a Bolt.
What's your budget? What size vehicle?
There are probably 10,000 lists out there - here is one :)
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/electric-vehicles
...
Here is the list of US BEVs (https://evadoption.com/ev-models/bev-models-currently-available-in-the-us/#bevs-currently-available-in-the-us/?view_29_sort=field_37|asc)
If you do any kind of serious looking for new models you will find that most everything is 'higher end' depending on your definition(the avg cost of all types of new vehicles is over 40k). You either have the bolt, leaf in the 25-40k base range or you have everything else(including Tesla) in the 40-60k base range.
...
Thanks guys- I was hoping to spend $40k or under (out the door), so if I can get ~$10k off in tax credits then I guess I could look at $50k models if I'm careful?). Also, I actually don't care about the car type, as long as it can hold 4 passengers and has a range of over 150 miles. I only commute 2 times a week, but when I do I typically drive 60-80 miles on those days. Also, nothing against Tesla owners and I do believe they are amazing cars, but I do not want to purchase one for a variety of reasons (some posted earlier in this thread). I know that seriously limits my choices, so I'm hoping to test drive and do some comparisons on whatever BEV models fit that criteria.
You should at least test drive the Tesla. The UI/UX is in another league. ...
Slight detour:
I've spent my life working with construction tools. In the last three years I've transitioned to mainly cordless tools, specifically the Makita two battery 36v lineup. I've tried many other cordless saws in the past but they were always underpowered compared to the corded variety. They aren't anymore.
That being said, the way to successfully use cordless tools everyday to build a house is NOT to use the tool until the batteries are dead and then wait til they're charged, it's to have an abundance of batteries fully charged so you can simply swap them out and continue working.
Obviously a 5 amp 18 volt Makita battery is a different beast than a Tesla battery, but I wonder if electric cars could become more modular in this way, with more easily removable battery systems for charging?
I would definitely buy a Makita electric car!
Slight detour:
I've spent my life working with construction tools. In the last three years I've transitioned to mainly cordless tools, specifically the Makita two battery 36v lineup. I've tried many other cordless saws in the past but they were always underpowered compared to the corded variety. They aren't anymore.
That being said, the way to successfully use cordless tools everyday to build a house is NOT to use the tool until the batteries are dead and then wait til they're charged, it's to have an abundance of batteries fully charged so you can simply swap them out and continue working.
Obviously a 5 amp 18 volt Makita battery is a different beast than a Tesla battery, but I wonder if electric cars could become more modular in this way, with more easily removable battery systems for charging?
I would definitely buy a Makita electric car!
NIO already has operational battery swapping stations. It's a nice idea but there are definitely some issues to think about. The first time you use one you'll likely be getting a much older battery than you already had, for example.
You should at least test drive the Tesla. The UI/UX is in another league. You also have the mustang machE as an option.
Slight detour:
I've spent my life working with construction tools. In the last three years I've transitioned to mainly cordless tools, specifically the Makita two battery 36v lineup. I've tried many other cordless saws in the past but they were always underpowered compared to the corded variety. They aren't anymore.
That being said, the way to successfully use cordless tools everyday to build a house is NOT to use the tool until the batteries are dead and then wait til they're charged, it's to have an abundance of batteries fully charged so you can simply swap them out and continue working.
Obviously a 5 amp 18 volt Makita battery is a different beast than a Tesla battery, but I wonder if electric cars could become more modular in this way, with more easily removable battery systems for charging?
I would definitely buy a Makita electric car!
Here is the video. Clearly, just a staged video clip with a prototype vehicle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCJm719p6TY
This vehicle, though small, is closer to what I want in an EV. I'd even be happy if they deleted the tablet screen in the middle of the dash and give me a single DIN radio slot in its place.
As nice as the average 2022 EV is, I don't need nor want the screens. Give me 1990s knobs. Sorry if I'm repeating an earlier post as I'm rambled about this vehicle alot lately. I'd likely buy this vehicle at the estimated $23K price point if it was available in my area. Would even be happy to assemble it from a kit if everything was included if it saved me a few thousand dollars.
You should at least test drive the Tesla. The UI/UX is in another league. You also have the mustang machE as an option.
What's interesting to me is that this isn't a selling point... I know I'm in a minority here, but I like some semblance of the vehicle reminding me that it is a tool and to be used with intent, not some seamless blend into my environment. It removes some sense of being present. It's a little hokey to word it that way, but letting things just blend in (as with social media/ smart phones) doesn't do me any good I've found
You should at least test drive the Tesla. The UI/UX is in another league. You also have the mustang machE as an option.
What's interesting to me is that this isn't a selling point... I know I'm in a minority here, but I like some semblance of the vehicle reminding me that it is a tool and to be used with intent, not some seamless blend into my environment. It removes some sense of being present. It's a little hokey to word it that way, but letting things just blend in (as with social media/ smart phones) doesn't do me any good I've found
You may be best served to buy a manual gearbox, NA Porsche before it is too late then :) This is absolutely the direction things are headed. My sense is that once the boomers go, any semblance of a vehicle with buttons/knobs/quirks will also go along with them. Transport by vehicle will blend into every day life. You won't even think about it. Get in, flip on netflix, brew a fresh cappuccino and off you go.
Right now almost all subs are driving Ford Transits or Dodge Promasters, with a few Sprinters. If someone would sell the equivalent electric van I think it would sell. These businesses have small fleets of vehicles so range isn't so much an issue, they generally have a mix of vehicles already.
It'll be nice to start seeing them on job sites and hearing first hand how they operate. If successful it might help convince a lot of "fence sitters" that electric is a viable option, one they may choose for their own personal vehicle in the future.Right now almost all subs are driving Ford Transits or Dodge Promasters, with a few Sprinters. If someone would sell the equivalent electric van I think it would sell. These businesses have small fleets of vehicles so range isn't so much an issue, they generally have a mix of vehicles already.
Have I got news for you....
https://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/e-transit/
An eTransit might be a better delivery vehicle than the proposed USPS replacement vehicle. My rural route postal person says she drives ~75 miles per day so ~125 miles might be just fine.
I have read a couple of times that Electric cars actually emit more co2 over the life of the car if you include the manufacturing process etc, and that hybrids actually come out on top of both. If this is true why isn't it more widely known, and why is there such a push to electric?That's been discussed multiple times in this thread alone already. Basically it's false, lifetime emissions are lower with EVs.
I have read a couple of times that Electric cars actually emit more co2 over the life of the car if you include the manufacturing process etc, and that hybrids actually come out on top of both. If this is true why isn't it more widely known, and why is there such a push to electric?
Indeed. Including being asked by this poster and answered by you just a few months ago (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/electric-cars-can-they-finally-become-popular-in-the-united-states/msg3032068/#msg3032068).I have read a couple of times that Electric cars actually emit more co2 over the life of the car if you include the manufacturing process etc, and that hybrids actually come out on top of both. If this is true why isn't it more widely known, and why is there such a push to electric?
No, this is completely false, and has been addressed multiple times in this thread.
I have read a couple of times that Electric cars actually emit more co2 over the life of the car if you include the manufacturing process etc,Yes, it's a grossly incorrect claim - a suspicious person might think the public is being fed deliberate disinformation by the owners of trillions of dollars in threatened assets...
I have read a couple of times that Electric cars actually emit more co2 over the life of the car if you include the manufacturing process etc,Yes, it's a grossly incorrect claim - a suspicious person might think the public is being fed deliberate disinformation by the owners of trillions of dollars in threatened assets...
A suspicious person might also think you are complicit in spreading disinformation because you already asked this and were answered, complete with a citation.
Ah, so they're just a troll... Another for the ignore list I guess.Indeed. Including being asked by this poster and answered by you just a few months ago (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/electric-cars-can-they-finally-become-popular-in-the-united-states/msg3032068/#msg3032068).I have read a couple of times that Electric cars actually emit more co2 over the life of the car if you include the manufacturing process etc, and that hybrids actually come out on top of both. If this is true why isn't it more widely known, and why is there such a push to electric?
No, this is completely false, and has been addressed multiple times in this thread.
Slightly off topic: article on the in(s)ane opposition to a large solar project in Indiana:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/30/its-got-nasty-the-battle-to-build-the-uss-biggest-solar-power-farm
The complaints are just your typical opposed to anything. "I might be able to see solar panels! The HORROR!"Slightly off topic: article on the in(s)ane opposition to a large solar project in Indiana:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/30/its-got-nasty-the-battle-to-build-the-uss-biggest-solar-power-farm
I'm generally a pretty big solar proponent, but really massive projects always give me a little pause to consider environmental impact. That said, based on the information in the article I'm not seeing too much to get excited about.
The complaints are just your typical opposed to anything. "I might be able to see solar panels! The HORROR!"
Would there be a benefit to the failure of a large scale Indiana solar project? Could someone get a massive write off or ??? An accounting trick of some sort.
Seems the region is better suited to wind and large scale solar would be better suited to locations further south.
Environmental concerns are valid with this type of thing... if we are trying to scale renewables we have to at least be aware of externalizes that can occur.
Solar installs on the ground are significantly cheaper per kWh produced than on residential houses (nearly half the cost). Any extra $ saved on mounting to a roof is essentially made up for in other costs, which has to be assessed for each and every single residence. Farm panels can be angled at optimum angle. They can be wired more efficiently and cleaned easier and a load of other things that makes them more efficient. Rooftop solar is good for areas with little available space and for individuals to participate in their energy generation. Environmental concerns are valid with this type of thing... if we are trying to scale renewables we have to at least be aware of externalizes that can occur. For solar and wind to be primary energy sources, we are going to be building a lot of units.
Do you think such a system would still struggle with cost and effectiveness the way that residential solar might?
Sure seems like there are a lot of flat, otherwise empty roof tops available for solar that wouldn't require expansive ground mount systems that make the land less useful.
Do you think such a system would still struggle with cost and effectiveness the way that residential solar might?
The levelized costs per KW installed would be lower, but you also have to means to fight the political battle against the power companies. Big projects = big pockets.
Question for the braintrust here, with a little background. I come at the electric car question as an environmentalist and a leftie, and rooftop solar and an EV are in my mid-term plans.
My concern is that if all the promises of EVs are true - including cheaper per mile and more reliable - people will just drive further, to bigger houses, on bigger lots, where they mow more/bigger lawns, drain more wetlands, cut down more trees/brush/habitat, etcetera, ultimately swamping any emissions reduction benefit from the car with bigger and bigger lifestyles.
I'm skeptical that we're going to ever tech our way out of climate catastrophe simply because the desire for more is so voracious that it will simply co-opt that tech for greater consumption.
So save me from going full degrowther: Why won't the abatement of tailpipe emissions from EVs be largely or entirely made up by behavioral knock-on effects of better, cheaper vehicles?
It's dispiriting that so much of our environmental policy seems deeply unserious.
Okay, it's good to know that nobody really thinks EVs are any sort of magic bullet, despite the policy attention to them.
It's dispiriting that so much of our environmental policy seems deeply unserious. We'll write government checks to automakers and well off consumers, but we won't institute a carbon tax, much less a national greenbelt policy. This stuff costs more or less nothing but political will/capital, and yet we won't do it.
Until we're willing to use state power to take some lifestyle options off the table or price them out of reach of the vast majority (sprawl, casual flights, ginormous houses), I'm not convinced any of this (waves hands at trendy environmental solutions) is going to amount to much.
If you drive 20% farther in your EV but now you're using power that's 70% renewable, carbon emissions from the drive are suddenly in the ballpark of 64% lower (1.2 x .3 = .36; 1-.36= .64)No, because if you drive 20% more, you also need more roads. Roads means climate damage, by building, by sealed ground...
If you drive 20% farther in your EV but now you're using power that's 70% renewable, carbon emissions from the drive are suddenly in the ballpark of 64% lower (1.2 x .3 = .36; 1-.36= .64)No, because if you drive 20% more, you also need more roads. Roads means climate damage, by building, by sealed ground...
If you drive 20% farther in your EV but now you're using power that's 70% renewable, carbon emissions from the drive are suddenly in the ballpark of 64% lower (1.2 x .3 = .36; 1-.36= .64)No, because if you drive 20% more, you also need more roads. Roads means climate damage, by building, by sealed ground...
Yes, building techniques need to become less carbon-emitting and more carbon-capturing. Each element we use needs to improve. Getting some of them onto the improvement path ASAP is important.
I'm not arguing for cars per se. I'm arguing that, as Bill Gates suggests, we need to implement low- to no-carbon practices throughout our global economy regardless of which specific tech is used; that implementing improvements can spark further cost improvements due to increased volume; and that improvements from intersecting realms can reinforce.
If you can convince everyone to switch to bikes and walking and a few buses and barges and a lot of telework, I'll clap happily and join you. But making sure each major tech that people want to use is increasingly lower-carbon is probably the most reliable path forward, rather than just pinning our hopes on an uncertain and perhaps unlikely behavioral change that is currently not occurring at the needed pace.
If you drive 20% farther in your EV but now you're using power that's 70% renewable, carbon emissions from the drive are suddenly in the ballpark of 64% lower (1.2 x .3 = .36; 1-.36= .64)No, because if you drive 20% more, you also need more roads. Roads means climate damage, by building, by sealed ground...
Yes, building techniques need to become less carbon-emitting and more carbon-capturing. Each element we use needs to improve. Getting some of them onto the improvement path ASAP is important.
I'm not arguing for cars per se. I'm arguing that, as Bill Gates suggests, we need to implement low- to no-carbon practices throughout our global economy regardless of which specific tech is used; that implementing improvements can spark further cost improvements due to increased volume; and that improvements from intersecting realms can reinforce.
If you can convince everyone to switch to bikes and walking and a few buses and barges and a lot of telework, I'll clap happily and join you. But making sure each major tech that people want to use is increasingly lower-carbon is probably the most reliable path forward, rather than just pinning our hopes on an uncertain and perhaps unlikely behavioral change that is currently not occurring at the needed pace.
But if I can't bitch about people not changing their behaviors, how am I supposed to feel superior?
/sarcasm
The assumption that all moves toward progress net out and defeat themselves is false.
Is suburban sprawl really the problem, or lazy habits?
The assumption that all moves toward progress net out and defeat themselves is false.
I'm not sure I'm convinced, even on the transportation front.
Between 1975 and 2010, we've basically doubled the efficiency of the American vehicle fleet from 14mpg to 28mpg (https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2011/04/20/driving-to-545-mpg-the-history-of-fuel-economy). Yet, over that same period, transportation emissions increased by 50%
You’ve identified a correlation, not the cause.
I don't see any existing evidence that creating more efficient/less polluting vehicles has correlated with anything but an increase in emissions, and that's without even considering all the secondary emissions (i.e. road construction, housing construction, biomass destruction) that the driving has enabled. And ma nature doesn't give a crap about the per capita emissions rate.
You’ve identified a correlation, not the cause.
Which is why I call it a correlation in my post.
Certainly some of that increased driving behavior was caused by more efficient, more reliable, more comfortable cars. Lower the cost and you get more of anything. But some of it was also due to population increase, as I note when I say the per capita rate doesn't matter for environmental purposes.
A path that promises a future that's less bad than the worst outcome doesn't seem like one we should be heading down.
You’ve identified a correlation, not the cause.
Which is why I call it a correlation in my post.
Certainly some of that increased driving behavior was caused by more efficient, more reliable, more comfortable cars. Lower the cost and you get more of anything. But some of it was also due to population increase, as I note when I say the per capita rate doesn't matter for environmental purposes.
A path that promises a future that's less bad than the worst outcome doesn't seem like one we should be heading down.
So what do you propose?
You’ve identified a correlation, not the cause.
Which is why I call it a correlation in my post.
Certainly some of that increased driving behavior was caused by more efficient, more reliable, more comfortable cars. Lower the cost and you get more of anything. But some of it was also due to population increase, as I note when I say the per capita rate doesn't matter for environmental purposes.
A path that promises a future that's less bad than the worst outcome doesn't seem like one we should be heading down.
So what do you propose?
It seems that EVs have become the end-all be-all policy solution, along with some vague electrification agenda, of environmental policy. And mostly I'm saying I just don't see it working out.
It strikes me as far more effective to institute a national greenbelt initiate around every major metro to stop sprawl, and to have a carbon tax. Both could be done far cheaper than the existing EV incentives, with far greater impact, both in carbon abatement and general environmental preservation.
But we can't do that, because choices/freedom/space/I'm a pioneer/taxes are bad/social engineering is the devil/don't nudge me bro.
You’ve identified a correlation, not the cause.
Which is why I call it a correlation in my post. Here's the relevant portion:QuoteI don't see any existing evidence that creating more efficient/less polluting vehicles has correlated with anything but an increase in emissions, and that's without even considering all the secondary emissions (i.e. road construction, housing construction, biomass destruction) that the driving has enabled. And ma nature doesn't give a crap about the per capita emissions rate.
Certainly some of that increased driving behavior was caused by more efficient, more reliable, more comfortable cars. Lower the cost and you get more of anything. But some of it was also due to population increase, as I note when I say the per capita rate doesn't matter for environmental purposes.
A path that promises a future that's less bad than the worst outcome doesn't seem like one we should be heading down.
But here’s where I think your logic is failing you. If we accept that the population increase would have happened regardless of improved fleet-wide fuel efficency, then the per capita rate absolutely does matter, because the alternative would have been drastically worse.
To echo Tyson - what do you propose? Most here (myself included) are stressing the importance of reducing fleet-vehicle miles overall. However, in parallel with that goal we also need to continue to reduce the emissions from whatever fleet we have.
I think you are wrong about things not happening at the speed necessary. If the transition to renewables (solar, wind, batteries) was happening in a linear fashion, I would agree with you. But I don't think it is. It seems to be happening in an exponential fashion, following the classic S-curve of industry disruption.
Here, Tony Seba explains it much more clearly than I can. And if this is correct, then punitive actions aren't needed, mostly just get out of the way and let the disruption happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7vhMcKvHo8
I think you are wrong about things not happening at the speed necessary. If the transition to renewables (solar, wind, batteries) was happening in a linear fashion, I would agree with you. But I don't think it is. It seems to be happening in an exponential fashion, following the classic S-curve of industry disruption.
Here, Tony Seba explains it much more clearly than I can. And if this is correct, then punitive actions aren't needed, mostly just get out of the way and let the disruption happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7vhMcKvHo8
I listened to a some of the video, and it's entirely plausible that energy innovation functions as a punctuated equilibrium model. Great. We heard a lot of the same arguments about self-driving technology, but since it's speculative to the extent of making analogies to horses and buggies, I don't see anything productive in debating the point. Let's even assume we snap our fingers and tomorrow we have unlimited clean energy for free.
We've still got a massive fleet of ICE cars on the road that will be there for 30 years without intervention. Even if electricity is free, people will continue to drive those cars to the end of their lifespan because the cost of switching remains high even with incentives.
But where I think we may be fundamentally talking past each other is that I see extensive driving as both a climate problem and a social problem (habitat destruction, economic and racial segregation, physical health, mental health, family cohesion). Driving less addresses both the energy problem and the social problem. EVs seem like a workaround that wants to address only the climate problem in a massively inefficient way in order to avoid touching the social problem.
I think you are wrong about things not happening at the speed necessary. If the transition to renewables (solar, wind, batteries) was happening in a linear fashion, I would agree with you. But I don't think it is. It seems to be happening in an exponential fashion, following the classic S-curve of industry disruption.
Here, Tony Seba explains it much more clearly than I can. And if this is correct, then punitive actions aren't needed, mostly just get out of the way and let the disruption happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7vhMcKvHo8
I listened to a some of the video, and it's entirely plausible that energy innovation functions as a punctuated equilibrium model. Great. We heard a lot of the same arguments about self-driving technology, but since it's speculative to the extent of making analogies to horses and buggies, I don't see anything productive in debating the point. Let's even assume we snap our fingers and tomorrow we have unlimited clean energy for free.
We've still got a massive fleet of ICE cars on the road that will be there for 30 years without intervention. Even if electricity is free, people will continue to drive those cars to the end of their lifespan because the cost of switching remains high even with incentives.
But where I think we may be fundamentally talking past each other is that I see extensive driving as both a climate problem and a social problem (habitat destruction, economic and racial segregation, physical health, mental health, family cohesion). Driving less addresses both the energy problem and the social problem. EVs seem like a workaround that wants to address only the climate problem in a massively inefficient way in order to avoid touching the social problem.
Electric bikes and good safe pathways for them to follow could seem to get society where you think we should go. The capital cost of infrastructure can be a lot less than cars, there are intangible health benefits, less electricity is needed for a bike than moving tons of steel and plastic - and with people more directly interacting with another there could be greater understanding of everyone in the community. Of course, the present rules of capitalism have to be re-rigged from where we are now to achieve this.
I think you are wrong about things not happening at the speed necessary. If the transition to renewables (solar, wind, batteries) was happening in a linear fashion, I would agree with you. But I don't think it is. It seems to be happening in an exponential fashion, following the classic S-curve of industry disruption.
Here, Tony Seba explains it much more clearly than I can. And if this is correct, then punitive actions aren't needed, mostly just get out of the way and let the disruption happen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7vhMcKvHo8
I listened to a some of the video, and it's entirely plausible that energy innovation functions as a punctuated equilibrium model. Great. We heard a lot of the same arguments about self-driving technology, but since it's speculative to the extent of making analogies to horses and buggies, I don't see anything productive in debating the point. Let's even assume we snap our fingers and tomorrow we have unlimited clean energy for free.
We've still got a massive fleet of ICE cars on the road that will be there for 30 years without intervention. Even if electricity is free, people will continue to drive those cars to the end of their lifespan because the cost of switching remains high even with incentives.
But where I think we may be fundamentally talking past each other is that I see extensive driving as both a climate problem and a social problem (habitat destruction, economic and racial segregation, physical health, mental health, family cohesion). Driving less addresses both the energy problem and the social problem. EVs seem like a workaround that wants to address only the climate problem in a massively inefficient way in order to avoid touching the social problem.
Electric bikes and good safe pathways for them to follow could seem to get society where you think we should go. The capital cost of infrastructure can be a lot less than cars, there are intangible health benefits, less electricity is needed for a bike than moving tons of steel and plastic - and with people more directly interacting with another there could be greater understanding of everyone in the community. Of course, the present rules of capitalism have to be re-rigged from where we are now to achieve this.
@caleb wrote upthread that "it seems EVs are the end-all and be-all policy solution" [...]
Does that seem like EVs are the end-all and be-all?
@caleb wrote upthread that "it seems EVs are the end-all and be-all policy solution" [...]
Does that seem like EVs are the end-all and be-all?
You selectively edit my language twice in ways that change its meaning. You leave out the "along with some vague electrification agenda," by which I mean the grab bag of industrial handouts you list.
Other than the procurement of electric vehicles and the home retrofits, just about everything in this summer's legislation could have, and I think should have, been achieved at a cost of zero dollars using regulation. Three billion dollars in handouts to reduce air pollution at ports? Why aren't we just regulating air pollution and enforcing the regulation? And similarly for most items on the list. It's not an agenda, it's a list of handouts to donors.
Thanks for your very civil response, @Bicycle_B. You are correct that the money being spent goes beyond EVs.
I’m just flabbergasted that so many tax dollars are being spent for limited aims, and that the skater shot all-carrots-no-sticks approach reeks of cronyism.
Put some really awful stuff into the water, killing off 90% of the people.Thanks for your very civil response, @Bicycle_B. You are correct that the money being spent goes beyond EVs.
I’m just flabbergasted that so many tax dollars are being spent for limited aims, and that the skater shot all-carrots-no-sticks approach reeks of cronyism.
But you already noted above (and several posters have agreed with you) that implementing and enforcing regulations is a no go in the current political climate. Given that constraint, what would be a better approach than pushing hard on the incentives lever?
implementing and enforcing regulations is a no go in the current political climate. Given that constraint
Bike paths are not usually all that useful for utility cycling and commuting. They tend to be out of the way, winding paths that are clogged with dog walkers and joggers. What you need for utility cycling and commuting is a large network of interlinked surfaces that go places in a pretty direct manner. Some would call these . . . roads.
Bike paths are not usually all that useful for utility cycling and commuting. They tend to be out of the way, winding paths that are clogged with dog walkers and joggers. What you need for utility cycling and commuting is a large network of interlinked surfaces that go places in a pretty direct manner. Some would call these . . . roads.
I, too, have experienced a plethora of “pleasure-ride” bike paths which aren’t terribly conducive for commuting, but my takeaway is “it doesn’t have to be that way”. There are plenty of cities and towns that have built bike paths which are more useful (in the utilitarian sense of the word) and consequentially are used extensively by commuters. Properly designed and built these can offer a lot of advantages over (forced) shared roads with cars and cyclists.
People saved more money when they stayed home due to COVID restrictions. At least where I live, this was followed by s vast spending spree that may be continuing today. People buying housing upgrades (decoration or moving outright despite higher prices), newer cars purchased at higher prices, a sea of internet purchases, etc - all at a cost to the environment.
If useful bike paths suddenly appear across the nation and people start using them, saving their cars for other uses or selling their cars outright - - - anyone care to predict what people will do with the spare cash they suddenly have?
The right answer for DW and me is to pay down the mortgage, get closer to retirement, more free time for us, not shopping more.
How can the human species be encouraged to quit buying things, driving so much, traveling so much, and simply stay home more (or bike/walk somewhere)?
People saved more money when they stayed home due to COVID restrictions. At least where I live, this was followed by s vast spending spree that may be continuing today. People buying housing upgrades (decoration or moving outright despite higher prices), newer cars purchased at higher prices, a sea of internet purchases, etc - all at a cost to the environment.
If useful bike paths suddenly appear across the nation and people start using them, saving their cars for other uses or selling their cars outright - - - anyone care to predict what people will do with the spare cash they suddenly have?
The right answer for DW and me is to pay down the mortgage, get closer to retirement, more free time for us, not shopping more.
How can the human species be encouraged to quit buying things, driving so much, traveling so much, and simply stay home more (or bike/walk somewhere)?
Easy. A carbon tax. That would naturally lend people to spending $ on things that create less emissions (and by proxy, consume less junk). Pricing is a direct and automatic signal to consumers on what to buy. If air travel and plastic goods from china suddenly become more expensive than a bike made locally or a community event, then even the least environmentally concerned folks will do it without a second thought.
Policy is easy to implement (low amount of resources needed), relatively non-partisan (I'm of the opinion that conservatives favor it more than liberals if presented correctly), supported by more economists worldwide than any other carbon reduction measure, and can be tied into a dividend to eliminate burden on low income citizens.
People saved more money when they stayed home due to COVID restrictions. At least where I live, this was followed by s vast spending spree that may be continuing today. People buying housing upgrades (decoration or moving outright despite higher prices), newer cars purchased at higher prices, a sea of internet purchases, etc - all at a cost to the environment.
If useful bike paths suddenly appear across the nation and people start using them, saving their cars for other uses or selling their cars outright - - - anyone care to predict what people will do with the spare cash they suddenly have?
The right answer for DW and me is to pay down the mortgage, get closer to retirement, more free time for us, not shopping more.
How can the human species be encouraged to quit buying things, driving so much, traveling so much, and simply stay home more (or bike/walk somewhere)?
Easy. A carbon tax. That would naturally lend people to spending $ on things that create less emissions (and by proxy, consume less junk). Pricing is a direct and automatic signal to consumers on what to buy. If air travel and plastic goods from china suddenly become more expensive than a bike made locally or a community event, then even the least environmentally concerned folks will do it without a second thought.
Policy is easy to implement (low amount of resources needed), relatively non-partisan (I'm of the opinion that conservatives favor it more than liberals if presented correctly), supported by more economists worldwide than any other carbon reduction measure, and can be tied into a dividend to eliminate burden on low income citizens.
People saved more money when they stayed home due to COVID restrictions. At least where I live, this was followed by s vast spending spree that may be continuing today. People buying housing upgrades (decoration or moving outright despite higher prices), newer cars purchased at higher prices, a sea of internet purchases, etc - all at a cost to the environment.
If useful bike paths suddenly appear across the nation and people start using them, saving their cars for other uses or selling their cars outright - - - anyone care to predict what people will do with the spare cash they suddenly have?
The right answer for DW and me is to pay down the mortgage, get closer to retirement, more free time for us, not shopping more.
How can the human species be encouraged to quit buying things, driving so much, traveling so much, and simply stay home more (or bike/walk somewhere)?
Easy. A carbon tax. That would naturally lend people to spending $ on things that create less emissions (and by proxy, consume less junk). Pricing is a direct and automatic signal to consumers on what to buy. If air travel and plastic goods from china suddenly become more expensive than a bike made locally or a community event, then even the least environmentally concerned folks will do it without a second thought.
Policy is easy to implement (low amount of resources needed), relatively non-partisan (I'm of the opinion that conservatives favor it more than liberals if presented correctly), supported by more economists worldwide than any other carbon reduction measure, and can be tied into a dividend to eliminate burden on low income citizens.
I dunno about that. Conservatives have fought extremely hard against Canada's revenue neutral carbon tax here in Ontario since it was implemented.
I dunno about that. Conservatives have fought extremely hard against Canada's revenue neutral carbon tax here in Ontario since it was implemented.
I dunno about that. Conservatives have fought extremely hard against Canada's revenue neutral carbon tax here in Ontario since it was implemented.
I should throw the caveat in there that conservatives have to generally accept anthropomorphic climate change in their reality for it to be an appealing measure (or at least more appealing than all of the carrot type proposals generally put forth by liberal parties). It simply prices a negative externality and lets the market do all the efficiency bits. One of the biggest issues is the swathe of conservatives who don't believe in climate change... then any measure that is proposed sounds ridiculous, but that's a separate problem.
I dunno about that. Conservatives have fought extremely hard against Canada's revenue neutral carbon tax here in Ontario since it was implemented.
I should throw the caveat in there that conservatives have to generally accept anthropomorphic climate change in their reality for it to be an appealing measure (or at least more appealing than all of the carrot type proposals generally put forth by liberal parties). It simply prices a negative externality and lets the market do all the efficiency bits. One of the biggest issues is the swathe of conservatives who don't believe in climate change... then any measure that is proposed sounds ridiculous, but that's a separate problem.
"How come the carbon tax didn't prevent Hurricane Fiona? Where are those tax dollars going?"
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N38sgq4XIvg&ab_channel=CTVNews (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N38sgq4XIvg&ab_channel=CTVNews)
It's hard to argue with that 'logic'.
People saved more money when they stayed home due to COVID restrictions. At least where I live, this was followed by s vast spending spree that may be continuing today. People buying housing upgrades (decoration or moving outright despite higher prices), newer cars purchased at higher prices, a sea of internet purchases, etc - all at a cost to the environment.
If useful bike paths suddenly appear across the nation and people start using them, saving their cars for other uses or selling their cars outright - - - anyone care to predict what people will do with the spare cash they suddenly have?
The right answer for DW and me is to pay down the mortgage, get closer to retirement, more free time for us, not shopping more.
How can the human species be encouraged to quit buying things, driving so much, traveling so much, and simply stay home more (or bike/walk somewhere)?
Easy. A carbon tax. That would naturally lend people to spending $ on things that create less emissions (and by proxy, consume less junk). Pricing is a direct and automatic signal to consumers on what to buy. If air travel and plastic goods from china suddenly become more expensive than a bike made locally or a community event, then even the least environmentally concerned folks will do it without a second thought.
Policy is easy to implement (low amount of resources needed), relatively non-partisan (I'm of the opinion that conservatives favor it more than liberals if presented correctly), supported by more economists worldwide than any other carbon reduction measure, and can be tied into a dividend to eliminate burden on low income citizens.
I dunno about that. Conservatives have fought extremely hard against Canada's revenue neutral carbon tax here in Ontario since it was implemented.
I'm notreally a believer in the invisible hand shit, but I do like common sense.
Shouldn't electric bikes cost a lot less to procure? It was pointed out that it would save people a buttload of money over driving an F-150. Shouldn't it be kind of obvious to many municipalities that they wouldn't have to spend beau coup bucks on road repair and maintenance if people were to have a higher utilization of said electric bikes. Shouldn't people who call themselves "conservative" be for this? Less government spending is better than a whoopee cushion for them. Isn't it like a "natural" carbon tax. The extra money saved would be like a Keynesian pump prime fro the economy. Right now people spend a lot of money on their transportation.
People saved more money when they stayed home due to COVID restrictions. At least where I live, this was followed by s vast spending spree that may be continuing today. People buying housing upgrades (decoration or moving outright despite higher prices), newer cars purchased at higher prices, a sea of internet purchases, etc - all at a cost to the environment.
If useful bike paths suddenly appear across the nation and people start using them, saving their cars for other uses or selling their cars outright - - - anyone care to predict what people will do with the spare cash they suddenly have?
The right answer for DW and me is to pay down the mortgage, get closer to retirement, more free time for us, not shopping more.
How can the human species be encouraged to quit buying things, driving so much, traveling so much, and simply stay home more (or bike/walk somewhere)?
Easy. A carbon tax. That would naturally lend people to spending $ on things that create less emissions (and by proxy, consume less junk). Pricing is a direct and automatic signal to consumers on what to buy. If air travel and plastic goods from china suddenly become more expensive than a bike made locally or a community event, then even the least environmentally concerned folks will do it without a second thought.
Policy is easy to implement (low amount of resources needed), relatively non-partisan (I'm of the opinion that conservatives favor it more than liberals if presented correctly), supported by more economists worldwide than any other carbon reduction measure, and can be tied into a dividend to eliminate burden on low income citizens.
I dunno about that. Conservatives have fought extremely hard against Canada's revenue neutral carbon tax here in Ontario since it was implemented.
I'm notreally a believer in the invisible hand shit, but I do like common sense.
Shouldn't electric bikes cost a lot less to procure? It was pointed out that it would save people a buttload of money over driving an F-150. Shouldn't it be kind of obvious to many municipalities that they wouldn't have to spend beau coup bucks on road repair and maintenance if people were to have a higher utilization of said electric bikes. Shouldn't people who call themselves "conservative" be for this? Less government spending is better than a whoopee cushion for them. Isn't it like a "natural" carbon tax. The extra money saved would be like a Keynesian pump prime fro the economy. Right now people spend a lot of money on their transportation.
The status quo keeps certain people wealthy. Those certain people, at least where I live, have disproportionate access to the local decision makers b/c that's who they socialize with anyhow. BBQs, golf, church, lunches, etc.
People saved more money when they stayed home due to COVID restrictions. At least where I live, this was followed by s vast spending spree that may be continuing today. People buying housing upgrades (decoration or moving outright despite higher prices), newer cars purchased at higher prices, a sea of internet purchases, etc - all at a cost to the environment.
If useful bike paths suddenly appear across the nation and people start using them, saving their cars for other uses or selling their cars outright - - - anyone care to predict what people will do with the spare cash they suddenly have?
The right answer for DW and me is to pay down the mortgage, get closer to retirement, more free time for us, not shopping more.
How can the human species be encouraged to quit buying things, driving so much, traveling so much, and simply stay home more (or bike/walk somewhere)?
Sure seems like there are a lot of flat, otherwise empty roof tops available for solar that wouldn't require expansive ground mount systems that make the land less useful. And they'd probably be much less visible too for anybody with those complaints.Rooftop solar on large commercial buildings (warehouses, etc) can make a lot of sense if the roof is already strong enough for the loads. Not as badly priced as residential, but still noticeably more expensive than ground mount.
Northern Indiana is also not exactly ideal for solar production, so it seems a bit unusual that they'd choose this specific location for their project. Winter days are short, with little solar intensity. You could probably get more production from a smaller array in a better location. There's a ton of wind generation in the area (which also has/had opposition), but that leaves most of the ground beneath it functional as farm land.Winter days are short, but winter is typically when Midwest wind is the strongest. During the summer there is often wind at night, but not so much during the day. Solar would be a nice complement for production.
Yep, the more functional ones are often along a roadway (separated, please!) and are referred to as a Shared Use Path (SUP)
Bike paths are not usually all that useful for utility cycling and commuting. They tend to be out of the way, winding paths that are clogged with dog walkers and joggers. What you need for utility cycling and commuting is a large network of interlinked surfaces that go places in a pretty direct manner. Some would call these . . . roads.
I, too, have experienced a plethora of “pleasure-ride” bike paths which aren’t terribly conducive for commuting, but my takeaway is “it doesn’t have to be that way”. There are plenty of cities and towns that have built bike paths which are more useful (in the utilitarian sense of the word) and consequentially are used extensively by commuters. Properly designed and built these can offer a lot of advantages over (forced) shared roads with cars and cyclists.
Shouldn't electric bikes cost a lot less to procure?In earlier drafts the Inflation Reduction Act included an electric bike credit. Unfortunately it was one of the items sacrificed to get it passed (Thanks, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema! Not.)
Yep, the more functional ones are often along a roadway (separated, please!) and are referred to as a Shared Use Path (SUP)
Bike paths are not usually all that useful for utility cycling and commuting. They tend to be out of the way, winding paths that are clogged with dog walkers and joggers. What you need for utility cycling and commuting is a large network of interlinked surfaces that go places in a pretty direct manner. Some would call these . . . roads.
I, too, have experienced a plethora of “pleasure-ride” bike paths which aren’t terribly conducive for commuting, but my takeaway is “it doesn’t have to be that way”. There are plenty of cities and towns that have built bike paths which are more useful (in the utilitarian sense of the word) and consequentially are used extensively by commuters. Properly designed and built these can offer a lot of advantages over (forced) shared roads with cars and cyclists.
Where does the space come from? At least in my town, the car lanes are WAY too wide anyway. NACTO guidelines are 10-11 feet, and I'm typically seeing 12-14 feet, with the occasional excursion to 19 feet. Take a typical 6-7 lane stroad, trim 2 feet off each lane and you suddenly have 12 feet of width available - plus the 4-5 feet of width already there for the sidewalk. Plenty for a 12 foot SUP and a 4 foot buffer strip. As a bonus, speed limit compliance of motor vehicles improves significantly.
Largely covered by others, but I wanted to get my two cents in....Sure seems like there are a lot of flat, otherwise empty roof tops available for solar that wouldn't require expansive ground mount systems that make the land less useful. And they'd probably be much less visible too for anybody with those complaints.Rooftop solar on large commercial buildings (warehouses, etc) can make a lot of sense if the roof is already strong enough for the loads. Not as badly priced as residential, but still noticeably more expensive than ground mount.QuoteNorthern Indiana is also not exactly ideal for solar production, so it seems a bit unusual that they'd choose this specific location for their project. Winter days are short, with little solar intensity. You could probably get more production from a smaller array in a better location. There's a ton of wind generation in the area (which also has/had opposition), but that leaves most of the ground beneath it functional as farm land.Winter days are short, but winter is typically when Midwest wind is the strongest. During the summer there is often wind at night, but not so much during the day. Solar would be a nice complement for production.
Other items such as improving grid interconnections will help even more - and will be a net cost savings over the "do nothing" approach if done correctly. Example: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/seams.html
Solar + functional farm land is very doable and apparently can be even more profitable in some areas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgrivoltaicsYep, the more functional ones are often along a roadway (separated, please!) and are referred to as a Shared Use Path (SUP)
Bike paths are not usually all that useful for utility cycling and commuting. They tend to be out of the way, winding paths that are clogged with dog walkers and joggers. What you need for utility cycling and commuting is a large network of interlinked surfaces that go places in a pretty direct manner. Some would call these . . . roads.
I, too, have experienced a plethora of “pleasure-ride” bike paths which aren’t terribly conducive for commuting, but my takeaway is “it doesn’t have to be that way”. There are plenty of cities and towns that have built bike paths which are more useful (in the utilitarian sense of the word) and consequentially are used extensively by commuters. Properly designed and built these can offer a lot of advantages over (forced) shared roads with cars and cyclists.
Where does the space come from? At least in my town, the car lanes are WAY too wide anyway. NACTO guidelines are 10-11 feet, and I'm typically seeing 12-14 feet, with the occasional excursion to 19 feet. Take a typical 6-7 lane stroad, trim 2 feet off each lane and you suddenly have 12 feet of width available - plus the 4-5 feet of width already there for the sidewalk. Plenty for a 12 foot SUP and a 4 foot buffer strip. As a bonus, speed limit compliance of motor vehicles improves significantly.Shouldn't electric bikes cost a lot less to procure?In earlier drafts the Inflation Reduction Act included an electric bike credit. Unfortunately it was one of the items sacrificed to get it passed (Thanks, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema! Not.)
People saved more money when they stayed home due to COVID restrictions. At least where I live, this was followed by s vast spending spree that may be continuing today. People buying housing upgrades (decoration or moving outright despite higher prices), newer cars purchased at higher prices, a sea of internet purchases, etc - all at a cost to the environment.
If useful bike paths suddenly appear across the nation and people start using them, saving their cars for other uses or selling their cars outright - - - anyone care to predict what people will do with the spare cash they suddenly have?
The right answer for DW and me is to pay down the mortgage, get closer to retirement, more free time for us, not shopping more.
How can the human species be encouraged to quit buying things, driving so much, traveling so much, and simply stay home more (or bike/walk somewhere)?
Easy. A carbon tax. That would naturally lend people to spending $ on things that create less emissions (and by proxy, consume less junk). Pricing is a direct and automatic signal to consumers on what to buy. If air travel and plastic goods from china suddenly become more expensive than a bike made locally or a community event, then even the least environmentally concerned folks will do it without a second thought.
Policy is easy to implement (low amount of resources needed), relatively non-partisan (I'm of the opinion that conservatives favor it more than liberals if presented correctly), supported by more economists worldwide than any other carbon reduction measure, and can be tied into a dividend to eliminate burden on low income citizens.
Let's do it. How do we make it happen?
lol posts like this remind me of how hugely regional things are. On most of the side streets in my area, two-way traffic is difficult unless someone pulls over to the side to allow someone through (otherwise we'd be skimming mirrors on the street parked cars).
People saved more money when they stayed home due to COVID restrictions. At least where I live, this was followed by s vast spending spree that may be continuing today. People buying housing upgrades (decoration or moving outright despite higher prices), newer cars purchased at higher prices, a sea of internet purchases, etc - all at a cost to the environment.
If useful bike paths suddenly appear across the nation and people start using them, saving their cars for other uses or selling their cars outright - - - anyone care to predict what people will do with the spare cash they suddenly have?
The right answer for DW and me is to pay down the mortgage, get closer to retirement, more free time for us, not shopping more.
How can the human species be encouraged to quit buying things, driving so much, traveling so much, and simply stay home more (or bike/walk somewhere)?
Easy. A carbon tax. That would naturally lend people to spending $ on things that create less emissions (and by proxy, consume less junk). Pricing is a direct and automatic signal to consumers on what to buy. If air travel and plastic goods from china suddenly become more expensive than a bike made locally or a community event, then even the least environmentally concerned folks will do it without a second thought.
Policy is easy to implement (low amount of resources needed), relatively non-partisan (I'm of the opinion that conservatives favor it more than liberals if presented correctly), supported by more economists worldwide than any other carbon reduction measure, and can be tied into a dividend to eliminate burden on low income citizens.
Let's do it. How do we make it happen?
Join Citizen's Climate Lobby. They have made huge lobbying progress to introduce carbon tax bills at the federal level due entirely to volunteer efforts. It is a bi-partisan lobby group with a very focused agenda on effective communication to politicians and the public. It's the best way for everyday citizens to contribute, even those with little time/resources to contribute (like me with my two kids and two working parents)
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
I saw my first Rivian last week. What did it look like? A truck.
I spoke with the owner. Did he buy it for the planet? Did he buy it for economics? He bought it because it accelerates fast.
Some early reports are saying that EVs were 5% of US vehicle sales in 2022. This has been a bit of an inflection point in some other nations, so it could be an important step for normalizing EVs.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/27/business/electric-vehicle-tipping-point?utm_source=business_ribbon
"In 2019, there were 11 EV models selling more than 1,000 units, according to Kelley Blue Book. This year, there were 26."
As it happens, I recently watched several video reviews of the Chevy Bolt EUV and I think it is finally a reasonably priced EV (about $30k) that could work for me. Should be worth considering next year assuming that they become readily available. I am now getting convinced that I just don’t need or want a big battery pack. A 200 mile range would be fine for my needs. Hopefully similar good options will start to appear soon. Will revisit the EV question in another six months.
I wouldn't expect batteries to be scraping by even if they satisfy car demand, there's still home and grid-scale demand.During the first 11 months of 2022 alone, ERCOT (Texas grid) already installed over 1GW of additional battery storage on the grid - but what's really insane is the development pipeline. An additional 79GW for a grid where the all time max demand is 80GW. Not all of these projects will be completed - but they're all far enough in planning to file for formal analysis by ERCOT. There's only 9GW far enough along to have an interconnection agreement - which is a near certainty the project will get finished.
I wouldn't expect batteries to be scraping by even if they satisfy car demand, there's still home and grid-scale demand.
EVs will win because they're just a better day to day user experience. Quick off the line, quiet, even base models come with heated seats/steering wheel, oh and I have a full tank every morning and never have to go to a gas station.
Curious to hear the many of you that know far more about this space than I do comment on this TED Talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1E8SQde5rk
He seems to make a compelling case why EV hype is just that and how they are actually far from superior or better in the ways always touted. As one considering an EV in the future, it certainly made me feel I'd need to learn a lot more to see if it made sense.
Sorry for not being more clear. His premise as I understood his talk is that EVs are not the benefit to the climate not the cost savers that they claim to be and that surprised me and gave me pause on stepping over that way when we next are in need of a vehicle.
What you are describing is what Mercedes Benz made, a hydrogen fuel cell PHEV.
https://www.mercedes-benz.com.sg/passengercars/mercedes-benz-cars/electromobility/f-cell.html
The problem is there's no material/weight advantage for a PHEV (gas or hydrogen). So in the most basic economic terms where mass costs $$$ equally PHEVs of any type have no cost advantage over BEVs, and the complexity and maintenance of two power trains.
In the hydrogen fuel cell PHEV example your still stuck with need to build out a global hydrogen network (but notable smaller than would be required for non plugin fuel cell vehicles). And the cost of hydrogen will always be at a minimum 2x that of electricity.
He also suggested somewhere in there that we should use 120k miles for the lifespan, which is hopelessly pessimistic considering the average span of both ICE and BEV vehicles.
Sorry for not being more clear. His premise as I understood his talk is that EVs are not the benefit to the climate not the cost savers that they claim to be and that surprised me and gave me pause on stepping over that way when we next are in need of a vehicle.
Sorry for not being more clear. His premise as I understood his talk is that EVs are not the benefit to the climate not the cost savers that they claim to be and that surprised me and gave me pause on stepping over that way when we next are in need of a vehicle.
Generally speaking, he's not wrong. EV's are cleaner in use, but EV battery production has an outsized carbon footprint. The larger the battery, the worse it is. Especially if it's produced with electricity that's not particularly 'green'. So an EV typically starts off in a deficit compared to a comparable new ICE in most cases.
The benefits of an EV are accrued as miles are driven. They reward consumption. The more miles that are driven the sooner it can close the gap with an ICE, and then surpass it. The cleaner the electricity is the manufactures and powers the EV, the sooner it will surpass the ICE. This obviously has tons of variable factors unique to each EV and each situation, but the benefits only happen as we consume. If an EV owner drives very little, then the benefits of their EV will be very little as well. And it's at least possible that a MMMer who drives their older, efficient ICE very little would actually do environmental harm by trading their old Prius, Corolla, etc for a new EV that's rarely used.
Just like ICEs, there are efficient and inefficient EVs too. A Chevy Bolt, Hyundai Ioniq, or Tesla Model 3 are pretty efficient (range per kwh of battery capacity). But a Ford Lightning, GMC Hummer, or Tesla Cybertruck are pretty in-efficient. Wastefulness is always going to cost more and have more environmental impact, even if that waste is extra battery capacity.
Environmentally speaking, it's almost always better to use an existing object than replace it with a newer, slightly more efficient version. Making/transporting new stuff is always going to have a significant impact. If you have to replace an efficient older vehicle, then do so. But trading your old vehicle in for an EV might not be the benefit that people automatically assume that it is. Especially if you're giving up an efficient ICE for an inefficient EV.
As always, the three R's reign supreme. Reduce consumption, Reuse the stuff you have for as long as you can, and then recycle appropriately. EV's aren't any different, and they're not a magic pill that allows us to circumvent those three Rs so that we can have something new and shiny with no drawbacks. Changing lifestyle to consume less will have a larger benefit than buying a new EV with 250+ miles of range. Even if that means you keep an old beater on the road for a few more years.
Here's some reading if you want to try and wrap your head around the huge number of variables at play here:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries
And here's a link to the customizable tool the US Gov uses to estimate environmental impact if you want to play around:
https://greet.es.anl.gov/
What you are describing is what Mercedes Benz made, a hydrogen fuel cell PHEV.
https://www.mercedes-benz.com.sg/passengercars/mercedes-benz-cars/electromobility/f-cell.html
The problem is there's no material/weight advantage for a PHEV (gas or hydrogen). So in the most basic economic terms where mass costs $$$ equally PHEVs of any type have no cost advantage over BEVs, and the complexity and maintenance of two power trains.
In the hydrogen fuel cell PHEV example your still stuck with need to build out a global hydrogen network (but notable smaller than would be required for non plugin fuel cell vehicles). And the cost of hydrogen will always be at a minimum 2x that of electricity.
He also suggested somewhere in there that we should use 120k miles for the lifespan, which is hopelessly pessimistic considering the average span of both ICE and BEV vehicles.
While you're correct that vehicles can and absolutely do exceed 120k miles on a very regular basis, the EPA requires vehicle emissions systems to meet standards from the time of manufacture, through the 120k mile mark. At that point, it's considered to have reached the "end of useful life" stage.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/86.1805-12
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/road-heavy-duty-and-road-compression-ignition-certification-programsuseful-life-compliance-and
The above is specifically for diesels, but similar standards apply for gasoline as well.
Sorry for not being more clear. His premise as I understood his talk is that EVs are not the benefit to the climate not the cost savers that they claim to be and that surprised me and gave me pause on stepping over that way when we next are in need of a vehicle.
Sorry for not being more clear. His premise as I understood his talk is that EVs are not the benefit to the climate not the cost savers that they claim to be and that surprised me and gave me pause on stepping over that way when we next are in need of a vehicle.
He also suggested somewhere in there that we should use 120k miles for the lifespan, which is hopelessly pessimistic considering the average span of both ICE and BEV vehicles.
While you're correct that vehicles can and absolutely do exceed 120k miles on a very regular basis, the EPA requires vehicle emissions systems to meet standards from the time of manufacture, through the 120k mile mark. At that point, it's considered to have reached the "end of useful life" stage.
He also suggested somewhere in there that we should use 120k miles for the lifespan, which is hopelessly pessimistic considering the average span of both ICE and BEV vehicles.
While you're correct that vehicles can and absolutely do exceed 120k miles on a very regular basis, the EPA requires vehicle emissions systems to meet standards from the time of manufacture, through the 120k mile mark. At that point, it's considered to have reached the "end of useful life" stage.
This is a completely different fact, and one that doesn’t reflect Conway’s misleading numbers. We know that the lifespan of modern cars on average greatly exceed 120k (most sources seem to suggest somewhere around 200k for the median miles driven for passenger cars). EPA standards may only apply from 0 to 120k - that doesn’t mean ICE vehicles are suddenly no longer polluting. Notably ICE vehicles tend to become more polluting after 120k, particularly for less-than-well-maintained cars.
Capping the comparison at 120k is an enormous flaw with the argument, because most of the environmental footprint for a BEV comes from its manufacture, and that’s when the gap between BEV and ICE total emissions really starts to widen.
From a carbon footprint/GHG perspective, if we're trying to have the most benefit on a societal scale, then we should be driving as many miles as we can, while using as little battery materials as possible.
From a carbon footprint/GHG perspective, if we're trying to have the most benefit on a societal scale, then we should be driving as many miles as we can, while using as little battery materials as possible.
Nope.
From a carbon footprint/GHG perspective, if we're trying to have the most benefit on a societal scale, then we should be wasting as little energy as possible on travel. We should stop normalizing insane things like flying for vacations, individual cross country automobile trips, long driving commutes, etc.
We should start to address the problem long before we even glance at battery vs combustion.
From a carbon footprint/GHG perspective, if we're trying to have the most benefit on a societal scale, then we should be driving as many miles as we can, while using as little battery materials as possible.
Nope.
From a carbon footprint/GHG perspective, if we're trying to have the most benefit on a societal scale, then we should be wasting as little energy as possible on travel. We should stop normalizing insane things like flying for vacations, individual cross country automobile trips, long driving commutes, etc.
We should start to address the problem long before we even glance at battery vs combustion.
Yep. Thanks for the correction. Reducing consumption is far more impactful.
From a carbon footprint/GHG perspective, if we're trying to have the most benefit on a societal scale, then we should be driving as many miles as we can, while using as little battery materials as possible.
Nope.
From a carbon footprint/GHG perspective, if we're trying to have the most benefit on a societal scale, then we should be wasting as little energy as possible on travel. We should stop normalizing insane things like flying for vacations, individual cross country automobile trips, long driving commutes, etc.
We should start to address the problem long before we even glance at battery vs combustion.
Yep. Thanks for the correction. Reducing consumption is far more impactful.
That's one of the things that we always forget in this sort of conversation. Electric/gas is a sideshow. Our societal use of personal transportation is a huge wasteful problem, and we need to get that under control first. Continuing to make it easy to waste in this way while simply swapping ICE for electric is not an environmentally friendly solution.
...
Tesloop's data for one of their Model S showed 2 HV battery pack replacements by 325k miles. That may be an anomaly, but having that massive impact from battery production 3 times is concerning, and negates a lot of the other benefits:
...
Generally speaking, he's not wrong. EV's are cleaner in use, but EV battery production has an outsized carbon footprint. The larger the battery, the worse it is. Especially if it's produced with electricity that's not particularly 'green'. So an EV typically starts off in a deficit compared to a comparable new ICE in most cases.Generally speaking, he is wrong. I've dug into these wild claims about oversized carbon footprint for BEVs and they end up being one paper citing another paper citing another paper citing a guy who literally made up ("estimated" using some pretty weak methodology) numbers based on China in 2010, when production of battery packs was FAR less efficient, and the grid power is completely not comparable to (ie far dirtier than) the US grid today.
Tesla recycles all the packs/cells they get back....
Tesloop's data for one of their Model S showed 2 HV battery pack replacements by 325k miles. That may be an anomaly, but having that massive impact from battery production 3 times is concerning, and negates a lot of the other benefits:
...
Have not read any links but were the first two battery packs recycled? As you say this may be an anomaly and plenty of ICE cars have critical issues very early in life.
Generally speaking, he's not wrong. EV's are cleaner in use, but EV battery production has an outsized carbon footprint. The larger the battery, the worse it is. Especially if it's produced with electricity that's not particularly 'green'. So an EV typically starts off in a deficit compared to a comparable new ICE in most cases.Generally speaking, he is wrong. I've dug into these wild claims about oversized carbon footprint for BEVs and they end up being one paper citing another paper citing another paper citing a guy who literally made up ("estimated" using some pretty weak methodology) numbers based on China in 2010, when production of battery packs was FAR less efficient, and the grid power is completely not comparable to (ie far dirtier than) the US grid today.
The vast majority of EVs on the road today in the USA were produced by Tesla, using Tesla/Panasonic battery packs and cells produced in Nevada using 100% clean electricity and assembled in California using 100% clean electricity.
But the guy whose job depend on ICE isn't going to use reasonable numbers. He's going to use the worst ones he can find.
Generally speaking, he's not wrong. EV's are cleaner in use, but EV battery production has an outsized carbon footprint. The larger the battery, the worse it is. Especially if it's produced with electricity that's not particularly 'green'. So an EV typically starts off in a deficit compared to a comparable new ICE in most cases.Generally speaking, he is wrong. I've dug into these wild claims about oversized carbon footprint for BEVs and they end up being one paper citing another paper citing another paper citing a guy who literally made up ("estimated" using some pretty weak methodology) numbers based on China in 2010, when production of battery packs was FAR less efficient, and the grid power is completely not comparable to (ie far dirtier than) the US grid today.
The vast majority of EVs on the road today in the USA were produced by Tesla, using Tesla/Panasonic battery packs and cells produced in Nevada using 100% clean electricity and assembled in California using 100% clean electricity.
But the guy whose job depend on ICE isn't going to use reasonable numbers. He's going to use the worst ones he can find.
Air quality is a local/regional problem. GHG's are a global problem. Super clean EV production in the US can be offset by super dirty EV production elsewhere in the world. It's terrific if the majority of the EVs in the US have lower than average carbon footprints. I'd love to see some more data about that if you've got it.
But just because Tesla's in one region may be relatively low carbon doesn't mean that EV's in general are. Wealthy Americans in sunny states buying clean Teslas and charging them on home solar is great. But I'm not sure that's going to be typical as EVs become more common and move down market or into places where solar is less effective. Not all EVs will be made with renewables. Not all of those EVs will be powered by renewables.
A group of PHEVs will get more miles driven under electric power than a single BEV with the same amount of raw battery materials.
Generally speaking, he's not wrong. EV's are cleaner in use, but EV battery production has an outsized carbon footprint. The larger the battery, the worse it is. Especially if it's produced with electricity that's not particularly 'green'. So an EV typically starts off in a deficit compared to a comparable new ICE in most cases.Generally speaking, he is wrong. I've dug into these wild claims about oversized carbon footprint for BEVs and they end up being one paper citing another paper citing another paper citing a guy who literally made up ("estimated" using some pretty weak methodology) numbers based on China in 2010, when production of battery packs was FAR less efficient, and the grid power is completely not comparable to (ie far dirtier than) the US grid today.
The vast majority of EVs on the road today in the USA were produced by Tesla, using Tesla/Panasonic battery packs and cells produced in Nevada using 100% clean electricity and assembled in California using 100% clean electricity.
But the guy whose job depend on ICE isn't going to use reasonable numbers. He's going to use the worst ones he can find.
Air quality is a local/regional problem. GHG's are a global problem. Super clean EV production in the US can be offset by super dirty EV production elsewhere in the world. It's terrific if the majority of the EVs in the US have lower than average carbon footprints. I'd love to see some more data about that if you've got it.
But just because Tesla's in one region may be relatively low carbon doesn't mean that EV's in general are. Wealthy Americans in sunny states buying clean Teslas and charging them on home solar is great. But I'm not sure that's going to be typical as EVs become more common and move down market or into places where solar is less effective. Not all EVs will be made with renewables. Not all of those EVs will be powered by renewables.
A group of PHEVs will get more miles driven under electric power than a single BEV with the same amount of raw battery materials.
The grid is moving to renewables, rapidly. Not just in America, but worldwide. In fact, I'd say America is actually trailing the rest of the world in this. Australia, China, Norway, Great Britain all have had major buildouts to their grid.
Also, you mention solar being good for people in sunny regions, it seems like you are implying that solar is not good in cloudy areas. Which is not true. Solar still works fine on cloudy days. Depending on how cloudy, you get reduced solar capture (loss) anywhere between 10% and 25%. Which can be easily addressed by building out 25% more capacity than needed with the solar arrays.
Well, I don't know if you can say that America is trailing the world, they are right in the middle between Morocco and Malaysia (both I thought would have more) on place 94 of 214, and that I guess is only because of California.
(ccording to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production )
Generally speaking, he's not wrong. EV's are cleaner in use, but EV battery production has an outsized carbon footprint. The larger the battery, the worse it is. Especially if it's produced with electricity that's not particularly 'green'. So an EV typically starts off in a deficit compared to a comparable new ICE in most cases.Generally speaking, he is wrong. I've dug into these wild claims about oversized carbon footprint for BEVs and they end up being one paper citing another paper citing another paper citing a guy who literally made up ("estimated" using some pretty weak methodology) numbers based on China in 2010, when production of battery packs was FAR less efficient, and the grid power is completely not comparable to (ie far dirtier than) the US grid today.
The vast majority of EVs on the road today in the USA were produced by Tesla, using Tesla/Panasonic battery packs and cells produced in Nevada using 100% clean electricity and assembled in California using 100% clean electricity.
But the guy whose job depend on ICE isn't going to use reasonable numbers. He's going to use the worst ones he can find.
Air quality is a local/regional problem. GHG's are a global problem. Super clean EV production in the US can be offset by super dirty EV production elsewhere in the world. It's terrific if the majority of the EVs in the US have lower than average carbon footprints. I'd love to see some more data about that if you've got it.
But just because Tesla's in one region may be relatively low carbon doesn't mean that EV's in general are. Wealthy Americans in sunny states buying clean Teslas and charging them on home solar is great. But I'm not sure that's going to be typical as EVs become more common and move down market or into places where solar is less effective. Not all EVs will be made with renewables. Not all of those EVs will be powered by renewables.
A group of PHEVs will get more miles driven under electric power than a single BEV with the same amount of raw battery materials.
The grid is moving to renewables, rapidly. Not just in America, but worldwide. In fact, I'd say America is actually trailing the rest of the world in this. Australia, China, Norway, Great Britain all have had major buildouts to their grid.
Also, you mention solar being good for people in sunny regions, it seems like you are implying that solar is not good in cloudy areas. Which is not true. Solar still works fine on cloudy days. Depending on how cloudy, you get reduced solar capture (loss) anywhere between 10% and 25%. Which can be easily addressed by building out 25% more capacity than needed with the solar arrays.
Renewables are increasing in their share of electricity production, but it was still under 20% nationally in 2021:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php
Average Annual GHI:
Average annual DNI (Things are vastly different East of the Mississippi):
Sure, you can upsize the system to account for lower solar intensity, but 25% more panels requires 25% more real estate and 25% more cost. Those can be significant hurdles individually, and complete deal breakers when combined. Plenty of Midwestern states go months at a time seeing less sunshine than you might be used to in Denver:
If you follow this link you can see the same solar intensity maps that I averaged above on a monthly basis. There's a pretty massive part of the country that only sees enough solar intensity to generate less than 4kwh of electricity per day on a sq meter of panels continuously between Sept and April:
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar-resource-maps.html
I don't want to seem like I'm anti-renewables, or anti-EV. I like the idea of solar, wind, or hydro where they're convenient. There are places where some of them just make too much sense to do anything else. There are other places where they are encouraged by state governments and/or utilities with monetary subsidy. That is not all places. I have no subsidy where I live. The quotes that I've gotten for roof mount solar don't really come close to penciling out yet for me.
Generally speaking, he's not wrong. EV's are cleaner in use, but EV battery production has an outsized carbon footprint. The larger the battery, the worse it is. Especially if it's produced with electricity that's not particularly 'green'. So an EV typically starts off in a deficit compared to a comparable new ICE in most cases.Generally speaking, he is wrong. I've dug into these wild claims about oversized carbon footprint for BEVs and they end up being one paper citing another paper citing another paper citing a guy who literally made up ("estimated" using some pretty weak methodology) numbers based on China in 2010, when production of battery packs was FAR less efficient, and the grid power is completely not comparable to (ie far dirtier than) the US grid today.
The vast majority of EVs on the road today in the USA were produced by Tesla, using Tesla/Panasonic battery packs and cells produced in Nevada using 100% clean electricity and assembled in California using 100% clean electricity.
But the guy whose job depend on ICE isn't going to use reasonable numbers. He's going to use the worst ones he can find.
Air quality is a local/regional problem. GHG's are a global problem. Super clean EV production in the US can be offset by super dirty EV production elsewhere in the world. It's terrific if the majority of the EVs in the US have lower than average carbon footprints. I'd love to see some more data about that if you've got it.
But just because Tesla's in one region may be relatively low carbon doesn't mean that EV's in general are. Wealthy Americans in sunny states buying clean Teslas and charging them on home solar is great. But I'm not sure that's going to be typical as EVs become more common and move down market or into places where solar is less effective. Not all EVs will be made with renewables. Not all of those EVs will be powered by renewables.
A group of PHEVs will get more miles driven under electric power than a single BEV with the same amount of raw battery materials.
The grid is moving to renewables, rapidly. Not just in America, but worldwide. In fact, I'd say America is actually trailing the rest of the world in this. Australia, China, Norway, Great Britain all have had major buildouts to their grid.
Also, you mention solar being good for people in sunny regions, it seems like you are implying that solar is not good in cloudy areas. Which is not true. Solar still works fine on cloudy days. Depending on how cloudy, you get reduced solar capture (loss) anywhere between 10% and 25%. Which can be easily addressed by building out 25% more capacity than needed with the solar arrays.
Renewables are increasing in their share of electricity production, but it was still under 20% nationally in 2021:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php
Average Annual GHI:
Average annual DNI (Things are vastly different East of the Mississippi):
Sure, you can upsize the system to account for lower solar intensity, but 25% more panels requires 25% more real estate and 25% more cost. Those can be significant hurdles individually, and complete deal breakers when combined. Plenty of Midwestern states go months at a time seeing less sunshine than you might be used to in Denver:
If you follow this link you can see the same solar intensity maps that I averaged above on a monthly basis. There's a pretty massive part of the country that only sees enough solar intensity to generate less than 4kwh of electricity per day on a sq meter of panels continuously between Sept and April:
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar-resource-maps.html
I don't want to seem like I'm anti-renewables, or anti-EV. I like the idea of solar, wind, or hydro where they're convenient. There are places where some of them just make too much sense to do anything else. There are other places where they are encouraged by state governments and/or utilities with monetary subsidy. That is not all places. I have no subsidy where I live. The quotes that I've gotten for roof mount solar don't really come close to penciling out yet for me.
I agree that solar panels are not a panacea. And it's cool to talk to someone that's data focused draws reasonable conclusions from the data. Solar and wind definitely work better in some places than others. I'm not even that opposed to natural gas, especially if you are moving from coal to natural gas, because coal is so dirty in comparison.
Because of that, I see graphs like this and it actually gives me hope for the future. We've come so far already. We just need to keep going:
(https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2020.05.28/chart2.svg)
Texas was and is arguably comparable to California in contributing to USA's % of renewable generation; both are large contributors to USA's renewable generating capacity. Arguably which contributes more depends on whether you simply measure renewable Gwh including hydro, or whether you recognize hydro as being long-established capacity and you exclude it to determine which state has added a higher quantity of renewables since the hydroelectric dams were built generations ago. Continuing with 2016 or 2017 data, it looks like CA wins in total (97 Gwh vs 72) but TX added more (70 Gwh vs 54)
Texas was and is arguably comparable to California in contributing to USA's % of renewable generation; both are large contributors to USA's renewable generating capacity. Arguably which contributes more depends on whether you simply measure renewable Gwh including hydro, or whether you recognize hydro as being long-established capacity and you exclude it to determine which state has added a higher quantity of renewables since the hydroelectric dams were built generations ago. Continuing with 2016 or 2017 data, it looks like CA wins in total (97 Gwh vs 72) but TX added more (70 Gwh vs 54)
As an aside, those are TWh figures. In 2022, the ERCOT portion of Texas (~90% of electricity used in the state) produced 24 TWh with solar, 107 TWh with wind and basically nothing with hydro.
EIA will get around to publishing official full state numbers in something like 2-3 years, but if we presume the other 10% is similar, it would make overall around 145GWh.
You can probably pull the 2022 California numbers from CASIO soon (if not now) - I tend to stick to ERCOT since that's where I live and it's a very isolated grid.
Hitting 100% renewables even for a short time is great!
I believe the ERCOT max is around 70% renewables, typically in springtime when the winds blow well and demand is relatively low (compared to summer anyway).
Following up the Aptera posts upthread: according to Michael Barnard at CleanTechnica, Aptera is fated to fail. Also, my $1840 investment should be formally consigned to the waste bin.We're on at least the 3rd iteration of Aptera the company. Early investors were wiped out. One theme they have stuck to is projecting incredibly low costs for starting volume production, while continuing to miss their targets for said volume production.
Hitting 100% renewables even for a short time is great!
I believe the ERCOT max is around 70% renewables, typically in springtime when the winds blow well and demand is relatively low (compared to summer anyway).
One day out of 365. If three or four more Diablo Canyons were built, emission free energy would be available 365 days of the year.
Following up the Aptera posts upthread: according to Michael Barnard at CleanTechnica, Aptera is fated to fail. Also, my $1840 investment should be formally consigned to the waste bin.We're on at least the 3rd iteration of Aptera the company. Early investors were wiped out. One theme they have stuck to is projecting incredibly low costs for starting volume production, while continuing to miss their targets for said volume production.
...
I wouldn't assume yet. See, if Aptera actually enters production and delivers vehicles, a tesla supercharger with no CCS plugs suddenly qualifies for federal funds if I recall correctly. There was the bit about charging vehicles from more than one manufacturer. Elon has been getting wrecked by twitter, but I'm sure he still has a few spare Benjamins to invest in a(nother) company.
It was a potentially super clever move on Aptera's part.
Hitting 100% renewables even for a short time is great!
I believe the ERCOT max is around 70% renewables, typically in springtime when the winds blow well and demand is relatively low (compared to summer anyway).
One day out of 365. If three or four more Diablo Canyons were built, emission free energy would be available 365 days of the year.
At first I thought you meant that 3 or 4 Diablo-sized plants could provide all the energy needs for California. But now I’m pretty sure you mean the added capacity could be used in conjunction with the State’s rapidly expanding wind, solar and existing hydro.
Great, let’s build some. But the major questions surrounding nuclear remain: where to build it, how to fund construction, how long until it’s active (hint: even after design and permitting every plant has taken well over a decade, and no one has built the kind we are talking about), and of course how do you secure the fissle material?
Until all of those get answered (plus a bunch of secondary) it remains a “well we should have been building them, but we didn’t and now this is where we are.
For the past 30+ years neither the USA nor Europe has been able to start and complete* a nuclear reactor within a reasonable timeframe or cost. Typically they're taking at least 3x the promised timeframe and 3x the promised cost. Over a decade of construction time. Maybe 2 decades. If they get completed at all. Two of the modern AP1000 reactor builds in the USA were abandoned after wasting billions of dollars - each. Not to mention all the wasted raw materials.Hitting 100% renewables even for a short time is great!
I believe the ERCOT max is around 70% renewables, typically in springtime when the winds blow well and demand is relatively low (compared to summer anyway).
One day out of 365. If three or four more Diablo Canyons were built, emission free energy would be available 365 days of the year.
At first I thought you meant that 3 or 4 Diablo-sized plants could provide all the energy needs for California. But now I’m pretty sure you mean the added capacity could be used in conjunction with the State’s rapidly expanding wind, solar and existing hydro.
Great, let’s build some. But the major questions surrounding nuclear remain: where to build it, how to fund construction, how long until it’s active (hint: even after design and permitting every plant has taken well over a decade, and no one has built the kind we are talking about), and of course how do you secure the fissle material?
Until all of those get answered (plus a bunch of secondary) it remains a “well we should have been building them, but we didn’t and now this is where we are.
In the past, they were able to build these in 3-4 years. They are able to build them in much less time in other countries. It's not nature that's forcing the long construction time, it's man. California has some desert land. Perhaps they could be built there. It would be something like Palo Verde. It's possible they would need to be air cooled like Fort Saint Vrain was.
For the past 30+ years neither the USA nor Europe has been able to start and complete* a nuclear reactor within a reasonable timeframe or cost. Typically they're taking at least 3x the promised timeframe and 3x the promised cost. Over a decade of construction time. Maybe 2 decades. If they get completed at all. Two of the modern AP1000 reactor builds in the USA were abandoned after wasting billions of dollars - each. Not to mention all the wasted raw materials.
Asia is a different story. China or South Korea can build a reactor more quickly, but there are serious concerns about corner cutting (thousands of counterfeit parts with falsified inspections, etc) and overall safety.Chinas first EPR took 10 years to build the first reactor, the second on place one year more. And China has a lot of experienced builders and no problems at throwing as much money and people as they want at a PR heavy project.
I should have specified either "commercial" or "GW scale"* reactors. The USN reactors are noticeably smaller and use HEU, which is simply unavailable for commercial reactors due to weapons proliferation concerns. Either laws would need to change, or the USN would need to get into the commercial power business.For the past 30+ years neither the USA nor Europe has been able to start and complete* a nuclear reactor within a reasonable timeframe or cost. Typically they're taking at least 3x the promised timeframe and 3x the promised cost. Over a decade of construction time. Maybe 2 decades. If they get completed at all. Two of the modern AP1000 reactor builds in the USA were abandoned after wasting billions of dollars - each. Not to mention all the wasted raw materials.
I believe the navy may have a bone to pick with you. Just sayin'. I stopped counting at 25 before y2k (only counting subs and carriers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy
That would suggest the small modular reactors have a chance, since serial production is really the modus operandi for the navy. Okay, the carriers may be more bespoke because there are so few of them, but for the subs, I think all the ones I saw may have been Virginia-class attack subs?
Still, it is a reason to hope.
Asia is a different story. China or South Korea can build a reactor more quickly, but there are serious concerns about corner cutting (thousands of counterfeit parts with falsified inspections, etc) and overall safety.Chinas first EPR took 10 years to build the first reactor, the second on place one year more. And China has a lot of experienced builders and no problems at throwing as much money and people as they want at a PR heavy project.
…and the funding massive projects issue
The thing the navy really avoids vs a power plant is the nimbys and faux-environmentalists.
Maybe. We already have shore power going to ships, theoretically we could do the reverse and build the appropriate transmission/interconnect for a Navy power vessel offshore.…and the funding massive projects issue
The thing the navy really avoids vs a power plant is the nimbys and faux-environmentalists.
…and the placing of reactor next to water
…and the security issue
Comparing reactors on warships and land based powerplants is comparing apples to cats
Maybe. We already have shore power going to ships, theoretically we could do the reverse and build the appropriate transmission/interconnect for a Navy power vessel offshore.…and the funding massive projects issue
The thing the navy really avoids vs a power plant is the nimbys and faux-environmentalists.
…and the placing of reactor next to water
…and the security issue
Comparing reactors on warships and land based powerplants is comparing apples to cats
Very likely cost-prohibitive, of course.
Maybe. We already have shore power going to ships, theoretically we could do the reverse and build the appropriate transmission/interconnect for a Navy power vessel offshore.…and the funding massive projects issue
The thing the navy really avoids vs a power plant is the nimbys and faux-environmentalists.
…and the placing of reactor next to water
…and the security issue
Comparing reactors on warships and land based powerplants is comparing apples to cats
Very likely cost-prohibitive, of course.
Why would you think we should use active warships which have other duties? The discussion was about new nuclear power. Use some of the ships the Navy has mothballed (either reserve or decomissioned but not yet scrapped.) Heck, there's even a specific designations for mothballed nuclear powered ships - Category Z.Maybe. We already have shore power going to ships, theoretically we could do the reverse and build the appropriate transmission/interconnect for a Navy power vessel offshore.…and the funding massive projects issue
The thing the navy really avoids vs a power plant is the nimbys and faux-environmentalists.
…and the placing of reactor next to water
…and the security issue
Comparing reactors on warships and land based powerplants is comparing apples to cats
Very likely cost-prohibitive, of course.
Maybe I’m not understanding - are you suggesting we could use our nuclear warships as domestic powerplants? As in “sorry, the SSN Deleware can’t be deployed to the Black Sea, we need it to power part of San Diego.”?
Why not just build power plants that are designed to provide power to the grid? I’m not sure what problem you are trying to solve here.The problem is that all of the companies attempting to build commercial nuclear power plants in the West are massive fuckups and have demonstrated again and again and again and again that they cannot build a nuclear power plant remotely close to a reasonable timeframe and cost. Costs and schedules go 3x the original claims, if not longer. Every. Single. Time. They are simply not economically viable.
Why not just build power plants that are designed to provide power to the grid? I’m not sure what problem you are trying to solve here.The problem is that all of the companies attempting to build commercial nuclear power plants in the West are massive fuckups and have demonstrated again and again and again and again that they cannot build a nuclear power plant remotely close to a reasonable timeframe and cost. Costs and schedules go 3x the original claims, if not longer. Every. Single. Time. They are simply not economically viable.
There's only one commercial nuclear power build attempt in the West which was started in the last 30 years which has actually produced power. It's still not working right, but at least it's produced power. Occasionally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Application for Unit 3 licensing was filed in 2000. Construction started in 2005, with a promise of completion by 2009. First criticality was 2021 and since then it's been a mess of shutdowns and repairs. This isn't even a greenfield site - they already have 2 reactors!
We're into 2023 at this point. They pinky swear it will really be ready next month.
If we want new nuclear power, we need to look to other avenues, such as small modular reactors - or the only Western nukes which are actually being built at a reasonable pace these days. The US Navy.
Realistically? We need to focus on solar, wind (onshore and offshore), battery, geothermal, improved transmission, flexible demand (like most EV charging) and such.
Why not just build power plants that are designed to provide power to the grid? I’m not sure what problem you are trying to solve here.The problem is that all of the companies attempting to build commercial nuclear power plants in the West are massive fuckups and have demonstrated again and again and again and again that they cannot build a nuclear power plant remotely close to a reasonable timeframe and cost. Costs and schedules go 3x the original claims, if not longer. Every. Single. Time. They are simply not economically viable.
There's only one commercial nuclear power build attempt in the West which was started in the last 30 years which has actually produced power. It's still not working right, but at least it's produced power. Occasionally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Application for Unit 3 licensing was filed in 2000. Construction started in 2005, with a promise of completion by 2009. First criticality was 2021 and since then it's been a mess of shutdowns and repairs. This isn't even a greenfield site - they already have 2 reactors!
We're into 2023 at this point. They pinky swear it will really be ready next month.
If we want new nuclear power, we need to look to other avenues, such as small modular reactors - or the only Western nukes which are actually being built at a reasonable pace these days. The US Navy.
Realistically? We need to focus on solar, wind (onshore and offshore), battery, geothermal, improved transmission, flexible demand (like most EV charging) and such.
I wouldn't give up quite so soon. I do agree with smaller units. Yesterday Ontario signed a deal for a BWRX.Yes, I specifically called out small modular as a possible solution. I don't have great hopes, but it's probably worth trying.
https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-hitachi-signs-contract-for-the-first-north-american-small-modular-reactor (https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-hitachi-signs-contract-for-the-first-north-american-small-modular-reactor)
I wouldn't give up quite so soon. I do agree with smaller units. Yesterday Ontario signed a deal for a BWRX.Yes, I specifically called out small modular as a possible solution. I don't have great hopes, but it's probably worth trying.
https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-hitachi-signs-contract-for-the-first-north-american-small-modular-reactor (https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-hitachi-signs-contract-for-the-first-north-american-small-modular-reactor)
So, the interesting thing is that in CT our electricity rates (with the main carrier, Eversource) **doubled** this month. I'm not sure what the rationale for this was, or if it's going on in other parts of the country, maybe something having to do with more frequent disasters meaning more scrambling around trying to fix infrastructure...but if electricity rates continue to climb like this, you lose a lot of the appeal of switching to electric cars (although solar panels become even more attractive). It's probably still necessary in the long run, but much like LEDs vs incandescent bulbs, lots of people who really don't care too much about making the switch for environmental reasons can be convinced to switch when they see that it saves them money. If that's no longer the case, it's a harder sell.
Imagine what car travel in general would cost if not so heavily subsidized.
Imagine what car travel in general would cost if not so heavily subsidized.
I think it would start to look like passenger trains in a lot of places.
Imagine what car travel in general would cost if not so heavily subsidized.
I think it would start to look like passenger trains in a lot of places.
I can imagine some streets converted to bikes in such a situation. A few dedicated bike thoroughfares plus a larger network of bike lanes - restriping would be a cheap and to some extent popular fix if the cost of car travel increased dramatically.
Imagine what car travel in general would cost if not so heavily subsidized.
I think it would start to look like passenger trains in a lot of places.
I can imagine some streets converted to bikes in such a situation. A few dedicated bike thoroughfares plus a larger network of bike lanes - restriping would be a cheap and to some extent popular fix if the cost of car travel increased dramatically.
Not unlike the changes which have occurred in several European cities over the last few decades.
No, we just buy clothes for the weather instead of letting us carried around in a climate controlled throne that defies us the good mood that comes after a nice ride in slightly adverse weather.Imagine what car travel in general would cost if not so heavily subsidized.
I think it would start to look like passenger trains in a lot of places.
I can imagine some streets converted to bikes in such a situation. A few dedicated bike thoroughfares plus a larger network of bike lanes - restriping would be a cheap and to some extent popular fix if the cost of car travel increased dramatically.
Not unlike the changes which have occurred in several European cities over the last few decades.
15F tonight and lots colder further from the water. I wouldn't want to have to travel by bike tonight. Europeans are tough.
Imagine what car travel in general would cost if not so heavily subsidized.
I think it would start to look like passenger trains in a lot of places.
I can imagine some streets converted to bikes in such a situation. A few dedicated bike thoroughfares plus a larger network of bike lanes - restriping would be a cheap and to some extent popular fix if the cost of car travel increased dramatically.
Not unlike the changes which have occurred in several European cities over the last few decades.
15F tonight and lots colder further from the water. I wouldn't want to have to travel by bike tonight. Europeans are tough.
Imagine what car travel in general would cost if not so heavily subsidized.
I think it would start to look like passenger trains in a lot of places.
I can imagine some streets converted to bikes in such a situation. A few dedicated bike thoroughfares plus a larger network of bike lanes - restriping would be a cheap and to some extent popular fix if the cost of car travel increased dramatically.
Not unlike the changes which have occurred in several European cities over the last few decades.
15F tonight and lots colder further from the water. I wouldn't want to have to travel by bike tonight. Europeans are tough.
As the saying goes, it’s not bad weather but poor clothes. It’s pretty amazing how effective the newer equipment is for cold weather - I used to commute daily down to single digits (°F) without real discomfort. Not much different from cross country skiing in terms of clothing. Frankly I found teens more enjoyable than mid 30s because there wasn’t the slush and puddles.
With an aerobic, fast moving activity like cycling he real trick is stopping the wind, less about bulky warm layers. The act of cycling provides your body with more than enough heat.
Re: charging from the grid not being super clean? Well it depends on where you live. Where I live, I have the ability to go into my electric bill online and choose what the source of my energy is. I choose to have my energy derived from 100% renewables. So, for me, going to an EV will not be 'dirty'. It will be clean. And even if that weren't an option, I could still put solar on my roof and get my energy that way.
Re: charging from the grid not being super clean? Well it depends on where you live. Where I live, I have the ability to go into my electric bill online and choose what the source of my energy is. I choose to have my energy derived from 100% renewables. So, for me, going to an EV will not be 'dirty'. It will be clean. And even if that weren't an option, I could still put solar on my roof and get my energy that way.
At risk of being pedantic...checking a box on your utility settings DOESN'T actually change the source of your power. The power in the grid is a pool from all sources. To my knowledge, there's no way to differentiate which electrons end up at your house based on their source. The only way you can actually have 100% renewable energy is if you're not actually connected to the grid and supply all your own (solar) power. Power companies giving you 100% renewables would require a separate grid and connections unless all their sources were already 100% renewable.
Think of your electricity like your tap water. The municipality increasing the amount of spring water vs river water has a change to the overall mix of the water coming out of the tap but you can't set your tap to provide only spring water.
I think checking the 'renewables' box is more a vote for how you want power to be produced. I don't know if it makes a difference in what a power company builds or not. Seems like the trend is moving in the right direction of building renewables when possible.
I really really wish their were "biker jackets" with open backside. Don't know why nobody is selling it. You need protection on the front from the wind, but not warm your back.
Our version of that is actually voting with dollars - currently paying more than we could be to opt in to the solar program. Interestingly, the "fuel" component for regular customers has not changed in some time - the deal for the solar subscription is you pay more than that component today, but it is fixed until 2037.
Our version of that is actually voting with dollars - currently paying more than we could be to opt in to the solar program. Interestingly, the "fuel" component for regular customers has not changed in some time - the deal for the solar subscription is you pay more than that component today, but it is fixed until 2037.
Same here in CO. Xcel energy lets you go in to your account and choose if you want to use renewables as the source of your electricity. It's a bit more expensive but worth it because it shows Xcel that people are willing to pay additional cost, and that will affect what infrastructure they choose to build out next.
Our version of that is actually voting with dollars - currently paying more than we could be to opt in to the solar program. Interestingly, the "fuel" component for regular customers has not changed in some time - the deal for the solar subscription is you pay more than that component today, but it is fixed until 2037.
Same here in CO. Xcel energy lets you go in to your account and choose if you want to use renewables as the source of your electricity. It's a bit more expensive but worth it because it shows Xcel that people are willing to pay additional cost, and that will affect what infrastructure they choose to build out next.
I wonder what would happen if the people who opted to not use renewables had to check a box that said something like:
"By not selecting to use renewables I understand that any future costs Xcel incurs from climate change will be proportionally charged to you within future bills."
I know some people would scoff at it for a dozen different reasons, but would the renewables usage rate double?
Re: charging from the grid not being super clean? Well it depends on where you live. Where I live, I have the ability to go into my electric bill online and choose what the source of my energy is. I choose to have my energy derived from 100% renewables. So, for me, going to an EV will not be 'dirty'. It will be clean. And even if that weren't an option, I could still put solar on my roof and get my energy that way.
At risk of being pedantic...checking a box on your utility settings DOESN'T actually change the source of your power. The power in the grid is a pool from all sources. To my knowledge, there's no way to differentiate which electrons end up at your house based on their source. The only way you can actually have 100% renewable energy is if you're not actually connected to the grid and supply all your own (solar) power. Power companies giving you 100% renewables would require a separate grid and connections unless all their sources were already 100% renewable.
Think of your electricity like your tap water. The municipality increasing the amount of spring water vs river water has a change to the overall mix of the water coming out of the tap but you can't set your tap to provide only spring water.
I think checking the 'renewables' box is more a vote for how you want power to be produced. I don't know if it makes a difference in what a power company builds or not. Seems like the trend is moving in the right direction of building renewables when possible.
Maybe sort of but look into the New Zealand power system.
from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand#Retail_and_residential_supply (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand#Retail_and_residential_supply)
"Electricity consumers connected to the grid have a choice of retail supplier. As at 31 July 2021, there were 40 electricity retailers registered with the Electricity Authority, although only 13 retailers had more than 10,000 customers. The top five retailers by number of individual consumer connections were Contact Energy, Genesis Energy, Mercury Energy, Trustpower, and Meridian Energy.[69] These top five retailers are also generation companies. The Electricity Authority funds a price-comparison service managed by Consumer New Zealand, to assist residential consumers to compare pricing offered by different retailers, and evaluate the benefits of switching suppliers.[81] The rate of customers switching suppliers has increased significantly over the past two decades, from 11,266 per month in January 2004 to 38,273 per month in May 2021.[82]"
When you rent/buy a home you could have the choice of up to 40 retailers!
While you and your neighborhood may have only one 'pipe', you choosing who you want to supply your needs and they put what you need into that pipe.
Our version of that is actually voting with dollars - currently paying more than we could be to opt in to the solar program. Interestingly, the "fuel" component for regular customers has not changed in some time - the deal for the solar subscription is you pay more than that component today, but it is fixed until 2037.
Same here in CO. Xcel energy lets you go in to your account and choose if you want to use renewables as the source of your electricity. It's a bit more expensive but worth it because it shows Xcel that people are willing to pay additional cost, and that will affect what infrastructure they choose to build out next.
I wonder what would happen if the people who opted to not use renewables had to check a box that said something like:
"By not selecting to use renewables I understand that any future costs Xcel incurs from climate change will be proportionally charged to you within future bills."
I know some people would scoff at it for a dozen different reasons, but would the renewables usage rate double?
IME, most humans are very bad at understanding (or caring about) future costs/risks.
Some states require that if you "check the box" the power company is obligated to secure an equal amount of new renewables via something like a PPA. Sure, the pool you literally draw from is mixed - but for the energy you take out, an equal amount of clean energy is put in. This does reduce fossil fuel usage.Re: charging from the grid not being super clean? Well it depends on where you live. Where I live, I have the ability to go into my electric bill online and choose what the source of my energy is. I choose to have my energy derived from 100% renewables. So, for me, going to an EV will not be 'dirty'. It will be clean. And even if that weren't an option, I could still put solar on my roof and get my energy that way.
At risk of being pedantic...checking a box on your utility settings DOESN'T actually change the source of your power. The power in the grid is a pool from all sources. To my knowledge, there's no way to differentiate which electrons end up at your house based on their source. The only way you can actually have 100% renewable energy is if you're not actually connected to the grid and supply all your own (solar) power. Power companies giving you 100% renewables would require a separate grid and connections unless all their sources were already 100% renewable.
Think of your electricity like your tap water. The municipality increasing the amount of spring water vs river water has a change to the overall mix of the water coming out of the tap but you can't set your tap to provide only spring water.
I think checking the 'renewables' box is more a vote for how you want power to be produced. I don't know if it makes a difference in what a power company builds or not. Seems like the trend is moving in the right direction of building renewables when possible.
Our version of that is actually voting with dollars - currently paying more than we could be to opt in to the solar program. Interestingly, the "fuel" component for regular customers has not changed in some time - the deal for the solar subscription is you pay more than that component today, but it is fixed until 2037.
Same here in CO. Xcel energy lets you go in to your account and choose if you want to use renewables as the source of your electricity. It's a bit more expensive but worth it because it shows Xcel that people are willing to pay additional cost, and that will affect what infrastructure they choose to build out next.
I wonder what would happen if the people who opted to not use renewables had to check a box that said something like:
"By not selecting to use renewables I understand that any future costs Xcel incurs from climate change will be proportionally charged to you within future bills."
I know some people would scoff at it for a dozen different reasons, but would the renewables usage rate double?
IME, most humans are very bad at understanding (or caring about) future costs/risks.
Being a naturally suspicious person, I am wondering exactly who is auditing that all the dollars collected for 'clean energy' on the bill are actually being spent on that. Because that little checkbox would otherwise be a pretty substantial profit generator for the electricity company for no work/input.
Hyundai IONIQ 6 has received an official EPA range of 361 miles (RWD base model).
https://electrek.co/2023/01/31/2023-hyundai-ioniq-6-epa-range-unveiled/
I would hope it's gotten a little better, but I was toying with the idea of buying a Bolt a couple years back. The nearest one was in Boise, and I tried to plot a course back here (Bozeman area). It wasn't possible even via I-90/I-15/I-84.
I would hope it's gotten a little better, but I was toying with the idea of buying a Bolt a couple years back. The nearest one was in Boise, and I tried to plot a course back here (Bozeman area). It wasn't possible even via I-90/I-15/I-84.
Not sure what has changed over the past several years, but as of now Electrify America has DCFC at about 100 mile intervals along I-84/I-15 from Boise to Butte (Boise, Mountain Home, Burley, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Dell, Butte)
...BUT, we're holding off for now. Mostly because our 14 year old Toyota only has 120k miles, is in almost new condition and has plenty of life in it. We drive very little so it'll be at least a few years until we're in the market. We're hoping the tech matures a bit more and prices come down -- hooray for the start of the EV price war! The biggest roadblock for us, however, is lack of charging infrastructure in our area.Wait ~5 years and you will be fine. All states submitted an EV charging plan for funding under the IRA - with Wyoming being the only serious assholes in the bunch.
...BUT, we're holding off for now. Mostly because our 14 year old Toyota only has 120k miles, is in almost new condition and has plenty of life in it. We drive very little so it'll be at least a few years until we're in the market. We're hoping the tech matures a bit more and prices come down -- hooray for the start of the EV price war! The biggest roadblock for us, however, is lack of charging infrastructure in our area.Wait ~5 years and you will be fine. All states submitted an EV charging plan for funding under the IRA - with Wyoming being the only serious assholes in the bunch.
...BUT, we're holding off for now. Mostly because our 14 year old Toyota only has 120k miles, is in almost new condition and has plenty of life in it. We drive very little so it'll be at least a few years until we're in the market. We're hoping the tech matures a bit more and prices come down -- hooray for the start of the EV price war! The biggest roadblock for us, however, is lack of charging infrastructure in our area.Wait ~5 years and you will be fine. All states submitted an EV charging plan for funding under the IRA - with Wyoming being the only serious assholes in the bunch.
Have not looked at the IRA with respect to charging carefully - why do you say Wyoming was the only serious one in the bunch?
Semi- related news, my small (5k) town about 15 minutes from the medium city (60k) just added 20 free L2 chargers and four DC fast chargers (fee based, Chargepoint) in January. All the L2s are walking distance to downtown/Main Street.
...BUT, we're holding off for now. Mostly because our 14 year old Toyota only has 120k miles, is in almost new condition and has plenty of life in it. We drive very little so it'll be at least a few years until we're in the market. We're hoping the tech matures a bit more and prices come down -- hooray for the start of the EV price war! The biggest roadblock for us, however, is lack of charging infrastructure in our area.Wait ~5 years and you will be fine. All states submitted an EV charging plan for funding under the IRA - with Wyoming being the only serious assholes in the bunch.
Have not looked at the IRA with respect to charging carefully - why do you say Wyoming was the only serious one in the bunch?
Semi- related news, my small (5k) town about 15 minutes from the medium city (60k) just added 20 free L2 chargers and four DC fast chargers (fee based, Chargepoint) in January. All the L2s are walking distance to downtown/Main Street.
I think he means WY is the only one that's seriously resisting EVs. They're very much wedded to their oil and gas industry.
Hopefully the fast charging network fills in faster than 5 years. Realistically, we're only 3-4 well located DCFC installations from being able to pull the trigger on an EV.
Speaking of the charging network, it's embarrassing that many National Parks in the west have zero fast chargers. Places like Yellowstone (0 charging) and the Grand Canyon (just a couple of Level 2). The US government has complete control of these areas, why can't they install a few DCFC in every park.
...BUT, we're holding off for now. Mostly because our 14 year old Toyota only has 120k miles, is in almost new condition and has plenty of life in it. We drive very little so it'll be at least a few years until we're in the market. We're hoping the tech matures a bit more and prices come down -- hooray for the start of the EV price war! The biggest roadblock for us, however, is lack of charging infrastructure in our area.Wait ~5 years and you will be fine. All states submitted an EV charging plan for funding under the IRA - with Wyoming being the only serious assholes in the bunch.
Have not looked at the IRA with respect to charging carefully - why do you say Wyoming was the only serious one in the bunch?
Semi- related news, my small (5k) town about 15 minutes from the medium city (60k) just added 20 free L2 chargers and four DC fast chargers (fee based, Chargepoint) in January. All the L2s are walking distance to downtown/Main Street.
I think he means WY is the only one that's seriously resisting EVs. They're very much wedded to their oil and gas industry.
Hopefully the fast charging network fills in faster than 5 years. Realistically, we're only 3-4 well located DCFC installations from being able to pull the trigger on an EV.
Speaking of the charging network, it's embarrassing that many National Parks in the west have zero fast chargers. Places like Yellowstone (0 charging) and the Grand Canyon (just a couple of Level 2). The US government has complete control of these areas, why can't they install a few DCFC in every park.
Electrical infrastructure and budgets. Seriously.
I agree every NP should have a plethora of chargers, but most have decades of deferred maintenance and service lines so inadequate that they are forced to rely on propane hot water heaters and the like.
Their latest analysis was that $22B was needed in immediate repairs, but even with the Great American Outdoors Act they predict our NP will still need an additional $20B by 2030 just for necessary repairs like repairing roads, buildings and water systems. They have zero extra money to do anything extra or to improve things.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-maintenance.htm (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-maintenance.htm)
...BUT, we're holding off for now. Mostly because our 14 year old Toyota only has 120k miles, is in almost new condition and has plenty of life in it. We drive very little so it'll be at least a few years until we're in the market. We're hoping the tech matures a bit more and prices come down -- hooray for the start of the EV price war! The biggest roadblock for us, however, is lack of charging infrastructure in our area.Wait ~5 years and you will be fine. All states submitted an EV charging plan for funding under the IRA - with Wyoming being the only serious assholes in the bunch.
Have not looked at the IRA with respect to charging carefully - why do you say Wyoming was the only serious one in the bunch?
Semi- related news, my small (5k) town about 15 minutes from the medium city (60k) just added 20 free L2 chargers and four DC fast chargers (fee based, Chargepoint) in January. All the L2s are walking distance to downtown/Main Street.
I think he means WY is the only one that's seriously resisting EVs. They're very much wedded to their oil and gas industry.
Hopefully the fast charging network fills in faster than 5 years. Realistically, we're only 3-4 well located DCFC installations from being able to pull the trigger on an EV.
Speaking of the charging network, it's embarrassing that many National Parks in the west have zero fast chargers. Places like Yellowstone (0 charging) and the Grand Canyon (just a couple of Level 2). The US government has complete control of these areas, why can't they install a few DCFC in every park.
Electrical infrastructure and budgets. Seriously.
I agree every NP should have a plethora of chargers, but most have decades of deferred maintenance and service lines so inadequate that they are forced to rely on propane hot water heaters and the like.
Their latest analysis was that $22B was needed in immediate repairs, but even with the Great American Outdoors Act they predict our NP will still need an additional $20B by 2030 just for necessary repairs like repairing roads, buildings and water systems. They have zero extra money to do anything extra or to improve things.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-maintenance.htm (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-maintenance.htm)
I know it's a funding issue, and I know it's all political. That's what I find embarrassing. This is all happening while popular parks deal with issues due to overcrowding. Increase prices on entrance fees and especially annual passes (these should be a lot higher than $80) while also increasing direct funding.
"Serious assholes" - their proposed plan sucks. Presumably intentionally as they don't want to site the chargers along highways.......BUT, we're holding off for now. Mostly because our 14 year old Toyota only has 120k miles, is in almost new condition and has plenty of life in it. We drive very little so it'll be at least a few years until we're in the market. We're hoping the tech matures a bit more and prices come down -- hooray for the start of the EV price war! The biggest roadblock for us, however, is lack of charging infrastructure in our area.Wait ~5 years and you will be fine. All states submitted an EV charging plan for funding under the IRA - with Wyoming being the only serious assholes in the bunch.
Have not looked at the IRA with respect to charging carefully - why do you say Wyoming was the only serious one in the bunch?.
"Serious assholes" - their proposed plan sucks. Presumably intentionally as they don't want to site the chargers along highways.......BUT, we're holding off for now. Mostly because our 14 year old Toyota only has 120k miles, is in almost new condition and has plenty of life in it. We drive very little so it'll be at least a few years until we're in the market. We're hoping the tech matures a bit more and prices come down -- hooray for the start of the EV price war! The biggest roadblock for us, however, is lack of charging infrastructure in our area.Wait ~5 years and you will be fine. All states submitted an EV charging plan for funding under the IRA - with Wyoming being the only serious assholes in the bunch.
Have not looked at the IRA with respect to charging carefully - why do you say Wyoming was the only serious one in the bunch?.
https://electrek.co/2023/02/10/surprise-electric-cars-are-already-making-california-healthier/
Its electrek so its a bit breathless but...
https://electrek.co/2023/02/10/surprise-electric-cars-are-already-making-california-healthier/
Its electrek so its a bit breathless but...
While they're making Cali healthier, they are also ruining other nations.
https://www.wired.com/story/workers-are-dying-in-the-ev-industrys-tainted-city/?bxid=5bea026724c17c6adf102b31&cndid=31738015&esrc=bounceX&mbid=mbid%3DCRMWIR012019%0A%0A&source=Email_0_EDT_WIR_NEWSLETTER_0_DAILY_ZZ&utm_brand=wired&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_content=WIR_Daily_022023&utm_mailing=WIR_Daily_022023&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl&utm_term=P4
I'll steel man this. I'm sure the byproducts of EV production are fairly minimal compared to the impact of climate change and the overall cleanliness of the local environment for those who drive them. And I'm not saying that byproducts industrial production in emerging nations is inherently bad by default. But this is one of the many hidden downsides of us trying to buy our way out of this mess by replacing the global fleet of vehicles with EVs.
It's like trying to overcome eating pounds of a sugar a day by also eating more carrots and running more. It would make far more sense to try to cut the sugar, both from a fiscal and health perspective, than to try to brute strength your way out of the sugar addiction.
While they're making Cali healthier, they are also ruining other nations.
https://www.wired.com/story/workers-are-dying-in-the-ev-industrys-tainted-city/?bxid=5bea026724c17c6adf102b31&cndid=31738015&esrc=bounceX&mbid=mbid%3DCRMWIR012019%0A%0A&source=Email_0_EDT_WIR_NEWSLETTER_0_DAILY_ZZ&utm_brand=wired&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_content=WIR_Daily_022023&utm_mailing=WIR_Daily_022023&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl&utm_term=P4
I'll steel man this. I'm sure the byproducts of EV production are fairly minimal compared to the impact of climate change and the overall cleanliness of the local environment for those who drive them. And I'm not saying that byproducts industrial production in emerging nations is inherently bad by default. But this is one of the many hidden downsides of us trying to buy our way out of this mess by replacing the global fleet of vehicles with EVs.
It's like trying to overcome eating pounds of a sugar a day by also eating more carrots and running more. It would make far more sense to try to cut the sugar, both from a fiscal and health perspective, than to try to brute strength your way out of the sugar addiction.
Why does it have to be either or? That's pretty binary thinking. Why can't it be both? We should convert everything to electric AND we should be taking steps to reduce vehicle use.
While they're making Cali healthier, they are also ruining other nations.
https://www.wired.com/story/workers-are-dying-in-the-ev-industrys-tainted-city/?bxid=5bea026724c17c6adf102b31&cndid=31738015&esrc=bounceX&mbid=mbid%3DCRMWIR012019%0A%0A&source=Email_0_EDT_WIR_NEWSLETTER_0_DAILY_ZZ&utm_brand=wired&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_content=WIR_Daily_022023&utm_mailing=WIR_Daily_022023&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl&utm_term=P4
I'll steel man this. I'm sure the byproducts of EV production are fairly minimal compared to the impact of climate change and the overall cleanliness of the local environment for those who drive them. And I'm not saying that byproducts industrial production in emerging nations is inherently bad by default. But this is one of the many hidden downsides of us trying to buy our way out of this mess by replacing the global fleet of vehicles with EVs.
It's like trying to overcome eating pounds of a sugar a day by also eating more carrots and running more. It would make far more sense to try to cut the sugar, both from a fiscal and health perspective, than to try to brute strength your way out of the sugar addiction.
Why does it have to be either or? That's pretty binary thinking. Why can't it be both? We should convert everything to electric AND we should be taking steps to reduce vehicle use.
It can be both. It should be both. I never said otherwise. I'm pushing for two things here.
1) The focus on EVs in public discourse- both in policy and in private decisions, IMO (I am highlighting that this is an opinion here and welcoming countering opinions such as yours) overshadows more important policies that we should be making. Hence the eating sugar metiphor. I am not saying that eating veggies is bad; on the contrary, it is great! But it doesn't matter how many veggies we eat if we are still eating lbs of sugar a day.
2) It is highly unlikely that there is an even distribution of resources that need to be given to each problem. So why not both? Because this makes it sound like both options are on level playing fields. EVs are important, but even if we converted 100% of the world to EVs, we'd still have major consumption problems that we could have solved had we tackled the car problem in the first place. EVs are an incredibly inefficient way to address greenhouse gas emissions in that they are super expensive and come with a myriad of byproducts that are not good for us humans. They are resource hogs. E-bikes are way better. Walking is better. Etc.
I'm not articulating it well, but if the choice is switching to an EV or having access to transit that discourages the need for a personal vehicle, the latter is objectively better from an environmental standpoint (and personal health as well).
My husband and I just bought a 2020 Nissan Leaf to replace our 2007 Prius. After considering all of our options, only electric cars really appealed to us. We live on a small island with a moderate year-round climate, so we are ideal candidates. After having the Leaf for only four days, we're really pleased with our choice.
I would like people to understand the magnitudes of their basic energy consumption.To understand the magnitude of our basic energy consumption don't we need some gold standard to compare against? What is that standard?
I would like people to understand the magnitudes of their basic energy consumption.To understand the magnitude of our basic energy consumption don't we need some gold standard to compare against? What is that standard?
My household uses about 1500kWh of electricity per month on average. Our peak month was around 2100kWh in August(A/C) over the past 12 months. This is roughly 40% more than similar homes in my neighborhood. However, we have 4 kids(+1 married and gone) and do not leave the house daily for work or school. Therefore we end up driving our EV about 12k miles per year and our gas-guzzling suburban about 4-6000 miles per year for summer vacations towing our 35 ft hotel with us(we like to pretend we are homeless on summer weekends in the woods). The kid cars don't get 5k per year either as they typically stay pretty close to home.
Cheers to the transition to EVs!
I would like people to understand the magnitudes of their basic energy consumption.To understand the magnitude of our basic energy consumption don't we need some gold standard to compare against? What is that standard?
My household uses about 1500kWh of electricity per month on average. Our peak month was around 2100kWh in August(A/C) over the past 12 months. This is roughly 40% more than similar homes in my neighborhood. However, we have 4 kids(+1 married and gone) and do not leave the house daily for work or school. Therefore we end up driving our EV about 12k miles per year and our gas-guzzling suburban about 4-6000 miles per year for summer vacations towing our 35 ft hotel with us(we like to pretend we are homeless on summer weekends in the woods). The kid cars don't get 5k per year either as they typically stay pretty close to home.
Cheers to the transition to EVs!
Average? Our household of six consumes an average of 790 kWh of electricity a month, nearly all of it covered by solar and nearly half of your usage. We have one car, which we drive a net total of 10k a year, and that is *with* commuting to work. That car is electric, btw, gifted by a deceased relative.
Not trying to brag, but I am do happen to find those numbers crazy high. I also would argue that the biggest issue is that raised by folks earlier, and by our dearly departed @Syonyk. Consuming less and moving away from a world where we assume everyone has a giant death dealing metal box of their own to speed through life in is the work that is worth investing in.
Consuming less and moving away from a world where we assume everyone has a giant death dealing metal box of their own to speed through life in is the work that is worth investing in.Why?
Consuming less and moving away from a world where we assume everyone has a giant death dealing metal box of their own to speed through life in is the work that is worth investing in.Why?
Not sure where you all live, but have you ever seen the beauty of natural America? The ocean, the rocky mountains, the redwood forest, Yellowstone, the black hills, the grand canyon, the great lakes, the blue ridge parkway, Niagara falls, or any other beautiful places in America? How and why would you stay in those places without a car? Sometimes we drive 30 miles just to get to dinner when on vacation. The journey is half the fun of the whole trip.
I am all for EVs but a life without a vehicle seems short-sighted. I consume to create memories[i[/i]...sometimes excessively...
Thank you. I totally understand how important public transit is now. Alright, I am off to get the family on board with selling the camper and cars. Enjoy your day!Consuming less and moving away from a world where we assume everyone has a giant death dealing metal box of their own to speed through life in is the work that is worth investing in.Why?
Not sure where you all live, but have you ever seen the beauty of natural America? The ocean, the rocky mountains, the redwood forest, Yellowstone, the black hills, the grand canyon, the great lakes, the blue ridge parkway, Niagara falls, or any other beautiful places in America? How and why would you stay in those places without a car? Sometimes we drive 30 miles just to get to dinner when on vacation. The journey is half the fun of the whole trip.
I am all for EVs but a life without a vehicle seems short-sighted. I consume to create memories[i[/i]...sometimes excessively...
The idea that we must use (and own) a personal car to visit these places is incredibly narrow minded. I’m actually typing this on my phone as I sit on a train traversing rural New England. Of the places you’ve mentioned I’ve traveled to the Grand Canyon, and Niagara via bus (and then backcountry backpacked), several spots along the both the Atlantic and Pacific by train, Yosemite via Amtrak and very recently two other national parks via ferry. I’ve also cycled and taken a quarter-gauge through the redwoods. Not only is it currently possible and rather enjoyable to vacation this way, but it’s quite possible to design our systems to further such access. Most of Quebec’s excellent national parks (Sepaq) are easily accessed via train and/or ferry despite being in very remote places. I also traveled through the Scottish highlands via train and bus.
Look and you’ll frequently find these ‘remote’ locations are already accessible either in whole or predominately without a car. Look elsewhere and be inspired at how it can be done with much less damage to these beautiful places we are trying to visit.
Thank you. I totally understand how important public transit is now. Alright, I am off to get the family on board with selling the camper and cars. Enjoy your day!
Thank you. I totally understand how important public transit is now. Alright, I am off to get the family on board with selling the camper and cars. Enjoy your day!
Thank you. I totally understand how important public transit is now. Alright, I am off to get the family on board with selling the camper and cars. Enjoy your day!
One of the reasons we're here, on this forum, is to challenge our beliefs. That includes both how we spend and how we take care of the earth.
Thank you. I totally understand how important public transit is now. Alright, I am off to get the family on board with selling the camper and cars. Enjoy your day!
One of the reasons we're here, on this forum, is to challenge our beliefs. That includes both how we spend and how we take care of the earth.
Exactly this. I intend my posts to be challenging but not combative. I want people to realize that a lot of our societal norms are not necessities, and other options exist or could exist.
Full disclosure we own a car and we use that car for trips and commuting (mostly carpooling). I also live in a rural district where there’s often no safe way to get to some addresses even a few miles away*. I just like to challenge this ingrained assumption that a car is your only or even the best option for getting from one place to another.
*Thankfully I’m no the economic planning board for my town and we are making progress connecting previously fragmented neighborhoods with mixed-use paths. It’s frustrating how a lack of insight decade ago has led to adjacent homes being utterly segregated from each other except by car.
Look and you’ll frequently find these ‘remote’ locations are already accessible either in whole or predominately without a car. Look elsewhere and be inspired at how it can be done with much less damage to these beautiful places we are trying to visit.
Look and you’ll frequently find these ‘remote’ locations are already accessible either in whole or predominately without a car. Look elsewhere and be inspired at how it can be done with much less damage to these beautiful places we are trying to visit.
FunFact: The highest mountain in central Germany is acessible by (steam) train, but not by car.
Look and you’ll frequently find these ‘remote’ locations are already accessible either in whole or predominately without a car. Look elsewhere and be inspired at how it can be done with much less damage to these beautiful places we are trying to visit.
FunFact: The highest mountain in central Germany is acessible by (steam) train, but not by car.
...
This trail thing makes me wonder if businesses like supermarkets could be required to be located where they are accessible by bicycle and foot traffic. A lot of stress can be avoided if you don't have to drive.
Look and you’ll frequently find these ‘remote’ locations are already accessible either in whole or predominately without a car. Look elsewhere and be inspired at how it can be done with much less damage to these beautiful places we are trying to visit.
FunFact: The highest mountain in central Germany is acessible by (steam) train, but not by car.
...
This trail thing makes me wonder if businesses like supermarkets could be required to be located where they are accessible by bicycle and foot traffic. A lot of stress can be avoided if you don't have to drive.
In some ways that puts the cart before the horse. There are some voluntary certifications (notably LEED) that try to promote walkability through individual building design. But buildings doing that are pushing against a lot of momentum and have to go over and beyond to try to meet this goal.
The real killer with all of this is our adherence to Euclidian zoning. If you are not living in an apartment/condo, in the US, you are 99% likely to be living in an area zoned for SFH (Single Family Housing). The one way to kill walkability and make us reliant on vehicles is to force a minimum living footprint for people. It forces people to have a weird choice; either a super dense apartment, or an isolated house. We've done this for so long and so well that most Americans don't even know that there are other options, and that they are not the disparate city hellholes that they envision.
Euclidian zoning:
https://www.planetizen.com/definition/euclidean-zoning
Due to this zoning, that market that we may want to force to be "walkable", still has to be located in an area zoned for that type of building. You cannot have a street corner mini mart under a 3 plex that you can have in the European walkable cities (which were developed before this zoning was invented). It is literally illegal to try to build a commercial building that would benefit a neighborhood in a neighborhood. No local coffee house and bicycle repair shop right next to a couple of duplexes. The even funnier kicker is that in the very limited neighborhoods who do have this type of building grandfathered in, the houses in those areas are valued at a premium. By forcing single family housing zoning, we are reducing the ability for local neighborhoods to prosper.
A side effect is that once people are already in their car, they're not going to stop in several isolated shops (as they might do on foot or bicycle), because parking and such is a hassle. So in reducing their shopping burden, they gravitate toward superstores like Wal-Mart.
This has created a huge "missing middle housing" deficit in the US. Missing middle referring to housing types in between a single family and an apartment (not referring to an economic middle). It plays more than a small role in our housing crisis as well.
https://missingmiddlehousing.com/
In summary, instead of trying to force supermarkets to be located in walkable areas, we can start by just making it not illegal for them to be there in the first place.
I was please to read today that Idaho is getting funding as part of the Infrastructure Act to put towards the EV charging network (https://boisedev.com/news/2023/02/27/infrastructure-act-idaho/) over the next 5 years. It's not a lot of money, but every bit helps.Every state is getting EV charging money from the Feds and had to submit a plan for Federal approval.
Directly addressing the subject question - at what point do we declare EVs are popular in the US? Is it #s of BEVs sold in a year? A % of BEVs on the road? Multiple Super Bowl ads?Well, the Car and Driver "top 25 models" for 2022 had just 2* EVs, with the highest being at #9.
If we haven't hit "popular" yet, it seems we are getting awfully close....
Directly addressing the subject question - at what point do we declare EVs are popular in the US? Is it #s of BEVs sold in a year? A % of BEVs on the road? Multiple Super Bowl ads?Well, the Car and Driver "top 25 models" for 2022 had just 2* EVs, with the highest being at #9.
If we haven't hit "popular" yet, it seems we are getting awfully close....
*Yes, the "F-series" is listed, but if you split out just the EV version it would need to increase sales roughly 10x to make it into the top 25.
In 2018, just under a quarter million EVs were sold in the U.S. About 75% of those were from Tesla. In that same year, over 5.3 million total passenger cars were sold, and another nearly 12 million light trucks, just in the U.S.
Ford has also started selling an electric version of the F-150 called the Lightning and says it has sold 15,617 electric pickups so far.
According to the latest counts from Kelley Blue Book, total new-vehicle sales in the U.S. fell in 2022 to 13.8 million units, down from 15 million in 2021 and well down from the 17.3 million the market delivered five years ago in 2018.
EV sales in the U.S. in 2022 soared, as new models and high interest pushed sales volumes past 800,000 for the first time, according to Kelley Blue Book estimates, an increase of 65% versus 2021. EV share of the total market hit 5.8%, up from 3.2% in 2021.
Tesla’s share of the EV market continues to tumble, as forecast, falling below 60% for the first time in Q4 of 2022
New light-vehicle sales in the United States rose on a seasonally adjusted basis by 4.2% to 15.74 million units in January 2023 from a year ago...
The average transaction price (ATP) of a new vehicle in the U.S. hit a record high in December at $49,507, an increase of 1.9% ($927) from November and up 4.9% ($2,297) from year-earlier levels.
The average new EV sold for $61,448, according to Kelley Blue Book estimates, still well above the industry average.
EVs are popular, in that people want them, and they are willing to pay a lot for them, if they're available. (Though in general, car prices are just crazy!) Certainly, the variety has increased a good amount in the past 4 years.
1. Tesla Model Y
2. Tesla Model 3
3. Ford Mach-E 39,458
4. Tesla Model S
5. Chevy Bolt 38,120
6. Tesla Model X
7. Hyundai Ioniq 5 22,982
8. Kia EV6 20,498
9. Volkswagen ID.4 20,511
10. Rivian R1T 20,332
11. Ford F-150 Lightning 15,617
EVs are popular, in that people want them, and they are willing to pay a lot for them, if they're available. (Though in general, car prices are just crazy!) Certainly, the variety has increased a good amount in the past 4 years.
Not true anymore. After the recent (steep) price cuts from Tesla, the Model 3 is now $5k less than the average cost of a new (ICE) vehicle:
https://fortune.com/2023/02/21/tesla-model-3-sells-5000-less-average-us-new-car-price-cuts/
Tesla’s cheapest vehicle starts at $42,990
EVs are popular, in that people want them, and they are willing to pay a lot for them, if they're available. (Though in general, car prices are just crazy!) Certainly, the variety has increased a good amount in the past 4 years.
Not true anymore. After the recent (steep) price cuts from Tesla, the Model 3 is now $5k less than the average cost of a new (ICE) vehicle:
https://fortune.com/2023/02/21/tesla-model-3-sells-5000-less-average-us-new-car-price-cuts/
The average price of a Model 3?QuoteTesla’s cheapest vehicle starts at $42,990
You (and the article) word it as if there is a single price for the Model 3, regardless of trim levels and options. Why is that? (It's not accurate.)
You said EV's are expensive vs ICE cars.
QuoteThe average transaction price (ATP) of a new vehicle in the U.S. hit a record high in December at $49,507, an increase of 1.9% ($927) from November and up 4.9% ($2,297) from year-earlier levels.QuoteThe average new EV sold for $61,448, according to Kelley Blue Book estimates, still well above the industry average.
You said EV's are expensive vs ICE cars.
Where did I say that? The article linked said the average price for an EV in 2022 was $12,000 higher than the industry average. I simply quoted it. The prices in 2022 do not change because Tesla changes their starting price.QuoteThe average transaction price (ATP) of a new vehicle in the U.S. hit a record high in December at $49,507, an increase of 1.9% ($927) from November and up 4.9% ($2,297) from year-earlier levels.QuoteThe average new EV sold for $61,448, according to Kelley Blue Book estimates, still well above the industry average.
Not that any of that would apply to me personally as I have never bought a car new, and don't plan to, ever. I'll just wait on the sidelines till volume production is achieved and then the used prices come down and I'll snag one used eventually. But that's mostly just becuase I am a cheap bastard :D
Directly addressing the subject question - at what point do we declare EVs are popular in the US? Is it #s of BEVs sold in a year? A % of BEVs on the road? Multiple Super Bowl ads?
If we haven't hit "popular" yet, it seems we are getting awfully close....
EVs are popular, in that people want them, and they are willing to pay a lot for them, if they're available. (Though in general, car prices are just crazy!) Certainly, the variety has increased a good amount in the past 4 years.
Not true anymore. After the recent (steep) price cuts from Tesla, the Model 3 is now $5k less than the average cost of a new (ICE) vehicle:
https://fortune.com/2023/02/21/tesla-model-3-sells-5000-less-average-us-new-car-price-cuts/
The average price of a Model 3?QuoteTesla’s cheapest vehicle starts at $42,990
You (and the article) word it as if there is a single price for the Model 3, regardless of trim levels and options. Why is that? (It's not accurate.)
That's $5k less without the $7500 tax incentives. If you include the tax incentives, then the Model 3 starts at $12,500 less than the average ICE car.
25 Best-Selling Cars of 2022 (https://www.kbb.com/best-cars/top-10-25-best-selling-cars-trucks-suvs/)
6. GMC Sierra (241,522 units sold)
5. Toyota Camry (295,201 units sold)
4. Toyota RAV4 (399,941 units sold)
3. Ram Pickup (468,344 units sold)
2. Chevy Silverado (513,354 units sold)
1. Ford F-Series (653,957 units sold)
You said EV's are expensive vs ICE cars. I'm just pointing out that you can get a new Model 3 for $35k after incentives. That's pretty affordable for a new car, regardless of engine type.WHAT??? facepunch
You said EV's are expensive vs ICE cars. I'm just pointing out that you can get a new Model 3 for $35k after incentives. That's pretty affordable for a new car, regardless of engine type.WHAT??? facepunch
Get a used one for 5K and save the 30K for 100 dollar each month for free!
I wonder how BYD will fare in the US ocne they come over. I guess their prices will be lower.
You said EV's are expensive vs ICE cars. I'm just pointing out that you can get a new Model 3 for $35k after incentives. That's pretty affordable for a new car, regardless of engine type.WHAT??? facepunch
Get a used one for 5K and save the 30K for 100 dollar each month for free!
I wonder how BYD will fare in the US ocne they come over. I guess their prices will be lower.
Not that any of that would apply to me personally as I have never bought a car new, and don't plan to, ever. I'll just wait on the sidelines till volume production is achieved and then the used prices come down and I'll snag one used eventually. But that's mostly just becuase I am a cheap bastard :D
I was please to read today that Idaho is getting funding as part of the Infrastructure Act to put towards the EV charging network (https://boisedev.com/news/2023/02/27/infrastructure-act-idaho/) over the next 5 years. It's not a lot of money, but every bit helps.Every state is getting EV charging money from the Feds and had to submit a plan for Federal approval.
In unrelated but relevant news to this thread; I ordered a Chevy Bolt EUV ~2.5 months ago, and it's supposed to arrive sometime in the next 2 weeks. This is primarily because my 17 year old Subaru is finally starting to go on me (engine overheating/seal issue so it can't be driven more than ~30 min at a time). I'm pretty stoked!
During December and January I test drove lots of EVs: Nissan Leaf, VW ID.4, Polestar 2, Volvo XC40 Recharge, Chevy Bolt (regular), and the Bolt EUV. I tried very hard (called over 10 Ford dealerships in 2 states) but failed to secure a test drive for a Mustang Mach-e. As luck would have it I also went on a business trip to LA recently and had a Tesla Model 3 as a rental car (Hertz gave it to me for no added cost!), and I was able to test drive a Tesla Model Y from a friend who recently got one. If people are really interested I can post my notes from most/all of those test drives.
In the end I picked the Bolt EUV because the Bolt/Bolt EUV options really just seemed to be the best value, they were available with relatively low wait times (3 months -vs- 12+ months for some, as Frugal Lizard states), and we have an ICE car already so this will never be used for road trips (almost exclusively for commuting, around-the-town driving, and drives to hikes with the family). I'm getting a dedicated Level 2 charger installed in my garage and future-proofing the installation to allow for higher amperage in the future (+ a much needed panel upgrade at ~50% of cost thanks to local rebates!) so the slower Level 3 charging speeds of the Bolt EUV shouldn't impact me much. When I test drove most of the other cars, I kept thinking that even without the Federal Tax rebates, the Bolt EUV delivers ~80% of the features and drive experience of most of the other EVs with a very respectable range, for >$15,000 less than most of the other comparable options. I'll report back here in a month or so to report on my initial experiences.
Final point- I definitely wanted an EV so I sought one out, but this is the first time that I went to buy a car and felt like there were at least a couple of options in the price range I was considering with ~250+ mi range. I also never thought that I would be someone to buy a Chevy... To me that's a win overall.
If people are really interested I can post my notes from most/all of those test drives.Yes, please! I already love the leaf one you posted and look forward to others!
I'll report back here in a month or so to report on my initial experiences.Yes to this too, please!!!
In unrelated but relevant news to this thread; I ordered a Chevy Bolt EUV ~2.5 months ago
I feel like the universe it’s screwing with me. Just two days after posting about Toyotas lack of fully EVs a woman came to my workplace driving a bz4HThey were big on hydrogen for a very long time, but appears Toyota has gone in on BEV now like pretty much everyone else.
Go figure.
In unrelated but relevant news to this thread; I ordered a Chevy Bolt EUV ~2.5 months ago
Curious why you chose the EUV over the regular EV Bolt?
In unrelated but relevant news to this thread; I ordered a Chevy Bolt EUV ~2.5 months ago
Curious why you chose the EUV over the regular EV Bolt?
I feel like the universe it’s screwing with me. Just two days after posting about Toyotas lack of fully EVs a woman came to my workplace driving a bz4HThey were big on hydrogen for a very long time, but appears Toyota has gone in on BEV now like pretty much everyone else.
Go figure.
+1 on SuperCruise. That's the one thing I liked about the Tesla I tried for a week in December - the autopilot really did make the highway driving so much better. Overall I wouldn't buy a Tesla after that (unless price comes way down), but I will probably prioritize the fancy cruise control in whatever the next car is. In 5-10 years or possibly longer when its time.In unrelated but relevant news to this thread; I ordered a Chevy Bolt EUV ~2.5 months ago
Curious why you chose the EUV over the regular EV Bolt?
Sorry for the delay, I can answer now. We chose the Bolt EUV over the regular Bolt primarily for 4 reasons (in order of importance for me/my family right now);
1. Added rear seat space. We have two kids in carseats and so we wanted a car that would give us a little extra room for that, and the loss of ~12 mi of range didn't seem that bad. But we also still didn't want a 'big' SUV (not sure why everyone is obsessed with SUVs these days...).
2. Availability. Despite still waiting ~2.5 months, as @englishteacheralex says it's much easier to get an EUV in a reasonable time. I've joined several Bolt/EUV specific forums now and many have waited 8+ months for a regular Bolt. We needed a replacement car ASAP.
3. Planned use. We are unfortunately a two car family, by necessity right now. Our other car is an all-wheel drive ICE station wagon. This car will be used 95% of the time for commuting, running errands around town, going to nearby hikes in the summers, etc. Our plans are to never use it for road tripping.
4. This one is fairly anti-mustachian, but SuperCruise. It's one of the best rated L2 driver assist technologies, should help on my commutes (I already checked the maps & the primary highway I use to get to work is SuperCruise mapped). I figure even if it's a gimmick and I don't use it after the first year, it'll still be something cool to have.
And answering a question you didn't ask, we mainly looked at the Bolt/EUV family -vs- other EVs primarily for the overall value. Even with other models becoming re-eligible for the US Federal $7500 Tax credit, and Tesla's insane price fluctuations this year, in my opinion the Bolt/EUV cars still are an amazing value for their price points. For comparison, the MSRP is similar to the larger battery Nissan Leaf, but the Bolt/EUV are leaps and bounds ahead of that car, offering most of the features found in cars that are ~double the cost.
I feel like the universe it’s screwing with me. Just two days after posting about Toyotas lack of fully EVs a woman came to my workplace driving a bz4HThey were big on hydrogen for a very long time, but appears Toyota has gone in on BEV now like pretty much everyone else.
Go figure.
Apparently some BEV proponents are condemning Toyota for pursuing hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries over the last 10 years with the result that they don't have much in the way of BEV offerings. I find it a little bizarre. If Toyota made a bad strategic choice, well the market will force them to fix it. But no, Toyota is evil because they still sell petroleum powered vehicles.
I'm a bit biased though - I think we'd be better off focusing more R&D on developing hydrogen related technologies. With everyone jumping on the BEV bandwagon, it's going to make it very hard to progress on hydrogen as a fuel.
I feel like the universe it’s screwing with me. Just two days after posting about Toyotas lack of fully EVs a woman came to my workplace driving a bz4HThey were big on hydrogen for a very long time, but appears Toyota has gone in on BEV now like pretty much everyone else.
Go figure.
Apparently some BEV proponents are condemning Toyota for pursuing hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries over the last 10 years with the result that they don't have much in the way of BEV offerings. I find it a little bizarre. If Toyota made a bad strategic choice, well the market will force them to fix it. But no, Toyota is evil because they still sell petroleum powered vehicles.
I'm a bit biased though - I think we'd be better off focusing more R&D on developing hydrogen related technologies. With everyone jumping on the BEV bandwagon, it's going to make it very hard to progress on hydrogen as a fuel.
I'm a bit biased though - I think we'd be better off focusing more R&D on developing hydrogen related technologies. With everyone jumping on the BEV bandwagon, it's going to make it very hard to progress on hydrogen as a fuel.
I'm a bit biased though - I think we'd be better off focusing more R&D on developing hydrogen related technologies. With everyone jumping on the BEV bandwagon, it's going to make it very hard to progress on hydrogen as a fuel.
Last I read you can go further with the electricity in a BEV than used to bottle hydrogen for consumption in a fuel cell vehicle. I'll concede that aviation hydrogen will be necessary for the foreseeable future. Is it still true that a BEV can go further on the electricity used to refine oil into gasoline than the gasoline will move an ICE vehicle?
Seems like battery tech research is still a logical path. Still want to see cities re-developed into something not so car-centric.
I'm a bit biased though - I think we'd be better off focusing more R&D on developing hydrogen related technologies. With everyone jumping on the BEV bandwagon, it's going to make it very hard to progress on hydrogen as a fuel.Why do you think that? Hydrogen has rather severe limitations.
As renewables penetrate the market, the efficiency argument of BEV vs Hydrogen loses some steam (although it is still valid); it doesn't really matter as much how particularly efficient a process is if the energy is all coming from renewable sources....except that you need 3x as many solar panels/wind turbines/geothermal plants compared to just using a BEV. Plus all the tankage, 10,000 PSI pumps, rather expensive electrolysis units, etc.
Re hydrogen, linked article suggests there are areas where internal processes in the earth generate hydrogen that could be harvested. Maybe we don't need electrolysis?Wake me up when somebody is actually collecting and processing the hydrogen at reasonable volume.
https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel
I am sure that will happen shortly after fusion reactors are giving us all the energy we need for electrolysis ;)
I don't think hydrogen will be used for normal cars. Buses and trains now, that is a different topic. Space is not a problem there and hydrogen can be produced more or less locally at the depot using solar or wind power. You could actually combine that with a sort of small scale energy storage.
Get the power from a nearby wind mill, produce more hydrogen than you need on average, store it in a tank and have a small fuel cell there so in case of shortage you can use up hydrogen to give power to a hundred houses or so. Would be a curve smoothener for regenerative energies.
The wording of that makes it sound like batteries can make the cars go further than hydrogen, which in practicality is the opposite of hydrogen fuel cells. The energy density of fuel cells is much higher, which is why it is particularly beneficial for weight sensitive applications such as airplanes and long-haul trucking (in theory, as GuitarStv said, this doesn't pan out in the market apparently).
As renewables penetrate the market, the efficiency argument of BEV vs Hydrogen loses some steam (although it is still valid); it doesn't really matter as much how particularly efficient a process is if the energy is all coming from renewable sources....except that you need 3x as many solar panels/wind turbines/geothermal plants compared to just using a BEV. Plus all the tankage, 10,000 PSI pumps, rather expensive electrolysis units, etc.
ay, as lots have pointed out (including myself), much of this discussion is a distraction from how resource heavy our car-required lifestyles is normalized. We would be wise to spend as much time and thought ridding ourselves of the steel cages themselves as we do trying to improve them. Could you imagine how cool it would be if someone with the ambition, resources, and spotlight of Elon were to bring walkable cities to the national discussion and, by proxy, our legislation? We'd simultaneously help our healthcare costs, infrastructure costs, air quality, resource independence, welfare programs and a myriad of other cascading effects, rather than have tech robots for the middle and upper class.
ay, as lots have pointed out (including myself), much of this discussion is a distraction from how resource heavy our car-required lifestyles is normalized. We would be wise to spend as much time and thought ridding ourselves of the steel cages themselves as we do trying to improve them. Could you imagine how cool it would be if someone with the ambition, resources, and spotlight of Elon were to bring walkable cities to the national discussion and, by proxy, our legislation? We'd simultaneously help our healthcare costs, infrastructure costs, air quality, resource independence, welfare programs and a myriad of other cascading effects, rather than have tech robots for the middle and upper class.
Strongly agree with this. Moving to a walkable cities model solves so many things, elegantly, all at once. And, I have to give props to my city, Denver has been doing a lot (recently) to build out more mixed use neighborhoods and higher density housing. Lots of 4 (or 5) over 1 buildings coming up. Biking infrastructure has improved a lot too.
ay, as lots have pointed out (including myself), much of this discussion is a distraction from how resource heavy our car-required lifestyles is normalized. We would be wise to spend as much time and thought ridding ourselves of the steel cages themselves as we do trying to improve them. Could you imagine how cool it would be if someone with the ambition, resources, and spotlight of Elon were to bring walkable cities to the national discussion and, by proxy, our legislation? We'd simultaneously help our healthcare costs, infrastructure costs, air quality, resource independence, welfare programs and a myriad of other cascading effects, rather than have tech robots for the middle and upper class.
Strongly agree with this. Moving to a walkable cities model solves so many things, elegantly, all at once. And, I have to give props to my city, Denver has been doing a lot (recently) to build out more mixed use neighborhoods and higher density housing. Lots of 4 (or 5) over 1 buildings coming up. Biking infrastructure has improved a lot too.
It would take 50 years minimum to change the car centric culture to the walk centric idea that you folks expouse. I'm not sayin' it's a bad idea, but you need something that works now for the global warming thing. I'm still not giving up on synthetic fuels. Hydrogen reacts with a lot of stuff and need not be stored as the high pressure gas with its inherent drawbacks. Gasoline is C8H18. Now if we could just find some remewable Carbon.
ay, as lots have pointed out (including myself), much of this discussion is a distraction from how resource heavy our car-required lifestyles is normalized. We would be wise to spend as much time and thought ridding ourselves of the steel cages themselves as we do trying to improve them. Could you imagine how cool it would be if someone with the ambition, resources, and spotlight of Elon were to bring walkable cities to the national discussion and, by proxy, our legislation? We'd simultaneously help our healthcare costs, infrastructure costs, air quality, resource independence, welfare programs and a myriad of other cascading effects, rather than have tech robots for the middle and upper class.
Strongly agree with this. Moving to a walkable cities model solves so many things, elegantly, all at once. And, I have to give props to my city, Denver has been doing a lot (recently) to build out more mixed use neighborhoods and higher density housing. Lots of 4 (or 5) over 1 buildings coming up. Biking infrastructure has improved a lot too.
It would take 50 years minimum to change the car centric culture to the walk centric idea that you folks expouse. I'm not sayin' it's a bad idea, but you need something that works now for the global warming thing. I'm still not giving up on synthetic fuels. Hydrogen reacts with a lot of stuff and need not be stored as the high pressure gas with its inherent drawbacks. Gasoline is C8H18. Now if we could just find some remewable Carbon.
A couple of thoughts:
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns. It’s been done in a number of locations throughout the world without a pedestrian-messiah to lead the way
- Speaking of real-world examples, we know that it does NOT need to take 50 years for a place to become walking centric. Over and over again select cities both large and small have undergone systemic shifts from car-centric to one focused on pedestrians and mass-transit with the implementation of some [often hard fought] development plans. Portland OR is often cited as a leading example, but the shift was deliberate and took roughly two decades (not 50) to really take route in this very large city. San Jose learned from Portland and transformed radically in the last `15 years. Montreal (another metropolis) put a lot more resources behind it and the transformation took hold in under a decade. Much smaller towns, with their less dense cores have accomplished real change in 3-5 years by implementing a few pedestrian corridors.
[li]There’s plenty of “renewable” carbon-based fuels out there, from plant-based ethanol to biodiesel. We’ve been making them at industrial scale for several decades - 10% of our domestic fuel is corn-based ethanol and has been since 1990. That doesn’t make them a great solution, economically or environmentally. [/li][/list]
*I’m being kind
Paris doubled the % of biked trips in 3 years with a strong upwards trend. Corona helped, but it was more things like creating acutal wide bike paths.I haven’t been to Paris yet - that’s good to know. It follows the trend though - wherever cities build dedicated end-to-end paths, cycling goes way up.
What will be the percent of electric cars on the road in 20 years? I think there will still be a lot of internal combustion engines on the road. I don't think we should give up on synthetic fuels, but opinions differ.
What will be the percent of electric cars on the road in 20 years? I think there will still be a lot of internal combustion engines on the road. I don't think we should give up on synthetic fuels, but opinions differ.
The process for making syn fuels is typically even less efficient than the process for electrolyzing hydrogen. Any combustion will have chemical compounds released into the air. For an ICE these are typically referred to as 'smog-forming' or just 'tailpipe emissions'. Compounds like NOx, particulates, hydrocarbons, etc come out of the tailpipe of an ICE and impact local air quality and affect human health. These are present to some degree even if the fuels used are carbon neutral.
While it's not a perfect solution, at least if we use hydrogen combustion, there will be demand for fueling infrastructure and building production scale so that one day there may be hydrogen fuel cells that are both carbon neutral and have no tailpipe emissions. As noted before, these applications are most likely for vehicles that currently use diesel to get work done. Most of the hydrogen development is happening in heavy trucking, construction, agriculture, shipping, etc. But having options for other uses never hurts either.
Most likely. The average lifespan of a passenger vehicle is just under 12 years. That creates a ~decade lag. If most new cars sold are EVs by 2030 (which now seems to be a surprisingly obtainable target) then we won’t see most cars on the road be EVss until 2040-42. That’s the big reason why pushing the transition as soon as possible is so important.What will be the percent of electric cars on the road in 20 years? I think there will still be a lot of internal combustion engines on the road. I don't think we should give up on synthetic fuels, but opinions differ.
The process for making syn fuels is typically even less efficient than the process for electrolyzing hydrogen. Any combustion will have chemical compounds released into the air. For an ICE these are typically referred to as 'smog-forming' or just 'tailpipe emissions'. Compounds like NOx, particulates, hydrocarbons, etc come out of the tailpipe of an ICE and impact local air quality and affect human health. These are present to some degree even if the fuels used are carbon neutral.
While it's not a perfect solution, at least if we use hydrogen combustion, there will be demand for fueling infrastructure and building production scale so that one day there may be hydrogen fuel cells that are both carbon neutral and have no tailpipe emissions. As noted before, these applications are most likely for vehicles that currently use diesel to get work done. Most of the hydrogen development is happening in heavy trucking, construction, agriculture, shipping, etc. But having options for other uses never hurts either.
I speak of the millions of existing ICE. They will not burn hydrogen. I guess it will be gasoline until the end of their lives then. The oil company executives will be happy.
Paris doubled the % of biked trips in 3 years with a strong upwards trend. Corona helped, but it was more things like creating acutal wide bike paths.I haven’t been to Paris yet - that’s good to know. It follows the trend though - wherever cities build dedicated end-to-end paths, cycling goes way up.
Paris doubled the % of biked trips in 3 years with a strong upwards trend. Corona helped, but it was more things like creating acutal wide bike paths.I haven’t been to Paris yet - that’s good to know. It follows the trend though - wherever cities build dedicated end-to-end paths, cycling goes way up.
Weird. It's almost like most cyclists don't enjoy being terrorized by motorists. :P
Paris doubled the % of biked trips in 3 years with a strong upwards trend. Corona helped, but it was more things like creating acutal wide bike paths.I haven’t been to Paris yet - that’s good to know. It follows the trend though - wherever cities build dedicated end-to-end paths, cycling goes way up.
Weird. It's almost like most cyclists don't enjoy being terrorized by motorists. :P
..or that the pool of potential cyclists who just don’t want to feel like they could be hit by a car on any given ride is enormous.
In all seriousness, I’m routinely shocked and frustrated that a dominant response to “we should build my bike-friendly infrastructure” is “but very few people cycle around here”. It’s a chicken and egg thing. Make it easy and safe to bike and suddenly your city is filled with cyclists. This has happened over and over in cities small and large. The hard part is carving out the space and making routes contiguous.
Great movie. It has everything - motivating synthesizer music, Russians, and Costner dies in the end!
Bowling, dad. I want to be a bowler.Great movie. It has everything - motivating synthesizer music, Russians, and Costner dies in the end!
You forgot the scene at McDonald's with the ketchup on the leg. That made quite an impression on me in my tender years!
In all seriousness, I’m routinely shocked and frustrated that a dominant response to “we should build my bike-friendly infrastructure” is “but very few people cycle around here”. It’s a chicken and egg thing. Make it easy and safe to bike and suddenly your city is filled with cyclists. This has happened over and over in cities small and large. The hard part is carving out the space and making routes contiguous.
In all seriousness, I’m routinely shocked and frustrated that a dominant response to “we should build my bike-friendly infrastructure” is “but very few people cycle around here”. It’s a chicken and egg thing. Make it easy and safe to bike and suddenly your city is filled with cyclists. This has happened over and over in cities small and large. The hard part is carving out the space and making routes contiguous.
Do you know of some examples of a bike-friendly infrastructure successfully being retrofitted into a less dense (semi-rural) community? I know the economics are more challenging -- the miles of roadway per potential cyclist/pedestrian ratio is unfavorable compared to a more densely populated area. But the number of miles driven on short trips per person is also higher since everything is more spread out. So even relatively few people deciding to cycle ~5 miles to the nearest grocery store/library/pizza shop/etc. would have a significant effect in terms of avoided emissions (and improved health and fitness!).
A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
Do you know of some examples of a bike-friendly infrastructure successfully being retrofitted into a less dense (semi-rural) community?There is probably a difference in what you consider rural, but that applies to about 2/3 of the Netherlands.
Do you know of some examples of a bike-friendly infrastructure successfully being retrofitted into a less dense (semi-rural) community?There is probably a difference in what you consider rural, but that applies to about 2/3 of the Netherlands.
Though I am not sure what you mean with retrofitted. In rural areas is enough space to build a few path without having to dig up old houses or change streets.
And no, on a street where cars drive it is definitely not nice to ride. Especially when it's dark. (btw. that's why in the Netherlands rural streets without seperate infrastructure have a speed limit of 60km/h or even lower. Only the roads that connect villages or towns are faster, but they ahve seperate infrastructure.)
This may be my oddest comment yet. I think better bike paths to businesses could be used as an argument for convenience. As the business is more convenient to customers, they may choose the local hardware store, for example, rather than take the car 15 miles to Home Depot. Basically, I'm saying bike infrastructure could be good for business. Above all else right wing folks support small business so it's rather possible that the "culture war" may pass this one over in favor of pragmatism.It's not odd. There's a fair amount of scientific research which shows that installing good walkability and bikeability is great for local businesses and local property values.
A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
This may be my oddest comment yet. I think better bike paths to businesses could be used as an argument for convenience. As the business is more convenient to customers, they may choose the local hardware store, for example, rather than take the car 15 miles to Home Depot. Basically, I'm saying bike infrastructure could be good for business. Above all else right wing folks support small business so it's rather possible that the "culture war" may pass this one over in favor of pragmatism.
Do you know of some examples of a bike-friendly infrastructure successfully being retrofitted into a less dense (semi-rural) community?There is probably a difference in what you consider rural, but that applies to about 2/3 of the Netherlands.
Though I am not sure what you mean with retrofitted. In rural areas is enough space to build a few path without having to dig up old houses or change streets.
And no, on a street where cars drive it is definitely not nice to ride. Especially when it's dark. (btw. that's why in the Netherlands rural streets without seperate infrastructure have a speed limit of 60km/h or even lower. Only the roads that connect villages or towns are faster, but they ahve seperate infrastructure.)
I'm not sure how similar our definitions of rural are. My town has about 40 people per square km, and is a little larger than 100 square km. That is pretty typical in the region where I live.
By retrofitting I was thinking about how bike paths would affect the existing road drainage systems, since most roads here have ditches on either side. Also how it would work logistically with snow removal (right now the plows push the snow right where I imagine the paths would go). I suppose most people would just not be able to use the paths during the winter.
In the rural areas I'm familiar with, roads usually abut private lots or wetland pretty much everywhere. The towns technically can use a couple meters on either side of the road (e.g. for utility poles and dumping all the snow), but I'm not sure if there's enough space for a bike path in many cases. In fact the utility poles -- power, cable, fiber -- would definitely be in the way of any roadside path, now that I think of it!
Paris doubled the % of biked trips in 3 years with a strong upwards trend. Corona helped, but it was more things like creating acutal wide bike paths.I haven’t been to Paris yet - that’s good to know. It follows the trend though - wherever cities build dedicated end-to-end paths, cycling goes way up.
Weird. It's almost like most cyclists don't enjoy being terrorized by motorists. :P
..or that the pool of potential cyclists who just don’t want to feel like they could be hit by a car on any given ride is enormous.
In all seriousness, I’m routinely shocked and frustrated that a dominant response to “we should build my bike-friendly infrastructure” is “but very few people cycle around here”. It’s a chicken and egg thing. Make it easy and safe to bike and suddenly your city is filled with cyclists. This has happened over and over in cities small and large. The hard part is carving out the space and making routes contiguous.
A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
Is this not what the "backlash" is about 15 min cities? I have resisted clicking on anything related to this topic, seemed to be looking for trouble.
I would also like to add that from a culture wars standpoint, the "freedom loving" crowd already has their mind made up in many cases, but if they are interested in discussion one can point out that having car-centric infrastructure is the opposite of freedom because it forces people to own cars on roads supported by government subsidies. Freedom should be to own a car or not- your choice. I don't want the government spending my tax $$ on roads to new rich suburbs.
I think we need to sneak up on these towns and their conservatives. Make the changes bit by bit. ;) Sort of like "big gov't is bad" but we sure like roads, fire departments and sending our kids to school.Big government is bad, so let's start building smaller bike paths instead of big roads! That also means less taxes, yeah!
Is "15 min cities" a YT channel?The 15 min city is a concept that everything you need has to be reachable within 15 minutes.
...
Could you reword the first part of your sentence? Is "15 min cities" a YT channel?
Saw this over the weekend:
https://electrek.co/2023/03/13/why-fox-news-wants-you-to-be-afraid-of-electric-bikes/
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/how-e-bikes-exploding-killing-people
...
Could you reword the first part of your sentence? Is "15 min cities" a YT channel?
Saw this over the weekend:
https://electrek.co/2023/03/13/why-fox-news-wants-you-to-be-afraid-of-electric-bikes/
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/how-e-bikes-exploding-killing-people
My in-laws aren't full blown freedom lovin', but they tend to lean in that direction. When I started talking about getting an electric car as my next vehicle ~5+ years ago, I was met with many comments like "well, those cars tend to catch fire and the firemen don't know how to put them out!". They really fed off of the anti-EV (and now anti-e-bike) narratives on Fox news, and had a field day with the Chevy Bolt battery recall. Fast forward to this year, and I got my Chevy Bolt EUV. I figured the best thing I can do is keep my mouth shut around them, quietly enjoy my EV and show them that [insert doomsday EV ownership scenario of the week featured on Fox] doesn't occur to the vast vast majority of EV owners {battery catches fire for no reason, entire electric grid fails from over-demand, battery spontaneously discharges while parked and you have no range left, etc. etc.}. :)
I don't have Cable TV. I guess I am better off without FOX News. It seems odd. Many of their viewers are old. An electric bike could do a lot of good for them. It's almost a disservice. This is borderline FAKE news. Maybe people just like to be scared.What gives you the impression that anything FOX News does is for the benefit of their viewers?
...
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/how-e-bikes-exploding-killing-people (https://www.foxnews.com/tech/how-e-bikes-exploding-killing-people)
A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
Again - there seems to be this persistent and false narrative that "progress on bike infrastructure won't work in the US". This ignores multiple places where it already has worked, and these locations are not just in deep blue states. For areas where environmentalism is seen negatively the simple approach is to discuss all the personal benefits a walkable/bikeable area offers, such as less traffic, less ground-level pollution and quicker ways to get through town.
A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
Again - there seems to be this persistent and false narrative that "progress on bike infrastructure won't work in the US". This ignores multiple places where it already has worked, and these locations are not just in deep blue states. For areas where environmentalism is seen negatively the simple approach is to discuss all the personal benefits a walkable/bikeable area offers, such as less traffic, less ground-level pollution and quicker ways to get through town.
Agreed. It can and has worked in certain places.
Nor is this primarily a culture war left vs. right issue. From what I can tell it's more of a generational, at least in the western half of the US. The boomers I know, on the left and right, value cars and car centric cities. They want to drive places, park for free with minimal walking (i.e. strip malls). My guess is that this is related to their formative years in the mid-twentieth century when cars were a symbol of freedom and mobility. Oh, and thinly veiled classism and racism, with bikes viewed as transportation for poor people and/or people we don't want in our neighborhoods. Which also dovetails with white flight. So make homes expensive (exclusionary zoning) and force everyone to own a car to keep "undesirables" out without have to use overtly classist or racist rhetoric. Again, from what I can tell this is a bipartisan sentiment among the older generations.
Whereas younger generations are less enamored with cars and low density housing (higher density being inherently more bikeable/walkable). There's hope for improvement as the younger generations gain political power. Even here in deep red Idaho the metro area of Boise is making a sustained effort to build a network of protected and connected biking/walking paths. Older homeowners (esp. NIMBYs) bitch and complain about it, but so far they don't have enough sway to stop it.
A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
Again - there seems to be this persistent and false narrative that "progress on bike infrastructure won't work in the US". This ignores multiple places where it already has worked, and these locations are not just in deep blue states. For areas where environmentalism is seen negatively the simple approach is to discuss all the personal benefits a walkable/bikeable area offers, such as less traffic, less ground-level pollution and quicker ways to get through town.
Agreed. It can and has worked in certain places.
Nor is this primarily a culture war left vs. right issue. From what I can tell it's more of a generational, at least in the western half of the US. The boomers I know, on the left and right, value cars and car centric cities. They want to drive places, park for free with minimal walking (i.e. strip malls). My guess is that this is related to their formative years in the mid-twentieth century when cars were a symbol of freedom and mobility. Oh, and thinly veiled classism and racism, with bikes viewed as transportation for poor people and/or people we don't want in our neighborhoods. Which also dovetails with white flight. So make homes expensive (exclusionary zoning) and force everyone to own a car to keep "undesirables" out without have to use overtly classist or racist rhetoric. Again, from what I can tell this is a bipartisan sentiment among the older generations.
Whereas younger generations are less enamored with cars and low density housing (higher density being inherently more bikeable/walkable). There's hope for improvement as the younger generations gain political power. Even here in deep red Idaho the metro area of Boise is making a sustained effort to build a network of protected and connected biking/walking paths. Older homeowners (esp. NIMBYs) bitch and complain about it, but so far they don't have enough sway to stop it.
Very interesting observations about the generation gap on car attitudes, @FINate. Keeping this in mind.
A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
Again - there seems to be this persistent and false narrative that "progress on bike infrastructure won't work in the US". This ignores multiple places where it already has worked, and these locations are not just in deep blue states. For areas where environmentalism is seen negatively the simple approach is to discuss all the personal benefits a walkable/bikeable area offers, such as less traffic, less ground-level pollution and quicker ways to get through town.
Agreed. It can and has worked in certain places.
Nor is this primarily a culture war left vs. right issue. From what I can tell it's more of a generational, at least in the western half of the US. The boomers I know, on the left and right, value cars and car centric cities. They want to drive places, park for free with minimal walking (i.e. strip malls). My guess is that this is related to their formative years in the mid-twentieth century when cars were a symbol of freedom and mobility. Oh, and thinly veiled classism and racism, with bikes viewed as transportation for poor people and/or people we don't want in our neighborhoods. Which also dovetails with white flight. So make homes expensive (exclusionary zoning) and force everyone to own a car to keep "undesirables" out without have to use overtly classist or racist rhetoric. Again, from what I can tell this is a bipartisan sentiment among the older generations.
Whereas younger generations are less enamored with cars and low density housing (higher density being inherently more bikeable/walkable). There's hope for improvement as the younger generations gain political power. Even here in deep red Idaho the metro area of Boise is making a sustained effort to build a network of protected and connected biking/walking paths. Older homeowners (esp. NIMBYs) bitch and complain about it, but so far they don't have enough sway to stop it.
Very interesting observations about the generation gap on car attitudes, @FINate. Keeping this in mind.
To be fair to them . . . a lot of older people have mobility issues that make using public transit and general walking/cycling much more difficult. Hip problems, knee problems, being fat, heart problems . . . and then you add in the media driven general state of fear of being attacked. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of older people want to cling on to cars. Having to walk an extra couple kilometers is not big deal to a fit 20 year old. It could make a trip a real ordeal to an unfit 65 year old though.
In case anyone missed it. Mr. Money Mustache's latest blog kinda sorta deals with this.. Although the blog cuts out all cars, including electric.A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
Again - there seems to be this persistent and false narrative that "progress on bike infrastructure won't work in the US". This ignores multiple places where it already has worked, and these locations are not just in deep blue states. For areas where environmentalism is seen negatively the simple approach is to discuss all the personal benefits a walkable/bikeable area offers, such as less traffic, less ground-level pollution and quicker ways to get through town.
Agreed. It can and has worked in certain places.
Nor is this primarily a culture war left vs. right issue. From what I can tell it's more of a generational, at least in the western half of the US. The boomers I know, on the left and right, value cars and car centric cities. They want to drive places, park for free with minimal walking (i.e. strip malls). My guess is that this is related to their formative years in the mid-twentieth century when cars were a symbol of freedom and mobility. Oh, and thinly veiled classism and racism, with bikes viewed as transportation for poor people and/or people we don't want in our neighborhoods. Which also dovetails with white flight. So make homes expensive (exclusionary zoning) and force everyone to own a car to keep "undesirables" out without have to use overtly classist or racist rhetoric. Again, from what I can tell this is a bipartisan sentiment among the older generations.
Whereas younger generations are less enamored with cars and low density housing (higher density being inherently more bikeable/walkable). There's hope for improvement as the younger generations gain political power. Even here in deep red Idaho the metro area of Boise is making a sustained effort to build a network of protected and connected biking/walking paths. Older homeowners (esp. NIMBYs) bitch and complain about it, but so far they don't have enough sway to stop it.
Very interesting observations about the generation gap on car attitudes, @FINate. Keeping this in mind.
To be fair to them . . . a lot of older people have mobility issues that make using public transit and general walking/cycling much more difficult. Hip problems, knee problems, being fat, heart problems . . . and then you add in the media driven general state of fear of being attacked. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of older people want to cling on to cars. Having to walk an extra couple kilometers is not big deal to a fit 20 year old. It could make a trip a real ordeal to an unfit 65 year old though.
True, but this was something I observed long before this cohort was old enough to have mobility issues. One wonders how many of these health issues in old age are made worse by sitting in cars and getting insufficient exercise during mid-life. I know older guys that drive everywhere and chronically overeat, and of course they're overweight and have bad hips and knees. Whereas guys the same age that walk most places in the city and watch their diet (nothing crazy, just being careful with portions and quality) are in much better health. Of course, we're all eventually get old and worn out (if we're fortunate to live to old age), but by the time this happens most people shouldn't be driving anyway.
A couple of thoughts:I expect any progress in the USA would be stymied by the "culture wars". In addition to the liberals are coming for your guns, the new message would be the liberals are coming for your homes and cars...[/list]
- We don’t need some mega-personality* to transition our cities and towns.
Again - there seems to be this persistent and false narrative that "progress on bike infrastructure won't work in the US". This ignores multiple places where it already has worked, and these locations are not just in deep blue states. For areas where environmentalism is seen negatively the simple approach is to discuss all the personal benefits a walkable/bikeable area offers, such as less traffic, less ground-level pollution and quicker ways to get through town.
Agreed. It can and has worked in certain places.
Nor is this primarily a culture war left vs. right issue. From what I can tell it's more of a generational, at least in the western half of the US. The boomers I know, on the left and right, value cars and car centric cities. They want to drive places, park for free with minimal walking (i.e. strip malls). My guess is that this is related to their formative years in the mid-twentieth century when cars were a symbol of freedom and mobility. Oh, and thinly veiled classism and racism, with bikes viewed as transportation for poor people and/or people we don't want in our neighborhoods. Which also dovetails with white flight. So make homes expensive (exclusionary zoning) and force everyone to own a car to keep "undesirables" out without have to use overtly classist or racist rhetoric. Again, from what I can tell this is a bipartisan sentiment among the older generations.
Whereas younger generations are less enamored with cars and low density housing (higher density being inherently more bikeable/walkable). There's hope for improvement as the younger generations gain political power. Even here in deep red Idaho the metro area of Boise is making a sustained effort to build a network of protected and connected biking/walking paths. Older homeowners (esp. NIMBYs) bitch and complain about it, but so far they don't have enough sway to stop it.
Very interesting observations about the generation gap on car attitudes, @FINate. Keeping this in mind.
To be fair to them . . . a lot of older people have mobility issues that make using public transit and general walking/cycling much more difficult. Hip problems, knee problems, being fat, heart problems . . . and then you add in the media driven general state of fear of being attacked. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of older people want to cling on to cars. Having to walk an extra couple kilometers is not big deal to a fit 20 year old. It could make a trip a real ordeal to an unfit 65 year old though.
True, but this was something I observed long before this cohort was old enough to have mobility issues. One wonders how many of these health issues in old age are made worse by sitting in cars and getting insufficient exercise during mid-life. I know older guys that drive everywhere and chronically overeat, and of course they're overweight and have bad hips and knees. Whereas guys the same age that walk most places in the city and watch their diet (nothing crazy, just being careful with portions and quality) are in much better health. Of course, we're all eventually get old and worn out (if we're fortunate to live to old age), but by the time this happens most people shouldn't be driving anyway.
...
Could you reword the first part of your sentence? Is "15 min cities" a YT channel?
Saw this over the weekend:
https://electrek.co/2023/03/13/why-fox-news-wants-you-to-be-afraid-of-electric-bikes/
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/how-e-bikes-exploding-killing-people
My in-laws aren't full blown freedom lovin', but they tend to lean in that direction. When I started talking about getting an electric car as my next vehicle ~5+ years ago, I was met with many comments like "well, those cars tend to catch fire and the firemen don't know how to put them out!". They really fed off of the anti-EV (and now anti-e-bike) narratives on Fox news, and had a field day with the Chevy Bolt battery recall. Fast forward to this year, and I got my Chevy Bolt EUV. I figured the best thing I can do is keep my mouth shut around them, quietly enjoy my EV and show them that [insert doomsday EV ownership scenario of the week featured on Fox] doesn't occur to the vast vast majority of EV owners {battery catches fire for no reason, entire electric grid fails from over-demand, battery spontaneously discharges while parked and you have no range left, etc. etc.}. :)
...
Could you reword the first part of your sentence? Is "15 min cities" a YT channel?
Saw this over the weekend:
https://electrek.co/2023/03/13/why-fox-news-wants-you-to-be-afraid-of-electric-bikes/
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/how-e-bikes-exploding-killing-people
My in-laws aren't full blown freedom lovin', but they tend to lean in that direction. When I started talking about getting an electric car as my next vehicle ~5+ years ago, I was met with many comments like "well, those cars tend to catch fire and the firemen don't know how to put them out!". They really fed off of the anti-EV (and now anti-e-bike) narratives on Fox news, and had a field day with the Chevy Bolt battery recall. Fast forward to this year, and I got my Chevy Bolt EUV. I figured the best thing I can do is keep my mouth shut around them, quietly enjoy my EV and show them that [insert doomsday EV ownership scenario of the week featured on Fox] doesn't occur to the vast vast majority of EV owners {battery catches fire for no reason, entire electric grid fails from over-demand, battery spontaneously discharges while parked and you have no range left, etc. etc.}. :)
I took a 12.8 mile hily ebike ride at lunch today. Was really, really nice b/c of the weather and everything in bloom. Bike odometer rolled past 3710 miles.
I was thinking a little about the people I know best who hoover up the FoxNews "stories" (can't call it news). Each and every one of them seems particularly susceptible to rumors. The ones I know won't read an in depth article from a mainstream information source, they want someone to tell them the story (rumor). Summarize it. Of course FB is a valid source too. Back when so many of us were home staying safe - these same people gobbled up all the vaccine rumors and basically spent alot of time catastrophizing.
Naturally most of what they repeated never came to pass. And it didn't matter. They had gossip to share, rumors to commiserate about, something to preach about (darn liberals!) and once that topic was put to rest, they went on to the next one. Never an apology to anyone - "sorry if I alarmed anyone. Sorry that I was wildly incorrect about those liberals.
I work with a strong conservative leaning coworker. There is a timeline on everything coworker repeats. It'll reach the "news" and a couple of days later coworker will start repeating it to everyone and anyone they talk to for more than a few minutes. Then the topic withers and is replaced with the next one. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Someone ought to document the progression of conservative topics and the outcome. Bullet shortages, Obama is coming for your guns, diesel shortages will bring the country to a halt, bathrooms, trans people, pedophiles, her emails, his laptop, etc, etc. They are afraid of everything...
I had written the KIA Niro off as an SUV without much thought. I recently sat in a friend's though and it's really a small hatchback stylized as an SUV. It manages good rear seat legroom, trunk space, and roof rails, but in a compact package.It's what we here in Europe call a "crossover" or "compact SUV".
If only the full EV version didn't start at 40k!
I had written the KIA Niro off as an SUV without much thought. I recently sat in a friend's though and it's really a small hatchback stylized as an SUV. It manages good rear seat legroom, trunk space, and roof rails, but in a compact package.It's what we here in Europe call a "crossover" or "compact SUV".
If only the full EV version didn't start at 40k!
Still has one of the main problems: The way too small back window. And the front is still higher than needed and likely longer than needed too. Kill 6 children for the price of 3!
Also 30% mehr energy need than a small car. (only a slightly bit more than what is probably the competitor, Hyundai Kona)
It's classified the same here in the US (both the Kona and Niro are "crossover SUV). I'm not sure I understand why you are talking about killing 6 children, can you explain?
The Hyundai Kona nad Kira Niro are built on the same platform, and the two companies are "sister companies", sharing parts, design and manufacturing.
| Model | Weight (lbs) | Height (in) | Length (in) | Width (in) |
| 2015 Civic | 2754 | 56.5 | 179.4 | 69 |
| Chevy Bolt | 3589 | 63.4 | 163.2 | 69.5 |
| Niro EV | 3721 | 61.8 | 174 | 71.8 |
I looked up the dimensions of my current car (2015 civic), the Chevy Bolt (which I'd call a compact EV) vs the Niro. Niro is a bit wider, much longer than the bolt, and slightly less tall. Quite a bit taller than my old civic, but shorter length. Overall I think it's comparable to other small vehicles. "Crossover SUV" is just marketing BS
It's classified the same here in the US (both the Kona and Niro are "crossover SUV). I'm not sure I understand why you are talking about killing 6 children, can you explain?
The Hyundai Kona nad Kira Niro are built on the same platform, and the two companies are "sister companies", sharing parts, design and manufacturing.
Maybe this is what they are talking about with the killing reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
Bigger vehicle, worse spatial awareness for small things in front of the vehicle.
It's classified the same here in the US (both the Kona and Niro are "crossover SUV). I'm not sure I understand why you are talking about killing 6 children, can you explain?
The Hyundai Kona nad Kira Niro are built on the same platform, and the two companies are "sister companies", sharing parts, design and manufacturing.
Maybe this is what they are talking about with the killing reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
Bigger vehicle, worse spatial awareness for small things in front of the vehicle.
Late to the party here but the value proposition of EVs in our area doesn't really do it for me yet.
First of all, not enough range with lower priced EVs....and the "lower priced" ones are still too much, with the exception of the Bolt.
Secondly, our current vehicles are cheap to run/insure ( both low miles 2012s )...they both literally each only have about 50k miles. I do my own maintenance on them and licence tabs are extremely cheap now that they are "old". So not worth it to trade or sell them at this point...
Thirdly, Charging infrastructure in our area is lacking...which is somewhat of a moot point because of home charging. However, a day trip from our small city to the big city would likely deplete the battery of a reasonably priced low range EV...especially during winter. And I don't want to go out of my way to find chargers.
At this point, we won't get an EV until chargers start showing up at our local "Kwik Trip" gas station...lol.
If anything, a 2023+ Prius or Prius Prime will be our next vehicle...but even that is a long ways off.
It's classified the same here in the US (both the Kona and Niro are "crossover SUV). I'm not sure I understand why you are talking about killing 6 children, can you explain?
The Hyundai Kona nad Kira Niro are built on the same platform, and the two companies are "sister companies", sharing parts, design and manufacturing.
Maybe this is what they are talking about with the killing reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
Bigger vehicle, worse spatial awareness for small things in front of the vehicle.
I meant something like this:
https://media.nbcwashington.com/2022/07/frontovers-6.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&resize=1200%2C675
Only the kid with the red shirt (Star Treck fans: ironically) is visible for the driver. And with those extra-hight wheels on a Ford 250 it's 12 kids standing you aren't seeing. Or smaller adults for that matter.
It's classified the same here in the US (both the Kona and Niro are "crossover SUV). I'm not sure I understand why you are talking about killing 6 children, can you explain?
The Hyundai Kona nad Kira Niro are built on the same platform, and the two companies are "sister companies", sharing parts, design and manufacturing.
Maybe this is what they are talking about with the killing reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
Bigger vehicle, worse spatial awareness for small things in front of the vehicle.
I meant something like this:
https://media.nbcwashington.com/2022/07/frontovers-6.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&resize=1200%2C675
Only the kid with the red shirt (Star Treck fans: ironically) is visible for the driver. And with those extra-hight wheels on a Ford 250 it's 12 kids standing you aren't seeing. Or smaller adults for that matter.
Are you seriously saying a Kia Niro with it's sloped nose and more than a foot less total height is the same kid-killer as a Suburban/Yukon? Absurd.
It's classified the same here in the US (both the Kona and Niro are "crossover SUV). I'm not sure I understand why you are talking about killing 6 children, can you explain?
The Hyundai Kona nad Kira Niro are built on the same platform, and the two companies are "sister companies", sharing parts, design and manufacturing.
Maybe this is what they are talking about with the killing reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
Bigger vehicle, worse spatial awareness for small things in front of the vehicle.
I meant something like this:
https://media.nbcwashington.com/2022/07/frontovers-6.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&resize=1200%2C675
Only the kid with the red shirt (Star Treck fans: ironically) is visible for the driver. And with those extra-hight wheels on a Ford 250 it's 12 kids standing you aren't seeing. Or smaller adults for that matter.
It's classified the same here in the US (both the Kona and Niro are "crossover SUV). I'm not sure I understand why you are talking about killing 6 children, can you explain?
The Hyundai Kona nad Kira Niro are built on the same platform, and the two companies are "sister companies", sharing parts, design and manufacturing.
Maybe this is what they are talking about with the killing reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
Bigger vehicle, worse spatial awareness for small things in front of the vehicle.
I meant something like this:
https://media.nbcwashington.com/2022/07/frontovers-6.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&resize=1200%2C675
Only the kid with the red shirt (Star Treck fans: ironically) is visible for the driver. And with those extra-hight wheels on a Ford 250 it's 12 kids standing you aren't seeing. Or smaller adults for that matter.
Are you seriously saying a Kia Niro with it's sloped nose and more than a foot less total height is the same kid-killer as a Suburban/Yukon? Absurd.
Well - Maybe you'd only kill half the kids. It would be odd if safety forces some car companies to offer cars again. Safer and better mileage.
It's classified the same here in the US (both the Kona and Niro are "crossover SUV). I'm not sure I understand why you are talking about killing 6 children, can you explain?
The Hyundai Kona nad Kira Niro are built on the same platform, and the two companies are "sister companies", sharing parts, design and manufacturing.
Maybe this is what they are talking about with the killing reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
Bigger vehicle, worse spatial awareness for small things in front of the vehicle.
I meant something like this:
https://media.nbcwashington.com/2022/07/frontovers-6.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&resize=1200%2C675
Only the kid with the red shirt (Star Treck fans: ironically) is visible for the driver. And with those extra-hight wheels on a Ford 250 it's 12 kids standing you aren't seeing. Or smaller adults for that matter.
Are you seriously saying a Kia Niro with it's sloped nose and more than a foot less total height is the same kid-killer as a Suburban/Yukon? Absurd.
Well - Maybe you'd only kill half the kids. It would be odd if safety forces some car companies to offer cars again. Safer and better mileage.
The Kia Niro is 174" long, 71.9" wide, and 60.8" tall. It weighs between 3,071-3,247lbs.
The Chevy Malibu (a mid-size sedan) is 194.2" long, 73" wide, and 57.3" tall. It weighs between 3,126-3223lbs.
Compared to the Malibu the Niro has more head room front and rear, equal or more legroom front and rear, 45% more cargo space with the rear seats up and with the rear seats down the Niro offers more than 4 times the cargo space of the Malibu. Oh, and the Niro gets 50+ mpg combined while the Malibu gets 30mpg combined.
It's classified the same here in the US (both the Kona and Niro are "crossover SUV). I'm not sure I understand why you are talking about killing 6 children, can you explain?
The Hyundai Kona nad Kira Niro are built on the same platform, and the two companies are "sister companies", sharing parts, design and manufacturing.
Maybe this is what they are talking about with the killing reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
Bigger vehicle, worse spatial awareness for small things in front of the vehicle.
I meant something like this:
https://media.nbcwashington.com/2022/07/frontovers-6.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&resize=1200%2C675
Only the kid with the red shirt (Star Treck fans: ironically) is visible for the driver. And with those extra-hight wheels on a Ford 250 it's 12 kids standing you aren't seeing. Or smaller adults for that matter.
Are you seriously saying a Kia Niro with it's sloped nose and more than a foot less total height is the same kid-killer as a Suburban/Yukon? Absurd.
Well - Maybe you'd only kill half the kids. It would be odd if safety forces some car companies to offer cars again. Safer and better mileage.
Tesla Model Y just became the #1 selling car in the world this past quarter. Not best selling BEV. Best selling car of any type:
https://www.motor1.com/news/669135/tesla-model-y-worlds-best-selling-car-q1-2023/
Tesla Model Y just became the #1 selling car in the world this past quarter. Not best selling BEV. Best selling car of any type:
https://www.motor1.com/news/669135/tesla-model-y-worlds-best-selling-car-q1-2023/
You'd think the traditional American car companies would have the sense to simply copy them rather than to all compete with electric pickup trucks.
This article resonates with me.That might be confirmation bias.
Tesla Model Y just became the #1 selling car in the world this past quarter. Not best selling BEV. Best selling car of any type:
https://www.motor1.com/news/669135/tesla-model-y-worlds-best-selling-car-q1-2023/
You'd think the traditional American car companies would have the sense to simply copy them rather than to all compete with electric pickup trucks.
But I'm not sure what he meant about trucks as I saw a Tesla Truck with a full 40' load roaring down I-5 last week.
Tesla Model Y just became the #1 selling car in the world this past quarter. Not best selling BEV. Best selling car of any type:
https://www.motor1.com/news/669135/tesla-model-y-worlds-best-selling-car-q1-2023/
You'd think the traditional American car companies would have the sense to simply copy them rather than to all compete with electric pickup trucks.
Model Y is the best selling vehicle globally, but not in the US. Trucks still outsell it in the US.
And as mentioned, Ford has been selling the Mach E for a couple of years now. Cadillac is selling the Lyriq crossover, and Chevy has the EV Equinox and Blazer CUVs coming to market this year.
Tesla Model Y just became the #1 selling car in the world this past quarter. Not best selling BEV. Best selling car of any type:It would be an even bigger lead if they combined the Model 3 and Model Y like they do with multiple body styles of Corolla.
https://www.motor1.com/news/669135/tesla-model-y-worlds-best-selling-car-q1-2023/
But I'm not sure what he meant about trucks as I saw a Tesla Truck with a full 40' load roaring down I-5 last week.
Hard work drains batteries very quickly. This is true for a Tesla Model 3 around a racetrack, it's true for heavy equipment like JCB mentioned in the article, and it's true for vehicles that tow long distances. EVs can and do excel at these types of work, but run out of juice faster than their ICE counterparts, and then have to sit idle for recharging.
A Tesla semi (and other EV semis from legacy truck makers) can work very well for (relatively) short distances. Short delivery routes, regional hauls, etc are the ideal duty cycle for these vehicles. But batteries are currently a bad fit for any vehicle that needs to work hard for more than a couple of hours at a time. Or anything that's weight sensitive.
It's similar to the reason that diesel has been the primary fuel for these hard working jobs for the last 100 years, but never gained a significant foothold in other vehicle segments. I think that moving forward we'll see hydrogen generally be the "diesel" equivalent used for heavy duty work, while batteries will be used in lighter duty applications that gasoline has historically serviced.
All Teslas I've seen look like cars. Although, they weren't trucks. I admit I haven't looked into the new American manufacturer's models, but they all sound like SUVs. Would a normal car really not sell? It seems as though a car would be the most practical to get from point A to point B. It seems as though less mass would be hauled. I guess I just miss my Ford Focus a bit. Three and a half years ago I decided to buy a new car only they no longer existed at the Ford dealership. I was told they weren't wanted by people. I kind of thought I was being told what I should want. I don't want an electric SUV.
Tesla Model Y just became the #1 selling car in the world this past quarter. Not best selling BEV. Best selling car of any type:
https://www.motor1.com/news/669135/tesla-model-y-worlds-best-selling-car-q1-2023/
You'd think the traditional American car companies would have the sense to simply copy them rather than to all compete with electric pickup trucks.
Model Y is the best selling vehicle globally, but not in the US. Trucks still outsell it in the US.
And as mentioned, Ford has been selling the Mach E for a couple of years now. Cadillac is selling the Lyriq crossover, and Chevy has the EV Equinox and Blazer CUVs coming to market this year.
All Teslas I've seen look like cars. Although, they weren't trucks. I admit I haven't looked into the new American manufacturer's models, but they all sound like SUVs. Would a normal car really not sell? It seems as though a car would be the most practical to get from point A to point B. It seems as though less mass would be hauled. I guess I just miss my Ford Focus a bit. Three and a half years ago I decided to buy a new car only they no longer existed at the Ford dealership. I was told they weren't wanted by people. I kind of thought I was being told what I should want. I don't want an electric SUV.
The "perfect" car for us would be an electric version of our 1990s CRV. No sci-fi styling. 250 miles range. Heat and air. Our range needs are modest but the battery would essentially never degrade lower than our local needs. I guess I need access to 3rd world countries where they sell essentially the same vehicles for 40 years. ;)
Big and fancy is great on road trips. Not as appealing when I just need to grab a few groceries or do a quick trip to the hardware store. Then fancy is a liability in my opinion.
But I'm not sure what he meant about trucks as I saw a Tesla Truck with a full 40' load roaring down I-5 last week.
Hard work drains batteries very quickly. This is true for a Tesla Model 3 around a racetrack, it's true for heavy equipment like JCB mentioned in the article, and it's true for vehicles that tow long distances. EVs can and do excel at these types of work, but run out of juice faster than their ICE counterparts, and then have to sit idle for recharging.
A Tesla semi (and other EV semis from legacy truck makers) can work very well for (relatively) short distances. Short delivery routes, regional hauls, etc are the ideal duty cycle for these vehicles. But batteries are currently a bad fit for any vehicle that needs to work hard for more than a couple of hours at a time. Or anything that's weight sensitive.
It's similar to the reason that diesel has been the primary fuel for these hard working jobs for the last 100 years, but never gained a significant foothold in other vehicle segments. I think that moving forward we'll see hydrogen generally be the "diesel" equivalent used for heavy duty work, while batteries will be used in lighter duty applications that gasoline has historically serviced.
The semis have a range up to 500 miles and 30 minute recharging. I saw one roaring up the Siskyou Pass passing the oil burners right and left.
That type of recharging requires DCFC (aka 'Level 3' or Supercharger), and AFAIK the 30 minute recharging times are for the much smaller battery packs found in their passenger cars, such as the 100kw in their model S. The longer range Semis have a pack that's 5x bigger (500kw) and while they technically can take 1MW, that network is limited to a few nodes. Even at peak 1MW DC the 80% recharge time is closer to two hours - if it's a cool day.But I'm not sure what he meant about trucks as I saw a Tesla Truck with a full 40' load roaring down I-5 last week.
Hard work drains batteries very quickly. This is true for a Tesla Model 3 around a racetrack, it's true for heavy equipment like JCB mentioned in the article, and it's true for vehicles that tow long distances. EVs can and do excel at these types of work, but run out of juice faster than their ICE counterparts, and then have to sit idle for recharging.
A Tesla semi (and other EV semis from legacy truck makers) can work very well for (relatively) short distances. Short delivery routes, regional hauls, etc are the ideal duty cycle for these vehicles. But batteries are currently a bad fit for any vehicle that needs to work hard for more than a couple of hours at a time. Or anything that's weight sensitive.
It's similar to the reason that diesel has been the primary fuel for these hard working jobs for the last 100 years, but never gained a significant foothold in other vehicle segments. I think that moving forward we'll see hydrogen generally be the "diesel" equivalent used for heavy duty work, while batteries will be used in lighter duty applications that gasoline has historically serviced.
The semis have a range up to 500 miles and 30 minute recharging. I saw one roaring up the Siskyou Pass passing the oil burners right and left.
That type of recharging requires DCFC (aka 'Level 3' or Supercharger), and AFAIK the 30 minute recharging times are for the much smaller battery packs found in their passenger cars, such as the 100kw in their model S. The longer range Semis have a pack that's 5x bigger (500kw) and while they technically can take 1MW, that network is limited to a few nodes. Even at peak 1MW DC the 80% recharge time is closer to two hours - if it's a cool day.But I'm not sure what he meant about trucks as I saw a Tesla Truck with a full 40' load roaring down I-5 last week.
Hard work drains batteries very quickly. This is true for a Tesla Model 3 around a racetrack, it's true for heavy equipment like JCB mentioned in the article, and it's true for vehicles that tow long distances. EVs can and do excel at these types of work, but run out of juice faster than their ICE counterparts, and then have to sit idle for recharging.
A Tesla semi (and other EV semis from legacy truck makers) can work very well for (relatively) short distances. Short delivery routes, regional hauls, etc are the ideal duty cycle for these vehicles. But batteries are currently a bad fit for any vehicle that needs to work hard for more than a couple of hours at a time. Or anything that's weight sensitive.
It's similar to the reason that diesel has been the primary fuel for these hard working jobs for the last 100 years, but never gained a significant foothold in other vehicle segments. I think that moving forward we'll see hydrogen generally be the "diesel" equivalent used for heavy duty work, while batteries will be used in lighter duty applications that gasoline has historically serviced.
The semis have a range up to 500 miles and 30 minute recharging. I saw one roaring up the Siskyou Pass passing the oil burners right and left.
Even Tesla says such frequent 'Megacharging' (their moniker for 'beyond 400kw DCFC') should be avoided as a daily practice due to battery degradation, so there's that as well.
As @Paper Chaser said - their optimal 'use cases' are still local and regional routes with reliable overnight L2 charging. Real use reports have their loaded range over hilly terrain closer to the 400mi mark, plus the weight of that battery eats into their load capacity.
The "perfect" car for us would be an electric version of our 1990s CRV. No sci-fi styling. 250 miles range. Heat and air. Our range needs are modest but the battery would essentially never degrade lower than our local needs. I guess I need access to 3rd world countries where they sell essentially the same vehicles for 40 years. ;)
Big and fancy is great on road trips. Not as appealing when I just need to grab a few groceries or do a quick trip to the hardware store. Then fancy is a liability in my opinion.
Are we the same person? :-) I bought a 2021 Honda CR-V a couple of years ago and I find that it's just about the perfect vehicle for my needs. I was thinking recently that if Honda made an electric version of my specific car, I would sign up for it right away.
But in any case, I expect to keep this car for many years so no EVs in the future for me. When the time comes for me to buy an EV it will not be a Tesla. Musk has made Tesla such a toxic brand, that I will never buy a Tesla as long as he is associated with that company in any way.
Maybe look at the Chinese market then. BYD released a sub 10K dollar car there this year. Range was only 250km not miles though. And of course you won't be able to buy it in USA or Europe. Nobody wants a cheap car with low margin here, the car makers say.
The "perfect" car for us would be an electric version of our 1990s CRV. No sci-fi styling. 250 miles range. Heat and air. Our range needs are modest but the battery would essentially never degrade lower than our local needs. I guess I need access to 3rd world countries where they sell essentially the same vehicles for 40 years. ;)
The "perfect" car for us would be an electric version of our 1990s CRV. No sci-fi styling. 250 miles range. Heat and air. Our range needs are modest but the battery would essentially never degrade lower than our local needs. I guess I need access to 3rd world countries where they sell essentially the same vehicles for 40 years. ;)
Big and fancy is great on road trips. Not as appealing when I just need to grab a few groceries or do a quick trip to the hardware store. Then fancy is a liability in my opinion.
Are we the same person? :-) I bought a 2021 Honda CR-V a couple of years ago and I find that it's just about the perfect vehicle for my needs. I was thinking recently that if Honda made an electric version of my specific car, I would sign up for it right away.
But in any case, I expect to keep this car for many years so no EVs in the future for me. When the time comes for me to buy an EV it will not be a Tesla. Musk has made Tesla such a toxic brand, that I will never buy a Tesla as long as he is associated with that company in any way.
500 miles is an oddball range for that duty cycle in my opinion. It's probably quite a bit more than what is needed for most regional loads. Musk said at the original Semi reveal in 2017 that 80% of semi loads are 250 miles or less, and most of the EV semis from legacy semi companies are closer to that distance than the 500 mile Tesla.
Electric car battery swapping gets a reboot https://www.axios.com/2023/05/18/electric-car-battery-swappingLOL!
Fisker & Circle K Show Us That EV Charging & Battery Swapping Continue To Compete https://cleantechnica.com/2023/05/30/fisker-circle-k-show-us-that-ev-charging-battery-swapping-continue-to-compete/
Maybe look at the Chinese market then. BYD released a sub 10K dollar car there this year. Range was only 250km not miles though. And of course you won't be able to buy it in USA or Europe. Nobody wants a cheap car with low margin here, the car makers say.
(In Germany you can currently buy 2 SUVs and one luxury limousine)
Though the Chinese cars will likely all be full of "entertainment" and other gimmicks,
Maybe look at the Chinese market then. BYD released a sub 10K dollar car there this year. Range was only 250km not miles though. And of course you won't be able to buy it in USA or Europe. Nobody wants a cheap car with low margin here, the car makers say.
(In Germany you can currently buy 2 SUVs and one luxury limousine)
Though the Chinese cars will likely all be full of "entertainment" and other gimmicks,
We saw this the other day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWpIh72mRqw
Being picky but: not my style at all. I love Beetles (and own an antique) but don't need all the glamour that the Ora Ballet Cat carries. What a name... ;)
However it looks like a nice car.
A long way from the stereotypical Chinese car-shaped vehicles I had previously seen on the web: https://youtu.be/sgDpqd38HtQ
The "perfect" car for us would be an electric version of our 1990s CRV. No sci-fi styling. 250 miles range. Heat and air. Our range needs are modest but the battery would essentially never degrade lower than our local needs. I guess I need access to 3rd world countries where they sell essentially the same vehicles for 40 years. ;)
Big and fancy is great on road trips. Not as appealing when I just need to grab a few groceries or do a quick trip to the hardware store. Then fancy is a liability in my opinion.
Are we the same person? :-) I bought a 2021 Honda CR-V a couple of years ago and I find that it's just about the perfect vehicle for my needs. I was thinking recently that if Honda made an electric version of my specific car, I would sign up for it right away.
But in any case, I expect to keep this car for many years so no EVs in the future for me. When the time comes for me to buy an EV it will not be a Tesla. Musk has made Tesla such a toxic brand, that I will never buy a Tesla as long as he is associated with that company in any way.
We ended up getting a Honda CRV hybrid and are enjoying it so far. Apparently they are coming out with a plug-in version this year, too. So CRV fans may want to keep an eye on that (although we won't be needing one for hopefully many years).
Meanwhile, we're trying to replace a 2002 VW European with ... something that we can still camp in, but gets better mileage (and, honestly, is probably a hybrid: there are places we'd want to take a camping vehicle where the nearest charger could be quite a ways away).
Nereo: sorry. Going outside. Stepping away from the keyboard. I feel especially talkative. Going to work on my car and listen to a podcast or something.
This article resonates with me. This is essentially the first go at EV for most manufacturers and the first battery attempt. We have a long way to go. But I'm not sure what he meant about trucks as I saw a Tesla Truck with a full 40' load roaring down I-5 last week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson)
Yup. Frito-Lay is one of the early use cases. They even talk publicly about how the trucks are for regional routes and how much the range drops when they are tucking heavy cases of soda.
This article resonates with me. This is essentially the first go at EV for most manufacturers and the first battery attempt. We have a long way to go. But I'm not sure what he meant about trucks as I saw a Tesla Truck with a full 40' load roaring down I-5 last week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson)
I'm tired of the "emissions of manufacturing batteries" argument against passenger electric vehicles. This article is borderline misinformation at this point. The "70% higher" emissions article (https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-10161697/Volvo-says-electric-car-making-emissions-70-HIGHER-petrol.html) that Rowan cites clearly shows that lifetime emissions from EV's are less than ICE, even with the current global energy mix.
But Rowan instead falsely claims that he's been "duped" by the greenness of electric vehicles, and it's better to stay with ICE for the time being. This reads like a FUD piece put on by the fossil fuel industry.
Lithium mining is unbelievably horrible for the environment and unsustainable. New battery technologies are urgently needed.
This article resonates with me. This is essentially the first go at EV for most manufacturers and the first battery attempt. We have a long way to go. But I'm not sure what he meant about trucks as I saw a Tesla Truck with a full 40' load roaring down I-5 last week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson)
I'm tired of the "emissions of manufacturing batteries" argument against passenger electric vehicles. This article is borderline misinformation at this point. The "70% higher" emissions article (https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-10161697/Volvo-says-electric-car-making-emissions-70-HIGHER-petrol.html) that Rowan cites clearly shows that lifetime emissions from EV's are less than ICE, even with the current global energy mix.
But Rowan instead falsely claims that he's been "duped" by the greenness of electric vehicles, and it's better to stay with ICE for the time being. This reads like a FUD piece put on by the fossil fuel industry.
Lithium mining is unbelievably horrible for the environment and unsustainable. New battery technologies are urgently needed.
Yes, lithium mining damages the environment, alternatives should be researched. I wouldn't call it "unbelievably horrible" when compared with other extractive industries, particularly drilling for oil and gas.
EV's are better than continuing with ICE cars, this argument feels like a distraction from that point.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson)
Lithium mining is unbelievably horrible for the environment and unsustainable. New battery technologies are urgently needed.
Yes, lithium mining damages the environment, alternatives should be researched. I wouldn't call it "unbelievably horrible" when compared with other extractive industries, particularly drilling for oil and gas.
EV's are better than continuing with ICE cars, this argument feels like a distraction from that point.
Lithium is strip mining cubic miles of earth. Total destruction. Oil and gas is a six-inch diameter hole.
snip
The Lavendar Pit at Copper Queen Mine is seen in Bisbee, Arizona on July 24, 2020. Credit: Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images
With decreasing returns, Phelps Dodge closed it in 1985.
Lithium is strip mining cubic miles of earth. Total destruction. Oil and gas is a six-inch diameter hole.If you don't count what's lost or dropped unitl it arrives at the car and of course not things like destroyed oil platform destroying whole ecosystems bigger than most countries. Not to mention leaks of e.g. gas into the athmosphere because it's cheapter than trying to catch it.
Nereo: sorry. Going outside. Stepping away from the keyboard. I feel especially talkative. Going to work on my car and listen to a podcast or something.
Sounds good - I hope my comment didn’t come off as mean spirited because that wasn’t my intent. I was just curious and expected a 1-2 sentence reply instead of the substantially longer response given.
This article resonates with me. This is essentially the first go at EV for most manufacturers and the first battery attempt. We have a long way to go. But I'm not sure what he meant about trucks as I saw a Tesla Truck with a full 40' load roaring down I-5 last week.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson)
I'm tired of the "emissions of manufacturing batteries" argument against passenger electric vehicles. This article is borderline misinformation at this point. The "70% higher" emissions article (https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-10161697/Volvo-says-electric-car-making-emissions-70-HIGHER-petrol.html) that Rowan cites clearly shows that lifetime emissions from EV's are less than ICE, even with the current global energy mix.
But Rowan instead falsely claims that he's been "duped" by the greenness of electric vehicles, and it's better to stay with ICE for the time being. This reads like a FUD piece put on by the fossil fuel industry.
Lithium mining is unbelievably horrible for the environment and unsustainable. New battery technologies are urgently needed.
Lithium is strip mining cubic miles of earth. Total destruction. Oil and gas is a six-inch diameter hole.
In the future, there won't be a driver 'waiting' for recharge so the time delay will be irrelevant. I know a guy who is a driver trainer and his company already has class 8 trucks driving themselves point to point between Dallas, Houston, and Corpus Christi. Austin to be added soon. There is a body in the car but they sit in the middle seat, not behind the wheel as 'observers'.
Lithium mining is unbelievably horrible for the environment and unsustainable. New battery technologies are urgently needed.
Yes, lithium mining damages the environment, alternatives should be researched. I wouldn't call it "unbelievably horrible" when compared with other extractive industries, particularly drilling for oil and gas.
EV's are better than continuing with ICE cars, this argument feels like a distraction from that point.
Lithium is strip mining cubic miles of earth. Total destruction. Oil and gas is a six-inch diameter hole.
snip
Is that really a picture of lithium mining? It appears to be a picture of a copper mine that was closed in 1985.
Lithium is strip mining cubic miles of earth. Total destruction. Oil and gas is a six-inch diameter hole.
This seems like trolling.
Resource extraction in general can be terrible across all fields when done poorly. But even those who've worked in oil and gas would say their footprint per rig is a hell of a lot larger than a 6" hole.
...and of course we can't ignore that many of the worst ecological disasters in the last half century have been tied to fossil fuel drilling and transport (see Deep Water Horizon, Valdez, Ixtoc)
...and how the land surrounding the rigs are not suitable for agriculture or anything else due to chemical contamination
...and ignoring blood and treasure and spent on controlling oil-rich regions, plus the oppressive regimes fueled almost entirely by oil and gas
...and ignoring the pipelines, refineries and rail & ship infrastructure
I mean.. if you're going to show a photo of a copper mine and bemoan its impact, at least show one of an oil field that by global standards is well regulated. Clearly the footprint here is more than a few hundred 6" holes spread over several square dozen square miles. It's the entire oilfield. And that's just the extraction.
(https://fossilfuel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/midland-texas-oil-gas-permian-aerial_credit-ecoflight_creative-commons.jpg)
Lithium mining is unbelievably horrible for the environment and unsustainable. New battery technologies are urgently needed.
This seems like trolling.Those are just simple gravel pads each with a 6" well. No digging or destruction.
This seems like trolling.Those are just simple gravel pads each with a 6" well. No digging or destruction.
This is definitely trolling.
Iron mine, copper mine, aluminum mine, gold mine, coal mine...
Granite quarry, limestone quarry, aggregate quarry, marble quarry...
Fracking, off shore oil...
Weird how getting rock, minerals and elements out the ground always makes a big hole or cuts into a hill. Or results in contamination or water issues. But luckily, all these things are not terrible and sustainable. The extraction, refining, transportation and emissions of fossil fuels is ok. But lithium? That's one element too far! Stop those mines! Nevermind that EV battery packs can be used for 2nd life purposes and then recycled for closed loop critical mineral use. Status quo! Status quo!
Lithium is strip mining cubic miles of earth. Total destruction. Oil and gas is a six-inch diameter hole.
This seems like trolling.
Resource extraction in general can be terrible across all fields when done poorly. But even those who've worked in oil and gas would say their footprint per rig is a hell of a lot larger than a 6" hole.
...and of course we can't ignore that many of the worst ecological disasters in the last half century have been tied to fossil fuel drilling and transport (see Deep Water Horizon, Valdez, Ixtoc)
...and how the land surrounding the rigs are not suitable for agriculture or anything else due to chemical contamination
...and ignoring blood and treasure and spent on controlling oil-rich regions, plus the oppressive regimes fueled almost entirely by oil and gas
...and ignoring the pipelines, refineries and rail & ship infrastructure
I mean.. if you're going to show a photo of a copper mine and bemoan its impact, at least show one of an oil field that by global standards is well regulated. Clearly the footprint here is more than a few hundred 6" holes spread over several square dozen square miles. It's the entire oilfield. And that's just the extraction.
Those are just simple gravel pads each with a 6" well. No digging or destruction.
To change the topic a little. You may have seen the yesterday's announcement of GM switching to the NACS connector. As I have mentioned before, we have two relatively new cars in our household which is why we are not in the market for an EV in the near future. However, it appears that there are going to be all kinds of messes with public charging infrastructure in the next few years so I am glad that I can wait out this mess,
To change the topic a little. You may have seen the yesterday's announcement of GM switching to the NACS connector. As I have mentioned before, we have two relatively new cars in our household which is why we are not in the market for an EV in the near future. However, it appears that there are going to be all kinds of messes with public charging infrastructure in the next few years so I am glad that I can wait out this mess,
Quite the opposite of mess, IMO. Ford and GM standardizing on NACS is a huge step towards an established standard and eventual elimination of the CCS/CHAdeMO/NACS/J1772 mixture that exists today.
To change the topic a little. You may have seen the yesterday's announcement of GM switching to the NACS connector. As I have mentioned before, we have two relatively new cars in our household which is why we are not in the market for an EV in the near future. However, it appears that there are going to be all kinds of messes with public charging infrastructure in the next few years so I am glad that I can wait out this mess,
Quite the opposite of mess, IMO. Ford and GM standardizing on NACS is a huge step towards an established standard and eventual elimination of the CCS/CHAdeMO/NACS/J1772 mixture that exists today.
How technically difficult would it be to replace existing connectors on an EV with the NACS? I'm not an electrical engineer, but it seems like a manufacturer could create a new charge-port assembly that could be swapped out with the existing one on the car. It would of course have to regulate the current based on what the existing battery pack can take, but it's my understanding the car does that already (not the street-level charger).
Of course they'd probably charge $999 for the part and claim it took 4 hours of labor to install, but .... could it be done?
To change the topic a little. You may have seen the yesterday's announcement of GM switching to the NACS connector. As I have mentioned before, we have two relatively new cars in our household which is why we are not in the market for an EV in the near future. However, it appears that there are going to be all kinds of messes with public charging infrastructure in the next few years so I am glad that I can wait out this mess,
Quite the opposite of mess, IMO. Ford and GM standardizing on NACS is a huge step towards an established standard and eventual elimination of the CCS/CHAdeMO/NACS/J1772 mixture that exists today.
How technically difficult would it be to replace existing connectors on an EV with the NACS? I'm not an electrical engineer, but it seems like a manufacturer could create a new charge-port assembly that could be swapped out with the existing one on the car. It would of course have to regulate the current based on what the existing battery pack can take, but it's my understanding the car does that already (not the street-level charger).
Of course they'd probably charge $999 for the part and claim it took 4 hours of labor to install, but .... could it be done?
Speaking of electric, relatively inexpensive, and small cars...
https://electrek.co/2023/06/09/ultium-chevy-bolt/
I mean there are two reasons we don't own a bolt. One was the bolt we sat in was uncomfortable (the center arm rest was in a bad spot and we couldn't get it out of the way, I think it was a 2017) and 50kW charging is just too slow to consider in 2021 when we were looking.
Other than that, it was fantastic. Small and agile, decent visibility, reasonable range (~240, but more after the battery recall I guess).
https://electrek.co/2023/06/09/ultium-chevy-bolt/
https://electrek.co/2023/06/09/ultium-chevy-bolt/
I'd be excited (and probably buy one) if they come out with an upgraded and possibly cheaper bolt. But I'm afraid I'll be disappointed. Hopefully Chevy got the signal from the current bolt selling well.
Mary Barra said they won't make any profits on $30-$40k EVs until late in the decade or the in the early 2030s. The Bolt was a great value, but at volumes of less than 50,000 a year, it was a cash burning product. Because the Equinox EV starts at $30k, doesn't seem like it was possible to lose money on multiple EV models.
They need some kind of additional product or service people will pay for in addition to the car (like an Ultra Cruise) ready for subscription to make an Ultium Bolt product worth it.
Yes I agree with the last poster. I'm not interested in an SUV or pickup as I become and empty nester. I just want a basic car. Whoever makes a decent regular car as an EV will likely be the one who gets my business.https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/ioniq-6
Yes I agree with the last poster. I'm not interested in an SUV or pickup as I become and empty nester. I just want a basic car. Whoever makes a decent regular car as an EV will likely be the one who gets my business.https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/ioniq-6
Yes I agree with the last poster. I'm not interested in an SUV or pickup as I become and empty nester. I just want a basic car. Whoever makes a decent regular car as an EV will likely be the one who gets my business.https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/ioniq-6
Yes I agree with the last poster. I'm not interested in an SUV or pickup as I become and empty nester. I just want a basic car. Whoever makes a decent regular car as an EV will likely be the one who gets my business.https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/ioniq-6
Oof! $41K for the basic version. A lowish mileage decade+ old used vehicle seems really appealing compared to $41K.
We have several 20+ year old vehicles at our house that do fine for a minimum of cost or fuss. I want to continue doing this until we can't...
Yes I agree with the last poster. I'm not interested in an SUV or pickup as I become and empty nester. I just want a basic car. Whoever makes a decent regular car as an EV will likely be the one who gets my business.https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/ioniq-6
Oof! $41K for the basic version. A lowish mileage decade+ old used vehicle seems really appealing compared to $41K.
We have several 20+ year old vehicles at our house that do fine for a minimum of cost or fuss. I want to continue doing this until we can't...
Yeah...how people can "justify" the prices of many of these EVs ( or any vehicle for that matter ) boggles my mind. The number of people living beyond their means, but are driving nice expensive new vehicles that are owned by the bank is astonishing.
Yes I agree with the last poster. I'm not interested in an SUV or pickup as I become and empty nester. I just want a basic car. Whoever makes a decent regular car as an EV will likely be the one who gets my business.https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/ioniq-6
Oof! $41K for the basic version. A lowish mileage decade+ old used vehicle seems really appealing compared to $41K.
We have several 20+ year old vehicles at our house that do fine for a minimum of cost or fuss. I want to continue doing this until we can't...
Yeah...how people can "justify" the prices of many of these EVs ( or any vehicle for that matter ) boggles my mind. The number of people living beyond their means, but are driving nice expensive new vehicles that are owned by the bank is astonishing.
Yeah...how people can "justify" the prices of many of these EVs ( or any vehicle for that matter ) boggles my mind. The number of people living beyond their means, but are driving nice expensive new vehicles that are owned by the bank is astonishing.
Some of us are willing to take one for the team so you can buy a cheap used car 15 years later.
Mary Barra said they won't make any profits on $30-$40k EVs until late in the decade or the in the early 2030s. The Bolt was a great value, but at volumes of less than 50,000 a year, it was a cash burning product. Because the Equinox EV starts at $30k, doesn't seem like it was possible to lose money on multiple EV models.
They need some kind of additional product or service people will pay for in addition to the car (like an Ultra Cruise) ready for subscription to make an Ultium Bolt product worth it.
Apparently, the idea of obtaining sufficient revenue for their wants by producing and selling cars in great volume is no longer their plan. I do not think people are that spoiled where a basic electric car such as the Ford Model T or the Volkswagen Beetle would not be accepted. Most trips are not long trips. Most trips do not need the space of a pickup truck or the added utility of 4 wheel drive. Perhaps the future cars are being made for the stockholders rather than the customers.
It's all new vehicles, not just EVs. But some day that brand new Ioniq 6 will be a nice decade+ old used vehicle and you can buy it then. But only if there are people who buy it new today. You can already find decade-old Teslas for $20k-25k and those were $80k ($105k after inflation) cars when new. The cheaper Model 3 is six years old now and going for $25k-30k used. Should be very attractively priced used when they hit the decade mark.
But given the prevalence of software in EVs, it's not clear whether manufacturers will provide software updates for a 15 year old car.
Reports, surveyed almost 50,000 drivers, and found that 31% of electric vehicles had at least one issue, compared to just 20% of gasoline-powered vehicles. More interestingly, the best-performing vehicles in the survey were actually conventional hybrid vehicles, of which only 17% had issues. Plug-in hybrids fell in between the two, with 28% of vehicles developing issues between purchase and four years of age.
The organization also found that Tesla, which is often lauded for its sophisticated technology, was not a paragon of reliability, ranking dead-last among brands. However, the simpler and popular Kia E-Niro, an inexpensive competitor to the Nissan Leaf, scored tops – and was found to be almost entirely fault-free for its owners.
It's all new vehicles, not just EVs. But some day that brand new Ioniq 6 will be a nice decade+ old used vehicle and you can buy it then. But only if there are people who buy it new today. You can already find decade-old Teslas for $20k-25k and those were $80k ($105k after inflation) cars when new. The cheaper Model 3 is six years old now and going for $25k-30k used. Should be very attractively priced used when they hit the decade mark.
It's not yet clear (to me at least) whether and how well EVs will retain their utility as they age. Battery degradation is of course a known issue. But given the prevalence of software in EVs, it's not clear whether manufacturers will provide software updates for a 15 year old car.
Introspecting a little, I am normally an enthusiastic early adopter when it comes to technology. For example, I plan to get an Apple VisionPro when it comes out next year. But I feel absolutely no enthusiasm for any of the EVs currently available.
And the old-but-not-oldest Leafs are still working just fine for what they're good even with the battery degradation. 2014 is at 9 bars and ~70 miles when fully charged - perfectly adequate for our running errands car.It's all new vehicles, not just EVs. But some day that brand new Ioniq 6 will be a nice decade+ old used vehicle and you can buy it then. But only if there are people who buy it new today. You can already find decade-old Teslas for $20k-25k and those were $80k ($105k after inflation) cars when new. The cheaper Model 3 is six years old now and going for $25k-30k used. Should be very attractively priced used when they hit the decade mark.
It's not yet clear (to me at least) whether and how well EVs will retain their utility as they age. Battery degradation is of course a known issue. But given the prevalence of software in EVs, it's not clear whether manufacturers will provide software updates for a 15 year old car.
Introspecting a little, I am normally an enthusiastic early adopter when it comes to technology. For example, I plan to get an Apple VisionPro when it comes out next year. But I feel absolutely no enthusiasm for any of the EVs currently available.
Battery degradation is a known non-issue. With the notable exception of the passively-cooled Nissan LEAF. But because the LEAF was one of the first mass-produced EVs it's pretty well known.
Software is prevalent in all new cars. But regardless, Tesla has continued to provide updates for a decade now, so there is some precedent for extended support. Though I would avoid Tesla for other reasons.
I agree the current EVs on the market are generally pretty bland. I'm looking forward to see some more enthusiast options in the next 3-5 years. Like the Porsche Boxster/Cayman. Or even the return of the Fiat 500e (with Cabrio option)!
Battery degradation is of course a known issue.Is it really though? We’ve got a decade + of “modern” EVs to draw from, many millions of which have been driven past the 150,000 mile mark. What we’ve learned is that
But given the prevalence of software in EVs, it's not clear whether manufacturers will provide software updates for a 15 year old car.
.
Yeah...how people can "justify" the prices of many of these EVs ( or any vehicle for that matter ) boggles my mind. The number of people living beyond their means, but are driving nice expensive new vehicles that are owned by the bank is astonishing.
Some of us are willing to take one for the team so you can buy a cheap used car 15 years later.
Thanks for being so altruistic!
Yeah...how people can "justify" the prices of many of these EVs ( or any vehicle for that matter ) boggles my mind. The number of people living beyond their means, but are driving nice expensive new vehicles that are owned by the bank is astonishing.
Some of us are willing to take one for the team so you can buy a cheap used car 15 years later.
Thanks for being so altruistic!
Ok..take one for the team! I'll be watching the used market closely...haha.
Their staff at DCA said I have to return with full charge.This is asinine. It takes forever to reach 100% even on DCFC and it's not good for the battery. If every rental customer is being ask to do that.. Geez. Do you know what they would have charged you if you didn't bring it back fully charged?
I have wanted to rent a Tesla from Hertz a few times but I could not find a clear answer about how full to return it. This would see a basic question that should have come up in focus group testing before hiring That Famous Sports Baller and buying 1000's of cars; but ended up over hearing that you need to return it with more than 70% charge, that sounds fair. I dont really see how people would book them to be rented with out knowing how full to return it...
I have wanted to rent a Tesla from Hertz a few times but I could not find a clear answer about how full to return it. This would see a basic question that should have come up in focus group testing before hiring That Famous Sports Baller and buying 1000's of cars; but ended up over hearing that you need to return it with more than 70% charge, that sounds fair. I dont really see how people would book them to be rented with out knowing how full to return it...
75% or whatever it had when you picked it up. Seems ok. https://www.hertz.com/us/en/blog/electric-vehicles/do-i-need-to-return-an-ev-rental-car-with-a-full-charge (https://www.hertz.com/us/en/blog/electric-vehicles/do-i-need-to-return-an-ev-rental-car-with-a-full-charge)
Their staff at DCA said I have to return with full charge.This is asinine. It takes forever to reach 100% even on DCFC and it's not good for the battery. If every rental customer is being ask to do that.. Geez. Do you know what they would have charged you if you didn't bring it back fully charged?
I suspect this was either some sort of miscommunication or rules holdover from ICE. Those sorts of differences should get sorted out in due time as EV rentals become commonplace.
A. EV CHARGE LEVEL AT PICK-UP AND RETURN : Hertz will endeavor to provide the EV at time of vehicle pick-up with a battery charge of 80%. You are required to return the EV with a minimum charge of 10%. You are responsible to maintain a sufficient charge on the EV during your rental. You will be responsible for the cost of any tow if the EV is not drivable due to a low battery. You are not authorized to call a private tow on Hertz behalf. All tows of the EV must be by flatbed and must be arranged through Hertz Emergency Roadside Assistance. If the EV is overdue for return Hertz may remotely disable and recover the EV.and then,
D. CHARGE PURCHASE OPTION (CPO)/EV BATTERY RECHARGE FEE/UNDERCHARGE BATTERY FEE : With the purchase of the optional Charge Purchase Option (CPO) for a fee of $35.00 at the time of rental, You can return the EV at any charge level above 10%. If You return the EV at the same charge level as at the time of rent, the CPO charge will be removed. If You do not elect to purchase the optional CPO and You return the EV with a charge level less than 70% You will be assessed an EV Battery Recharge fee of $35.00 unless the charge level at time of rental was less than 75%. If the EV is rented at with a charge level of less than 75% no EV Battery Recharge fee will apply at return. If You return the EV with a charge level less than 10% an Undercharge Battery fee of $25.00 will apply in addition to any applicable EV Battery Recharge fee.
I have wanted to rent a Tesla from Hertz a few times but I could not find a clear answer about how full to return it. This would see a basic question that should have come up in focus group testing before hiring That Famous Sports Baller and buying 1000's of cars; but ended up over hearing that you need to return it with more than 70% charge, that sounds fair. I dont really see how people would book them to be rented with out knowing how full to return it...
75% or whatever it had when you picked it up. Seems ok. https://www.hertz.com/us/en/blog/electric-vehicles/do-i-need-to-return-an-ev-rental-car-with-a-full-charge (https://www.hertz.com/us/en/blog/electric-vehicles/do-i-need-to-return-an-ev-rental-car-with-a-full-charge)
75% sounds like a reasonable upper threshold. Usually you want to charge to 80% max (DCFC gets very slow after that point) which would give you a 5% buffer to get it back to the rental company (probably 10-20 miles).
Yeah...how people can "justify" the prices of many of these EVs ( or any vehicle for that matter ) boggles my mind. The number of people living beyond their means, but are driving nice expensive new vehicles that are owned by the bank is astonishing.
Some of us are willing to take one for the team so you can buy a cheap used car 15 years later.
Thanks for being so altruistic!
Ok..take one for the team! I'll be watching the used market closely...haha.
The used market has been super weird lately, and I suspect the state and federal rebates and credits have furthered this distortion. I’ve watched three year old “off-lease” cars go for as much as the new BEV equivalents this year. Even cars >150k mikes - normally sold off for parts - are fetching way more than usual and with lots of interest. Recently sold a 2012 Suzuki and had multiple cash offers for a couple thousand more than what was being offered a couple years earlier when it was newer with less miles.
Sounds like most of your criticisms lay with Thrifty and their lack of communication and software @jinga nation - not with the car itself. Thanks for the rundown, I’ve wondered about how renting EVs in new places might go.
A convenient, reliable and affordable EV charging network that offers fast charging to everyone. Access through the MyChevrolet Mobile App† with Energy Assist lets you find charging on the go at more than 110,000 publicly available charging points in the U.S. and Canada and even the ability to identify compliant stations.Who the heck is going to whip out their smartphone/fondleslab to find a charging station when suddenly alerted that battery is low? Build that capability in. Huge mistake not to.
Sounds like most of your criticisms lay with Thrifty and their lack of communication and software @jinga nation - not with the car itself. Thanks for the rundown, I’ve wondered about how renting EVs in new places might go.
Yeah, I took this opportunity to learn EV renting from the middle-class business traveler's perspective.
I expected Chevy to have a charging station map in their screen interface, but disappointed not to see one.
Chevy's website for the upcoming Equinox EV states:QuoteA convenient, reliable and affordable EV charging network that offers fast charging to everyone. Access through the MyChevrolet Mobile App† with Energy Assist lets you find charging on the go at more than 110,000 publicly available charging points in the U.S. and Canada and even the ability to identify compliant stations.Who the heck is going to whip out their smartphone/fondleslab to find a charging station when suddenly alerted that battery is low? Build that capability in. Huge mistake not to.
The Honda Prologue and Acura ZDK EVs are built on the GM Zenith platform, and are coming out for the 2024 year. I hope Honda puts in charging station points of service in their UI.
ABRP does know station availability -- but you have to be premium (https://abetterrouteplanner.com/premium/). At least, you have to be premium for now. With Apple integrating charger availability in iOS 17 maps for free, the paid options are going to have to respond.
Which is probably part of the motivation behind (GM planning on?) dropping carplay. Gotta remove that competition so you can subscription up.
Well, it might be something they heard 5 years ago? I know that it was total chaos here in Germany, you could not use every station for every car, not to mention Tesla, and you had to carry around half a dozen cards, some of them only pre-load and prices might be atrocious.
And it's probably still the same, don't know, the only car charger here in the whole area is the one on the backyard parking lot of the town hall (for their 2 e-cars), no one who not lives here will ever find.
Well, I don't want to doxx myself, so I looked around for about 8 seconds to find a very similar situation:Well, it might be something they heard 5 years ago? I know that it was total chaos here in Germany, you could not use every station for every car, not to mention Tesla, and you had to carry around half a dozen cards, some of them only pre-load and prices might be atrocious.
And it's probably still the same, don't know, the only car charger here in the whole area is the one on the backyard parking lot of the town hall (for their 2 e-cars), no one who not lives here will ever find.
Where in Germany do you live? Chargers seemed to be absolutely everywhere when we were over there six months ago. From what I've read a large percentage of new car sales in Germany are plug-ins of some sort, is that not correct?
Back to the OT...
Lately I've been traveling around New England, which means more stopping at DCFC stations (typically I only recharge at home and work). Inevitably I'm approached by the "EV Curious"
What's surprised me are basic knowledge gaps. One is surrounding the brands of chargers (e.g. Chargepoint, Electrify America, EVgo) and the ability for cars to use them. Twice in the past week I've had people ask where Electrify America stations were in the area, and only after talking to them did I realize they thought that I could *only* charge at their DCFCs. One guy said; "oh, well there's not an Electrify America near where I live, so it can't work for me". When I told him there were three different ChargePoint stations he didn't seem to get that he could use both, and then seemed to feel like it was a great hardship to use multiple networks.
The analogy I've landed on is (regrettably) petrol stations. Doesn't matter if you have an Irving or Shell or Sheetz - they'll all take your business, and charge you roughly the same amount.
Anyway... it's amazing how many misperceptions about EVs persist even today.
What I heard you say is they think a lot about energy there, but are pretty damn stupid about it and should share significant blame with the fossil fuel industry. (along with the rest of the anti-nuke "environmentalists" -- emphasis on the quotation marks.)I'd be all over supporting more nuclear reactors if reality wasn't so dismal in the West. The industry is simply incapable of building reactors remotely close to on time or on budget - I wouldn't bitch if it were 25% over, but we're talking 100%, 200% or more for any reactor build started in the last 30+ years. USA, France, UK, Finland... All dismal.
Sorry, but as a kid in the '90s I'd already figured out we need to truly master the atom if we want to ever go to the stars and we'd already started getting hints about global warming and climate change. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you can solve two problems there...
What's surprised me are basic knowledge gaps.
What I heard you say is they think a lot about energy there, but are pretty damn stupid about it and should share significant blame with the fossil fuel industry. (along with the rest of the anti-nuke "environmentalists" -- emphasis on the quotation marks.)I'd be all over supporting more nuclear reactors if reality wasn't so dismal in the West. The industry is simply incapable of building reactors remotely close to on time or on budget - I wouldn't bitch if it were 25% over, but we're talking 100%, 200% or more for any reactor build started in the last 30+ years. USA, France, UK, Finland... All dismal.
Sorry, but as a kid in the '90s I'd already figured out we need to truly master the atom if we want to ever go to the stars and we'd already started getting hints about global warming and climate change. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you can solve two problems there...
The "best" attempt is Olkiluoto-3, which was still fixing construction defects last month, but is actually producing power most of the time. Construction started in 2005. It was supposed to start "commercial operation" in 2010. It finally hit that milestone last month (May 2023).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Faulty-seals-replaced-in-Olkiluoto-EPR
Fully half of the AP1000 reactor builds in the USA were abandoned after wasting billions of dollars - each.
Trades onsite for all the US builds reported absolutely terrible project management and treatment. They would spend >90% of their time onsite sitting around waiting in the elements or in their trucks because the prime couldn't manage a schedule. The projects would have many critical path steps reliant on the only supplier in the world who could meet the requirements for that step. Etc.
I have hopes for the new small modular nuclear reactor companies like NuScale. https://www.nuscalepower.com/en
In the meantime, I'd personally appreciate a focus on geothermal. It's had a bit of a recent renaissance with an increase in new projects. A modern geothermal system is just as reliable as nuclear at a much lower cost, much shorter build time, and it's already scaled to be modular. Sure, there are geographic limitations - but there are for any power source. Enhanced/deep geothermal would significantly broaden where geothermal power production can be installed. Some geothermal can also be used to inexpensively extract needed minerals, like lithium.
https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/ctr-achieves-efficient-lithium-extraction-from-salton-sea-geothermal-brine/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
Other than that? Improve transmission/interconnects. Build more solar. Build more onshore wind. Build more offshore wind (Especially off the West Coast). Build more batteries. Build run-of-river hydro. Hope for the small modular nuclear guys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-of-the-river_hydroelectricity
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/seams.html
ABRP does know station availability -- but you have to be premium (https://abetterrouteplanner.com/premium/). At least, you have to be premium for now. With Apple integrating charger availability in iOS 17 maps for free, the paid options are going to have to respond.
Which is probably part of the motivation behind (GM planning on?) dropping carplay. Gotta remove that competition so you can subscription up.
Ahh good to know! I don't have Premium.
Somehow I missed charger availability being in Apple Maps soon -- that's amazing, but unfortunately everything I have with Carplay is ICE :(
I am very high on the new "modular" reactors. Has prompted me to put a smidge ($750 cost basis) into SMR. (It's down.) Pharaohonic scale projects like the modern light water reactor don't make any economic sense from a risk management perspective. The mini reactors and especially liquid thorium flouride seem very promising.What I heard you say is they think a lot about energy there, but are pretty damn stupid about it and should share significant blame with the fossil fuel industry. (along with the rest of the anti-nuke "environmentalists" -- emphasis on the quotation marks.)I'd be all over supporting more nuclear reactors if reality wasn't so dismal in the West. The industry is simply incapable of building reactors remotely close to on time or on budget - I wouldn't bitch if it were 25% over, but we're talking 100%, 200% or more for any reactor build started in the last 30+ years. USA, France, UK, Finland... All dismal.
Sorry, but as a kid in the '90s I'd already figured out we need to truly master the atom if we want to ever go to the stars and we'd already started getting hints about global warming and climate change. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you can solve two problems there...
The "best" attempt is Olkiluoto-3, which was still fixing construction defects last month, but is actually producing power most of the time. Construction started in 2005. It was supposed to start "commercial operation" in 2010. It finally hit that milestone last month (May 2023).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Faulty-seals-replaced-in-Olkiluoto-EPR
Fully half of the AP1000 reactor builds in the USA were abandoned after wasting billions of dollars - each.
Trades onsite for all the US builds reported absolutely terrible project management and treatment. They would spend >90% of their time onsite sitting around waiting in the elements or in their trucks because the prime couldn't manage a schedule. The projects would have many critical path steps reliant on the only supplier in the world who could meet the requirements for that step. Etc.
I have hopes for the new small modular nuclear reactor companies like NuScale. https://www.nuscalepower.com/en
In the meantime, I'd personally appreciate a focus on geothermal. It's had a bit of a recent renaissance with an increase in new projects. A modern geothermal system is just as reliable as nuclear at a much lower cost, much shorter build time, and it's already scaled to be modular. Sure, there are geographic limitations - but there are for any power source. Enhanced/deep geothermal would significantly broaden where geothermal power production can be installed. Some geothermal can also be used to inexpensively extract needed minerals, like lithium.
https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/ctr-achieves-efficient-lithium-extraction-from-salton-sea-geothermal-brine/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
Other than that? Improve transmission/interconnects. Build more solar. Build more onshore wind. Build more offshore wind (Especially off the West Coast). Build more batteries. Build run-of-river hydro. Hope for the small modular nuclear guys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-of-the-river_hydroelectricity
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/seams.html
This one seems to have gone pretty well. It is ongoing, but well on it's way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant)
Yeah...how people can "justify" the prices of many of these EVs ( or any vehicle for that matter ) boggles my mind. The number of people living beyond their means, but are driving nice expensive new vehicles that are owned by the bank is astonishing.
Some of us are willing to take one for the team so you can buy a cheap used car 15 years later.
Thanks for being so altruistic!
Ok..take one for the team! I'll be watching the used market closely...haha.
The used market has been super weird lately, and I suspect the state and federal rebates and credits have furthered this distortion. I’ve watched three year old “off-lease” cars go for as much as the new BEV equivalents this year. Even cars >150k mikes - normally sold off for parts - are fetching way more than usual and with lots of interest. Recently sold a 2012 Suzuki and had multiple cash offers for a couple thousand more than what was being offered a couple years earlier when it was newer with less miles.
Yuup. The huge caveat here is there was a period where someone with an extensive preorder list had options where most didn't, and buying new was a much better decision than it has historically been. I bought a new Model 3 LR in March 2020, sold it in November 2022 with 29k miles for $2k more than I paid for it. Lightning Lariat ER in Oct 2022, sold in Feb 2023 for ~$3k more than I paid. Currently driving the Rivian R1T I bought in Jan 2023 (at old pricing with tax credit), which came out to $19,500 less than current pricing.
Admittedly, my position is unique -- not only did I happen to have all the relevant preorders in place, NJ has no sales tax on EVs so transaction costs are minimal. My gravy train is over now, with the changes to the tax credit / income cap requirement I can't keep rolling them forever, but it was nice while it lasted!
This one seems to have gone pretty well. It is ongoing, but well on it's way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant)
Yes, the Koreans can build nuclear power plants "less late" and "less budget overruns" (2021 actual vs 2017 promised for Commercial Operation in this case and billions of dollars in increased costs ) - but there are significant safety/shortcuts concerns, as with many Korean builds. This is why I specified "Western" in my earlier description.
https://academic.oup.com/jwelb/article/13/1/47/5837954
Yes I agree with the last poster. I'm not interested in an SUV or pickup as I become and empty nester. I just want a basic car. Whoever makes a decent regular car as an EV will likely be the one who gets my business.https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/ioniq-6
Yes I agree with the last poster. I'm not interested in an SUV or pickup as I become and empty nester. I just want a basic car. Whoever makes a decent regular car as an EV will likely be the one who gets my business.https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/ioniq-6
I love my Consumer Reports. And I love my Hyundai Sonata, so when this vehicle came out I was excited. CR is not a fan, many other so makes it a no go for me until that changes. Perhaps over time they'll iron out the issues.
@JLee, that's an awesome play! I really like that you benefited from having the preorders.
Also, you got to drive several very cool vehicles. Did you originally anticipate buying all of them, or was your intent to pick the best one as they became available?
Re populartity of EVs growing (or not), one wrinkle that's apparently happening now is chaotic variance in the price and experience of renting EVs. Linked article below recounts the unpleasant experience of a fossil fuel driver who rented a car, and was given an EV by surprise.
The driver had no idea where to charge the vehicle during his/her travels and the rental place offered only a map with three local chargers that were irrelevant to the driver's journey. Driver had to self-educate about charging methods, locations, maps, timeframes, and therefore planning. Vehicle usually could use only slow chargers, draining hours of time from the traveler's experience. Lacking the insights from this thread, driver understandably concluded that rental agencies need to greatly improve the rental EV experience, improving support for drivers and reducing the "surprise" aspect.
Interesting tidbits:
1. If you want to rent an EV, it's probably cheapest through Hertz. Hertz bought the biggest EV fleet, and a result has begun pricing EVs as some of their cheapest models, where at Enterprise and Avis they're priced as luxury models.
2. At Hertz, if you rent a gas car and don't get the one you asked for, there's a good chance the replacement car will be an EV.
3. There's an online how-to-use-an-EV guide from Hertz, but driver wasn't told. To improve access, supposedly Hertz's key fobs now come with a QR code on them linking to the EV guide.
4. When actually on the road, driver liked their Bolt's "acceleration and torque more reminiscent of a Porsche".
I have no special love for Hertz, just intrigued by the article. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/06/electric-vehicle-rental-cars-hertz-chargers/674429/
@JLee regarding the AC outlets on trucks, Ford designed the lightning as a "trucky" truck, whereas Rivian's taken the route of the R1T designed for consumer use.
Re populartity of EVs growing (or not), one wrinkle that's apparently happening now is chaotic variance in the price and experience of renting EVs. Linked article below recounts the unpleasant experience of a fossil fuel driver who rented a car, and was given an EV by surprise.
The driver had no idea where to charge the vehicle during his/her travels and the rental place offered only a map with three local chargers that were irrelevant to the driver's journey. Driver had to self-educate about charging methods, locations, maps, timeframes, and therefore planning. Vehicle usually could use only slow chargers, draining hours of time from the traveler's experience. Lacking the insights from this thread, driver understandably concluded that rental agencies need to greatly improve the rental EV experience, improving support for drivers and reducing the "surprise" aspect.
Interesting tidbits:
1. If you want to rent an EV, it's probably cheapest through Hertz. Hertz bought the biggest EV fleet, and a result has begun pricing EVs as some of their cheapest models, where at Enterprise and Avis they're priced as luxury models.
2. At Hertz, if you rent a gas car and don't get the one you asked for, there's a good chance the replacement car will be an EV.
3. There's an online how-to-use-an-EV guide from Hertz, but driver wasn't told. To improve access, supposedly Hertz's key fobs now come with a QR code on them linking to the EV guide.
4. When actually on the road, driver liked their Bolt's "acceleration and torque more reminiscent of a Porsche".
I have no special love for Hertz, just intrigued by the article. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/06/electric-vehicle-rental-cars-hertz-chargers/674429/
...
I read the article too with considerable. For a variety of reasons, this has been the summer of car rentals for me and I have been very careful to avoid any "mystery cars" to make sure that I don't get an EV.
I completely agree with the author: no matter what the merits are for EVs as your own car, they are just not good options as rentals due to more complex controls and the charging situation. Being given a rental car with a low level of charge is much worse than getting an ICE car with a quarter of a tank of gas. Consider a situation where you pick up an EV rental from the airport and find that it doesn't have enough charge to get you to your destination. The last thing you want to do is to have to locate a charger and wait around.
Rental companies need to do the following with respect to EVs:
- Provide the EV with a full charge
- Give advance notice and have the customer set up all the apps for locating and paying for charging
- Offer customers guidance in the use of the car - explain one pedal driving for example
- Do not require cars to be returned with a full charge
...
I read the article too with considerable. For a variety of reasons, this has been the summer of car rentals for me and I have been very careful to avoid any "mystery cars" to make sure that I don't get an EV.
I completely agree with the author: no matter what the merits are for EVs as your own car, they are just not good options as rentals due to more complex controls and the charging situation. Being given a rental car with a low level of charge is much worse than getting an ICE car with a quarter of a tank of gas. Consider a situation where you pick up an EV rental from the airport and find that it doesn't have enough charge to get you to your destination. The last thing you want to do is to have to locate a charger and wait around.
Rental companies need to do the following with respect to EVs:
- Provide the EV with a full charge
- Give advance notice and have the customer set up all the apps for locating and paying for charging
- Offer customers guidance in the use of the car - explain one pedal driving for example
- Do not require cars to be returned with a full charge
Getting an EV would 100% meet my needs for a rental car on work travel, (relatively few miles driven near the airport) provided I know what the rules are. I would say requiring the renter to install an app on there device to find charging stations is not acceptable, that needs to be part of the car. Being built into the car will ensure that part of the rental process "just works". Not much would make me walk away from a rental counter and take a Lyft faster than being told I should download a 3rd party app that wants every permission available just to find a charging station. I would not rent an ICE car where it was not clear what grade of gas was required or where I could buy it at and was told I needed to figure that out on my own or maybe try one of these apps but the rental company is not endorsing any specific app and if I get the gas grade wrong any issues are on me to fix.
I returned a rental that was scheduled for back to back rentals. They would need many fast chargers for that scenario but then it might be cheaper long term than oil changes.
I'd be fine with an EV for local use if the hotel I was staying at had chargers too.
My rental this week was for a six hour drive. Wouldn't work.
I returned a rental that was scheduled for back to back rentals. They would need many fast chargers for that scenario but then it might be cheaper long term than oil changes.
I'd be fine with an EV for local use if the hotel I was staying at had chargers too.
My rental this week was for a six hour drive. Wouldn't work.
Were there no fast chargers on your route? I did a six hour drive in mine a few weeks ago, and again to get home.
So it was the original Ioniq which I think is listed as an SUV. The 6 had not received a score yet, so while the words seem good, I like to wait until they are compared to all the other choices. Just logged in and Ioniq 6 score is listed as "In Test" so will see how it fares. Most Electric Care that are scored get pretty bad scores. The Kia Niro sits at the top of the list with an 80. Next down at 70 in second place is the Leaf and then for 3rd place you drop all the way down to 49, so yeah, they all suck. The 3rd place car with that score by the way is the Chevy Bolt.Yes I agree with the last poster. I'm not interested in an SUV or pickup as I become and empty nester. I just want a basic car. Whoever makes a decent regular car as an EV will likely be the one who gets my business.https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/ioniq-6
I love my Consumer Reports. And I love my Hyundai Sonata, so when this vehicle came out I was excited. CR is not a fan, many other so makes it a no go for me until that changes. Perhaps over time they'll iron out the issues.
I didn't read the whole article (I'm not a CR member) but it sounded extremely positive. What are you talking about?
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/2023-hyundai-ioniq-6-review-a1122495086/
...
In the connector side, looks like standardization is going to become official: https://electrek.co/2023/06/27/sae-standardizing-nacs-less-dependent-on-tesla/
...
...
In the connector side, looks like standardization is going to become official: https://electrek.co/2023/06/27/sae-standardizing-nacs-less-dependent-on-tesla/
...
This is a huge deal. If we can actually get all EVs in North America on the same charging standard that'll be a big step in convincing the average person to get an EV. Even small hurdles like using an adapter can turn people off from EVs
That said: The weight of the (gas) Chevrolet Silverado varies depending on the model. There are 3 models of the Silverado; the Chevrolet Silverado model 1500 weighs about 7,300 pounds, the Silverado 2500 weighs about 11,350 pounds, and the Silverado 3500 weighs around 14,000 pounds.
So even the gasoline versions are pretty heavy.
https://fourwheeltrends.com/how-much-does-a-chevy-silverado-weigh/
...
In the connector side, looks like standardization is going to become official: https://electrek.co/2023/06/27/sae-standardizing-nacs-less-dependent-on-tesla/
...
This is a huge deal. If we can actually get all EVs in North America on the same charging standard that'll be a big step in convincing the average person to get an EV. Even small hurdles like using an adapter can turn people off from EVs
Standardizing chargers is one part of simplification but what about apps? How many charging apps do you need to have installed on your phone to have freedom of charging wherever you go. I understand that this may change in the future since the government subsidies are only available for chargers that directly accept credit cards like gas pumps.
That said: The weight of the (gas) Chevrolet Silverado varies depending on the model. There are 3 models of the Silverado; the Chevrolet Silverado model 1500 weighs about 7,300 pounds, the Silverado 2500 weighs about 11,350 pounds, and the Silverado 3500 weighs around 14,000 pounds.
So even the gasoline versions are pretty heavy.
https://fourwheeltrends.com/how-much-does-a-chevy-silverado-weigh/
Something wrong with those numbers - they appear to be Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) or the weight of the vehicle when fully loaded with payload. Note that the Silverado EV has a GVWR of 10,000 lbs, but a payload of ~1427, thus the estimated curb weight of 8,573 lbs (give or take.)
The heaviest crew cab Silverado 1500 (Trail Boss) is 5,150 lbs[0], with a GVWR of 7,000 lbs, and a payload of 1,820 lbs.
The heaviest 2500 is 7,886 lbs, while the heaviest 3500 is 8,300 lbs [1]. Note their max GVWR of 11,350 and 14,000 lbs respectively.
Overall the EV half-ton is heavier than the heaviest full-ton heavy duty truck. That's significant - and it's also about 3500 lbs heavier than the heaviest half-ton. It does have slightly higher max trailering capacity (10k vs 9.7k lbs), but much lower available payload weight (1427 vs 1800 lbs).
(As an aside, I have to wonder if that article you linked was written by ChatGPT, or just someone that doesn't know a lot about cars. Mixing up curb weight with gross vehicle weight rating is a bit of a novice error.)
[0] https://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/silverado/2021.tab1.html
[1] https://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/silveradohd/2022.tab1.html
It'll happen. I had that frustration recently with a rental EV. Convergence of charging standard may bring convergence of charging networks, leading to fewer/single app required.
Two more charging networks to support NACS charging: Blink & Electrify America.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/06/tesla-style-nacs-charging-plugs-are-coming-to-electrify-america-blink/
Also, VW probably going to use NACS: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/volkswagen-discussions-with-tesla-over-its-charging-standard-2023-06-29/
VW owns Electrify America, FYI.
It'll happen. I had that frustration recently with a rental EV. Convergence of charging standard may bring convergence of charging networks, leading to fewer/single app required.
Two more charging networks to support NACS charging: Blink & Electrify America.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/06/tesla-style-nacs-charging-plugs-are-coming-to-electrify-america-blink/
Also, VW probably going to use NACS: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/volkswagen-discussions-with-tesla-over-its-charging-standard-2023-06-29/
VW owns Electrify America, FYI.
I just hope it doesn't become like parking payment apps. On a vacation California recently, I had to install 3 apps just to pay for parking in various places!
I keep watching reviews of new EVs wondering if any of them will appeal to me. I watched this review of the Mercedes EQE SUV with some interest. Seems to have many good features and attributes but the use of touch sensitive surfaces in the user interface is a big no https://youtu.be/57HmEm_LOD4
The wait continues :-)
It'll happen. I had that frustration recently with a rental EV. Convergence of charging standard may bring convergence of charging networks, leading to fewer/single app required.
Two more charging networks to support NACS charging: Blink & Electrify America.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/06/tesla-style-nacs-charging-plugs-are-coming-to-electrify-america-blink/
Also, VW probably going to use NACS: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/volkswagen-discussions-with-tesla-over-its-charging-standard-2023-06-29/
VW owns Electrify America, FYI.
I just hope it doesn't become like parking payment apps. On a vacation California recently, I had to install 3 apps just to pay for parking in various places!
I would say that the public chargers which require payment are already like pay-for-parking, where there is a mishmash of apps for "convenient charging". Most (but not all) allow you to swipe a CC at the POS but frustratingly many won't let you do a one-time payment via Apple Pay or Google Wallet. I've got four different charging apps on my phone, but three of them I've only used once or twice, ever.
I hope it gets better and people can use either a CC or their phone (sans app) to pre-authorize a power-up the same way that gas stations pre-authorize a fill-up before you start pumping gasoline. It's an example of the POS system being "over-designed" - probably in the hope that using the app will capture additional info which is valuable to the charging network (or the data-brokers they sell to).
All of that said - it's still a very minor convenience overall, as >90% of our power-ups are at home & work, and 99% are handled by home, work or a single app.
I used to watch reviews, and still do too.
But that's just someone's opinion, man. I started test driving EVs, and also those of family members and friends. Or ask neighbors with EVs for a short ride to get the feel as a passenger. That changed my mind. Being in the vehicle and touching things makes such a huge difference. Hands-on experience cannot be bested.
It'll happen. I had that frustration recently with a rental EV. Convergence of charging standard may bring convergence of charging networks, leading to fewer/single app required.
Two more charging networks to support NACS charging: Blink & Electrify America.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/06/tesla-style-nacs-charging-plugs-are-coming-to-electrify-america-blink/
Also, VW probably going to use NACS: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/volkswagen-discussions-with-tesla-over-its-charging-standard-2023-06-29/
VW owns Electrify America, FYI.
I just hope it doesn't become like parking payment apps. On a vacation California recently, I had to install 3 apps just to pay for parking in various places!
I would say that the public chargers which require payment are already like pay-for-parking, where there is a mishmash of apps for "convenient charging". Most (but not all) allow you to swipe a CC at the POS but frustratingly many won't let you do a one-time payment via Apple Pay or Google Wallet. I've got four different charging apps on my phone, but three of them I've only used once or twice, ever.
I hope it gets better and people can use either a CC or their phone (sans app) to pre-authorize a power-up the same way that gas stations pre-authorize a fill-up before you start pumping gasoline. It's an example of the POS system being "over-designed" - probably in the hope that using the app will capture additional info which is valuable to the charging network (or the data-brokers they sell to).
All of that said - it's still a very minor convenience overall, as >90% of our power-ups are at home & work, and 99% are handled by home, work or a single app.
I won't belong in the electric vehicle world. I like to pay for things with cash.
I would say that the public chargers which require payment are already like pay-for-parking, where there is a mishmash of apps for "convenient charging". Most (but not all) allow you to swipe a CC at the POS but frustratingly many won't let you do a one-time payment via Apple Pay or Google Wallet. I've got four different charging apps on my phone, but three of them I've only used once or twice, ever.
I hope it gets better and people can use either a CC or their phone (sans app) to pre-authorize a power-up the same way that gas stations pre-authorize a fill-up before you start pumping gasoline. It's an example of the POS system being "over-designed" - probably in the hope that using the app will capture additional info which is valuable to the charging network (or the data-brokers they sell to).
All of that said - it's still a very minor convenience overall, as >90% of our power-ups are at home & work, and 99% are handled by home, work or a single app.
I won't belong in the electric vehicle world. I like to pay for things with cash.
You and I are opposites in this regard / I hate paying for things in cash.
…but yes, I’ve never seen a fast charger with a cash payment option, so long distant trips would require more thought. However, I’ve found it relatively easy to get around without needing anything more than my home charger and occasionally drawing from the free public chargers found at lots of businesses (bars, hotels, dealerships, libraries/town halls, etc). On trips I don’t rely on these as the can be full or broken, but more often than not I can get a 1-2 hour charge for free when we are out and about.
I would say that the public chargers which require payment are already like pay-for-parking, where there is a mishmash of apps for "convenient charging". Most (but not all) allow you to swipe a CC at the POS but frustratingly many won't let you do a one-time payment via Apple Pay or Google Wallet. I've got four different charging apps on my phone, but three of them I've only used once or twice, ever.
I hope it gets better and people can use either a CC or their phone (sans app) to pre-authorize a power-up the same way that gas stations pre-authorize a fill-up before you start pumping gasoline. It's an example of the POS system being "over-designed" - probably in the hope that using the app will capture additional info which is valuable to the charging network (or the data-brokers they sell to).
All of that said - it's still a very minor convenience overall, as >90% of our power-ups are at home & work, and 99% are handled by home, work or a single app.
I won't belong in the electric vehicle world. I like to pay for things with cash.
You and I are opposites in this regard / I hate paying for things in cash.
…but yes, I’ve never seen a fast charger with a cash payment option, so long distant trips would require more thought. However, I’ve found it relatively easy to get around without needing anything more than my home charger and occasionally drawing from the free public chargers found at lots of businesses (bars, hotels, dealerships, libraries/town halls, etc). On trips I don’t rely on these as the can be full or broken, but more often than not I can get a 1-2 hour charge for free when we are out and about.
I didn't realize how common these apps for charging were, that's actually a big turn-off for me.
I hate paying cash, but I hate the idea of having to put payment information on my phone even more. I refuse to use mobile banking or store credit card information on my easily-lost/easily-stolen/potentially-hackable phone. (DH works in IT, he'd have quite a bit to say about storing banking info so insecurely.) If the majority of public chargers require you to download an app (even if it's the same one) and input your payment information that way, that would be a huge barrier to adoption for me. Would be much happier if they'd just accept credit cards at the terminal.
Yes, 99% of the time charging at home is fine, but we can't pretend that the 1% use case while traveling doesn't matter. As a 1-car household, an electric car has to be able to cover all our use cases before we can justify having one. Having to go to 2 cars or rentals for longer trips introduces too much cost and complexity, we'd still be better off keeping an older gas car instead.
I would say that the public chargers which require payment are already like pay-for-parking, where there is a mishmash of apps for "convenient charging". Most (but not all) allow you to swipe a CC at the POS but frustratingly many won't let you do a one-time payment via Apple Pay or Google Wallet. I've got four different charging apps on my phone, but three of them I've only used once or twice, ever.
I hope it gets better and people can use either a CC or their phone (sans app) to pre-authorize a power-up the same way that gas stations pre-authorize a fill-up before you start pumping gasoline. It's an example of the POS system being "over-designed" - probably in the hope that using the app will capture additional info which is valuable to the charging network (or the data-brokers they sell to).
All of that said - it's still a very minor convenience overall, as >90% of our power-ups are at home & work, and 99% are handled by home, work or a single app.
I won't belong in the electric vehicle world. I like to pay for things with cash.
You and I are opposites in this regard / I hate paying for things in cash.
…but yes, I’ve never seen a fast charger with a cash payment option, so long distant trips would require more thought. However, I’ve found it relatively easy to get around without needing anything more than my home charger and occasionally drawing from the free public chargers found at lots of businesses (bars, hotels, dealerships, libraries/town halls, etc). On trips I don’t rely on these as the can be full or broken, but more often than not I can get a 1-2 hour charge for free when we are out and about.
I didn't realize how common these apps for charging were, that's actually a big turn-off for me.
I hate paying cash, but I hate the idea of having to put payment information on my phone even more. I refuse to use mobile banking or store credit card information on my easily-lost/easily-stolen/potentially-hackable phone. (DH works in IT, he'd have quite a bit to say about storing banking info so insecurely.) If the majority of public chargers require you to download an app (even if it's the same one) and input your payment information that way, that would be a huge barrier to adoption for me. Would be much happier if they'd just accept credit cards at the terminal.
Yes, 99% of the time charging at home is fine, but we can't pretend that the 1% use case while traveling doesn't matter. As a 1-car household, an electric car has to be able to cover all our use cases before we can justify having one. Having to go to 2 cars or rentals for longer trips introduces too much cost and complexity, we'd still be better off keeping an older gas car instead.
I don’t understand that level of paranoia. You’re not responsible for unauthorized credit cards, so worst case situation results in replacement of a compromised card. It’s not a big deal at all. As far as phones being insecure, I mean - to some extent, but I bet I could remotely wipe my phone well before anyone short of a 3 letter agency could hack into it (and even then, as we’ve discovered, they can’t always do that themselves either).
If someone steals your easily lost / easily stolen wallet of cash, you can’t call the bank and get it back.
I would say that the public chargers which require payment are already like pay-for-parking, where there is a mishmash of apps for "convenient charging". Most (but not all) allow you to swipe a CC at the POS but frustratingly many won't let you do a one-time payment via Apple Pay or Google Wallet. I've got four different charging apps on my phone, but three of them I've only used once or twice, ever.
I hope it gets better and people can use either a CC or their phone (sans app) to pre-authorize a power-up the same way that gas stations pre-authorize a fill-up before you start pumping gasoline. It's an example of the POS system being "over-designed" - probably in the hope that using the app will capture additional info which is valuable to the charging network (or the data-brokers they sell to).
All of that said - it's still a very minor convenience overall, as >90% of our power-ups are at home & work, and 99% are handled by home, work or a single app.
I won't belong in the electric vehicle world. I like to pay for things with cash.
You and I are opposites in this regard / I hate paying for things in cash.
…but yes, I’ve never seen a fast charger with a cash payment option, so long distant trips would require more thought. However, I’ve found it relatively easy to get around without needing anything more than my home charger and occasionally drawing from the free public chargers found at lots of businesses (bars, hotels, dealerships, libraries/town halls, etc). On trips I don’t rely on these as the can be full or broken, but more often than not I can get a 1-2 hour charge for free when we are out and about.
I didn't realize how common these apps for charging were, that's actually a big turn-off for me.
I hate paying cash, but I hate the idea of having to put payment information on my phone even more. I refuse to use mobile banking or store credit card information on my easily-lost/easily-stolen/potentially-hackable phone. (DH works in IT, he'd have quite a bit to say about storing banking info so insecurely.) If the majority of public chargers require you to download an app (even if it's the same one) and input your payment information that way, that would be a huge barrier to adoption for me. Would be much happier if they'd just accept credit cards at the terminal.
Yes, 99% of the time charging at home is fine, but we can't pretend that the 1% use case while traveling doesn't matter. As a 1-car household, an electric car has to be able to cover all our use cases before we can justify having one. Having to go to 2 cars or rentals for longer trips introduces too much cost and complexity, we'd still be better off keeping an older gas car instead.
I don’t understand that level of paranoia. You’re not responsible for unauthorized credit cards, so worst case situation results in replacement of a compromised card. It’s not a big deal at all. As far as phones being insecure, I mean - to some extent, but I bet I could remotely wipe my phone well before anyone short of a 3 letter agency could hack into it (and even then, as we’ve discovered, they can’t always do that themselves either).
If someone steals your easily lost / easily stolen wallet of cash, you can’t call the bank and get it back.
I find the need to install an app to pay for parking or use a EV charger to be inconvenient, but I don’t consider it to be any less secure than using a credit card at the POS. As you pointed out - I’m not responsible for unauthorized charges, and ultimately the payment is through my CC whether its through an app or at the gas-station reader. Apps at least are verified - gas stations are a notorious spot for “skimmers”; hardware which harvests card info.
and as much as possible avoiding SMS 2-factor.SMS 2-factor is not a problem. A problem is if you get the SMS on the same device you use for whatever send it to you.
and as much as possible avoiding SMS 2-factor.SMS 2-factor is not a problem. A problem is if you get the SMS on the same device you use for whatever send it to you.
Because that changes the 2-factor into a 1-factor plus a "click". Same goes for email confirmation of course.
Yes. But that is the whole reason for 2 factor. It does not matter. They either have access to device A and cannot send/intercept for B, or they have access to the SMS but that does not help them get into your account they don't know and don't have the PW.and as much as possible avoiding SMS 2-factor.SMS 2-factor is not a problem. A problem is if you get the SMS on the same device you use for whatever send it to you.
Because that changes the 2-factor into a 1-factor plus a "click". Same goes for email confirmation of course.
According to DH, SMS is shockingly easy to spoof/intercept.
I can't give you technical details on any of this, I'm not a techy person at all. But I trust my DH who does this professionally when he says it's less secure than other available methods.
Yes. But that is the whole reason for 2 factor. It does not matter. They either have access to device A and cannot send/intercept for B, or they have access to the SMS but that does not help them get into your account they don't know and don't have the PW.and as much as possible avoiding SMS 2-factor.SMS 2-factor is not a problem. A problem is if you get the SMS on the same device you use for whatever send it to you.
Because that changes the 2-factor into a 1-factor plus a "click". Same goes for email confirmation of course.
According to DH, SMS is shockingly easy to spoof/intercept.
I can't give you technical details on any of this, I'm not a techy person at all. But I trust my DH who does this professionally when he says it's less secure than other available methods.
Of course it's still possible, but we are talking secret service level of activity here, not the average trojan you catch through a malicious ad or app. (It also helps if your 2nd device is a dumbphone. It's hard to install a backdoor that is triple the size of the device's total storage ;) )
and as much as possible avoiding SMS 2-factor.SMS 2-factor is not a problem. A problem is if you get the SMS on the same device you use for whatever send it to you.
Because that changes the 2-factor into a 1-factor plus a "click". Same goes for email confirmation of course.
According to DH, SMS is shockingly easy to spoof/intercept.
I can't give you technical details on any of this, I'm not a techy person at all. But I trust my DH who does this professionally when he says it's less secure than other available methods.
and as much as possible avoiding SMS 2-factor.SMS 2-factor is not a problem. A problem is if you get the SMS on the same device you use for whatever send it to you.
Because that changes the 2-factor into a 1-factor plus a "click". Same goes for email confirmation of course.
According to DH, SMS is shockingly easy to spoof/intercept.
I can't give you technical details on any of this, I'm not a techy person at all. But I trust my DH who does this professionally when he says it's less secure than other available methods.
Sure, there are Vulnerabilities, but you must compare it to the alternative options. Physical credit cards are stolen all the time. It still boggles my mind that in the US it’s perfectly normal to give your credit card to someone you don’t know who then takes it out of your sight to run a charge. Or gas station pumps which often have two or even three third-party credit card readers, so it doesn’t seem the least bit odd to see an NFC reader some thief has stuck there.
At the grocery store the lady in front of me actually brought out a check book. The reality was it took a minute or two. It seemed like twenty minutes. I used my best pokerface to avoid being rude.
I realized how long its been since I've seen someone right a check at a POS. In the 1980s I remember this being quite common, even multiples in the same line.
Use your credit card. Anything that goes wrong is on the CC company. I prefer my debit card but find myself using it less lately b/c of security shenanigans my friends warn me about.
I would say that the public chargers which require payment are already like pay-for-parking, where there is a mishmash of apps for "convenient charging". Most (but not all) allow you to swipe a CC at the POS but frustratingly many won't let you do a one-time payment via Apple Pay or Google Wallet. I've got four different charging apps on my phone, but three of them I've only used once or twice, ever.
I hope it gets better and people can use either a CC or their phone (sans app) to pre-authorize a power-up the same way that gas stations pre-authorize a fill-up before you start pumping gasoline. It's an example of the POS system being "over-designed" - probably in the hope that using the app will capture additional info which is valuable to the charging network (or the data-brokers they sell to).
All of that said - it's still a very minor convenience overall, as >90% of our power-ups are at home & work, and 99% are handled by home, work or a single app.
I won't belong in the electric vehicle world. I like to pay for things with cash.
You and I are opposites in this regard / I hate paying for things in cash.
…but yes, I’ve never seen a fast charger with a cash payment option, so long distant trips would require more thought. However, I’ve found it relatively easy to get around without needing anything more than my home charger and occasionally drawing from the free public chargers found at lots of businesses (bars, hotels, dealerships, libraries/town halls, etc). On trips I don’t rely on these as the can be full or broken, but more often than not I can get a 1-2 hour charge for free when we are out and about.
I didn't realize how common these apps for charging were, that's actually a big turn-off for me.
I hate paying cash, but I hate the idea of having to put payment information on my phone even more. I refuse to use mobile banking or store credit card information on my easily-lost/easily-stolen/potentially-hackable phone. (DH works in IT, he'd have quite a bit to say about storing banking info so insecurely.) If the majority of public chargers require you to download an app (even if it's the same one) and input your payment information that way, that would be a huge barrier to adoption for me. Would be much happier if they'd just accept credit cards at the terminal.
Yes, 99% of the time charging at home is fine, but we can't pretend that the 1% use case while traveling doesn't matter. As a 1-car household, an electric car has to be able to cover all our use cases before we can justify having one. Having to go to 2 cars or rentals for longer trips introduces too much cost and complexity, we'd still be better off keeping an older gas car instead.
I don’t understand that level of paranoia. You’re not responsible for unauthorized credit cards, so worst case situation results in replacement of a compromised card. It’s not a big deal at all. As far as phones being insecure, I mean - to some extent, but I bet I could remotely wipe my phone well before anyone short of a 3 letter agency could hack into it (and even then, as we’ve discovered, they can’t always do that themselves either).
If someone steals your easily lost / easily stolen wallet of cash, you can’t call the bank and get it back.
I find the need to install an app to pay for parking or use a EV charger to be inconvenient, but I don’t consider it to be any less secure than using a credit card at the POS. As you pointed out - I’m not responsible for unauthorized charges, and ultimately the payment is through my CC whether its through an app or at the gas-station reader. Apps at least are verified - gas stations are a notorious spot for “skimmers”; hardware which harvests card info.
All I can tell you is DH works in IT security and told me not to store any financial information on my phone. No banking apps, no password managers, and as much as possible avoiding SMS 2-factor. Officially, you're not responsible for unauthorized charges, IF you can prove it wasn't you. If it comes down to it, it's a lot easier to prove to the bank that a transaction wasn't yours if the scammer doesn't have access to all your security information - and your 2-factor, for those that don't allow Yubikey, and even your email for password resets if you use email on your phone...
I also don't think it's comparable to losing your wallet. For one, I don't have more than $20 cash in there, and I can call the bank and cancel all my cards immediately. If my phone is stolen, I have to get a new phone before I can call the bank!
Also, the ability to remote wipe a phone is not as universal or as easy as PP thinks it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6beCVz43ZJE
This was interesting. It is a tour of an EV repair shop. ~20 minutes long. The owner quotes some of the prices they charge to make various repairs.
While I'm enthusiastic about EVs and certainly enjoy driving them, this video seriously makes me reconsider owning one long term due to the very high costs quoted in the video.
None of my ICE cars have ever required repairs that expensive. Not even over 300K+ miles of ownership. Even replaced whole engines / rebuilt engines for less money. I've bought/sold many cars over the years as a side hustle.
Clearly humanity needs to adopt EVs and create more walkable places to much reduce how much we drive.
The complexity of an EV thermal management system is comparable or greater than that of an ICE vehicle's coolant system. Add in the heat pump for the HVAC system and it appears that an EV is refrigerator on wheels :-)And an ICE is, contrary to the name, just a heater on wheels.
We have a decade+ of hard data showing that EVs on average have lower maintenance costs than modern and comparable ICE vehicles. Yes, some repairs are very pricey - particularly if they are not covered under warranty. But the number and infrequency of these repairs offset the high cost.
We have a decade+ of hard data showing that EVs on average have lower maintenance costs than modern and comparable ICE vehicles. Yes, some repairs are very pricey - particularly if they are not covered under warranty. But the number and infrequency of these repairs offset the high cost.
"BuT sOmeTimes!!!..!!!"
Some people would rather 'optimize' for higher total cost but lower regular costs than a lower total cost but higher irregular costs. These might be the same people that consider buying new car tires a 'surprise expense' that cant be planed for. But we who are FIREed - or nearly so need to remember how little many people have as an emergency fund and the various complexities around that. Would it be better for these people to buy an EV even with the higher up front cost even if they did it for prestige reasons? Maybe, I dont know. Personally I would rather live in a world designed for people rather than one designed for cars. Where participation in society was not based on having a car, but I think we spend pages arguing that point some time ago.
We have a decade+ of hard data showing that EVs on average have lower maintenance costs than modern and comparable ICE vehicles. Yes, some repairs are very pricey - particularly if they are not covered under warranty. But the number and infrequency of these repairs offset the high cost.
"BuT sOmeTimes!!!..!!!"
Some people would rather 'optimize' for higher total cost but lower regular costs than a lower total cost but higher irregular costs. These might be the same people that consider buying new car tires a 'surprise expense' that cant be planed for. But we who are FIREed - or nearly so need to remember how little many people have as an emergency fund and the various complexities around that. Would it be better for these people to buy an EV even with the higher up front cost even if they did it for prestige reasons? Maybe, I dont know. Personally I would rather live in a world designed for people rather than one designed for cars. Where participation in society was not based on having a car, but I think we spend pages arguing that point some time ago.
Of course you always have the option of boycotting car culture by not buying any car at all.
We have a decade+ of hard data showing that EVs on average have lower maintenance costs than modern and comparable ICE vehicles. Yes, some repairs are very pricey - particularly if they are not covered under warranty. But the number and infrequency of these repairs offset the high cost.
"BuT sOmeTimes!!!..!!!"
Some people would rather 'optimize' for higher total cost but lower regular costs than a lower total cost but higher irregular costs. These might be the same people that consider buying new car tires a 'surprise expense' that cant be planed for. But we who are FIREed - or nearly so need to remember how little many people have as an emergency fund and the various complexities around that. Would it be better for these people to buy an EV even with the higher up front cost even if they did it for prestige reasons? Maybe, I dont know. Personally I would rather live in a world designed for people rather than one designed for cars. Where participation in society was not based on having a car, but I think we spend pages arguing that point some time ago.
Of course you always have the option of boycotting car culture by not buying any car at all.
My bike gets pretty good mileage. :P
We have a decade+ of hard data showing that EVs on average have lower maintenance costs than modern and comparable ICE vehicles. Yes, some repairs are very pricey - particularly if they are not covered under warranty. But the number and infrequency of these repairs offset the high cost.
"BuT sOmeTimes!!!..!!!"
Some people would rather 'optimize' for higher total cost but lower regular costs than a lower total cost but higher irregular costs. These might be the same people that consider buying new car tires a 'surprise expense' that cant be planed for. But we who are FIREed - or nearly so need to remember how little many people have as an emergency fund and the various complexities around that. Would it be better for these people to buy an EV even with the higher up front cost even if they did it for prestige reasons? Maybe, I dont know. Personally I would rather live in a world designed for people rather than one designed for cars. Where participation in society was not based on having a car, but I think we spend pages arguing that point some time ago.
Of course you always have the option of boycotting car culture by not buying any car at all.
My bike gets pretty good mileage. :P
I used to ride all the time on my electric bike but a vasectomy gone wrong has left me in pain if I even get on my bike now. Grr. I'm thinking of getting an electric scooter instead.
We have a decade+ of hard data showing that EVs on average have lower maintenance costs than modern and comparable ICE vehicles. Yes, some repairs are very pricey - particularly if they are not covered under warranty. But the number and infrequency of these repairs offset the high cost.
We have a decade+ of hard data showing that EVs on average have lower maintenance costs than modern and comparable ICE vehicles. Yes, some repairs are very pricey - particularly if they are not covered under warranty. But the number and infrequency of these repairs offset the high cost.
"BuT sOmeTimes!!!..!!!"
Some people would rather 'optimize' for higher total cost but lower regular costs than a lower total cost but higher irregular costs. These might be the same people that consider buying new car tires a 'surprise expense' that cant be planed for. But we who are FIREed - or nearly so need to remember how little many people have as an emergency fund and the various complexities around that. Would it be better for these people to buy an EV even with the higher up front cost even if they did it for prestige reasons? Maybe, I dont know. Personally I would rather live in a world designed for people rather than one designed for cars. Where participation in society was not based on having a car, but I think we spend pages arguing that point some time ago.
Of course you always have the option of boycotting car culture by not buying any car at all.
My bike gets pretty good mileage. :P
I used to ride all the time on my electric bike but a vasectomy gone wrong has left me in pain if I even get on my bike now. Grr. I'm thinking of getting an electric scooter instead.
Are you still healing, or is this a long term problem? There are a variety of different saddles you could try, from the droopy nose Selle SMPs to the wide/short Specialized power to noseless offerings. Should be able to find something that keeps pressure off the gentleman's bits.
We have a decade+ of hard data showing that EVs on average have lower maintenance costs than modern and comparable ICE vehicles. Yes, some repairs are very pricey - particularly if they are not covered under warranty. But the number and infrequency of these repairs offset the high cost.
"BuT sOmeTimes!!!..!!!"
Some people would rather 'optimize' for higher total cost but lower regular costs than a lower total cost but higher irregular costs. These might be the same people that consider buying new car tires a 'surprise expense' that cant be planed for. But we who are FIREed - or nearly so need to remember how little many people have as an emergency fund and the various complexities around that. Would it be better for these people to buy an EV even with the higher up front cost even if they did it for prestige reasons? Maybe, I dont know. Personally I would rather live in a world designed for people rather than one designed for cars. Where participation in society was not based on having a car, but I think we spend pages arguing that point some time ago.
Of course you always have the option of boycotting car culture by not buying any car at all.
My bike gets pretty good mileage. :P
I used to ride all the time on my electric bike but a vasectomy gone wrong has left me in pain if I even get on my bike now. Grr. I'm thinking of getting an electric scooter instead.
Are you still healing, or is this a long term problem? There are a variety of different saddles you could try, from the droopy nose Selle SMPs to the wide/short Specialized power to noseless offerings. Should be able to find something that keeps pressure off the gentleman's bits.
It's the jostling from the pedaling. So not seat specific. And it's been 6 years, still in pain.
We have a decade+ of hard data showing that EVs on average have lower maintenance costs than modern and comparable ICE vehicles. Yes, some repairs are very pricey - particularly if they are not covered under warranty. But the number and infrequency of these repairs offset the high cost.
"BuT sOmeTimes!!!..!!!"
Some people would rather 'optimize' for higher total cost but lower regular costs than a lower total cost but higher irregular costs. These might be the same people that consider buying new car tires a 'surprise expense' that cant be planed for. But we who are FIREed - or nearly so need to remember how little many people have as an emergency fund and the various complexities around that. Would it be better for these people to buy an EV even with the higher up front cost even if they did it for prestige reasons? Maybe, I dont know. Personally I would rather live in a world designed for people rather than one designed for cars. Where participation in society was not based on having a car, but I think we spend pages arguing that point some time ago.
Of course you always have the option of boycotting car culture by not buying any car at all.
My bike gets pretty good mileage. :P
I used to ride all the time on my electric bike but a vasectomy gone wrong has left me in pain if I even get on my bike now. Grr. I'm thinking of getting an electric scooter instead.
Are you still healing, or is this a long term problem? There are a variety of different saddles you could try, from the droopy nose Selle SMPs to the wide/short Specialized power to noseless offerings. Should be able to find something that keeps pressure off the gentleman's bits.
It's the jostling from the pedaling. So not seat specific. And it's been 6 years, still in pain.
Ah, that really sucks.
I just think a lot of them look sort of cool.
Of course you always have the option of boycotting car culture by not buying any car at all.
I used to ride all the time on my electric bike but a vasectomy gone wrong has left me in pain if I even get on my bike now. Grr.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6beCVz43ZJE
This was interesting. It is a tour of an EV repair shop. ~20 minutes long. The owner quotes some of the prices they charge to make various repairs.
While I'm enthusiastic about EVs and certainly enjoy driving them, this video seriously makes me reconsider owning one long term due to the very high costs quoted in the video.
None of my ICE cars have ever required repairs that expensive. Not even over 300K+ miles of ownership. Even replaced whole engines / rebuilt engines for less money. I've bought/sold many cars over the years as a side hustle.
Clearly humanity needs to adopt EVs and create more walkable places to much reduce how much we drive.
Rivian R1 (Amazon Prime trucks)The Rivian R1 (R1T/R1S) is the consumer vehicle. The Amazon delivery van is called the EDV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivian_EDV).
Rivian R1 (Amazon Prime trucks)The Rivian R1 (R1T/R1S) is the consumer vehicle. The Amazon delivery van is called the EDV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivian_EDV).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6beCVz43ZJE
This was interesting. It is a tour of an EV repair shop. ~20 minutes long. The owner quotes some of the prices they charge to make various repairs.
While I'm enthusiastic about EVs and certainly enjoy driving them, this video seriously makes me reconsider owning one long term due to the very high costs quoted in the video.
None of my ICE cars have ever required repairs that expensive. Not even over 300K+ miles of ownership. Even replaced whole engines / rebuilt engines for less money. I've bought/sold many cars over the years as a side hustle.
Clearly humanity needs to adopt EVs and create more walkable places to much reduce how much we drive.
Without infrastructure, EVs are going to be a very tough sell.
Without infrastructure, EVs are going to be a very tough sell.
Without infrastructure any vehicle is a tough sell, be it BEV, FCEV, NGV, ICE, etc. Only something like a solar-powered vehicle is going to be able to traverse somewhere without infrastructure (albeit slowly).
While the focus has been primarily on passenger EVs and some on EV trucks (Class 8 long-haulers and Class 2's like the Ford Transit EV and Rivian EDV (Amazon Prime trucks)), the forgotten Class 4-7 segment is getting some EV love: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/07/how-harbinger-is-building-commercial-evs-with-20-year-life-spans/
They're designing for longevity and durability for 20-25 year lifespans.
I'm wondering though about battery and motor life and higher repair costs, although they may be fewer and far between. This video is worth the watch:
Thanks for posting the video. I had a couple of questions pop up after watching it. How feasible is it on current or planned EV battery packs for the owner to repair a cell or module? Can the car run fine with a single cell or module down?
Without infrastructure, EVs are going to be a very tough sell.
Without infrastructure any vehicle is a tough sell, be it BEV, FCEV, NGV, ICE, etc. Only something like a solar-powered vehicle is going to be able to traverse somewhere without infrastructure (albeit slowly).
Agreed. I'm surprised there isn't greater priority being put on the infrastructure here though - ostensibly we're trying to encourage people to switch over to electric. Especially up north where all the EVs take a huge range hit in the cold.
Without infrastructure, EVs are going to be a very tough sell.
Without infrastructure any vehicle is a tough sell, be it BEV, FCEV, NGV, ICE, etc. Only something like a solar-powered vehicle is going to be able to traverse somewhere without infrastructure (albeit slowly).
Agreed. I'm surprised there isn't greater priority being put on the infrastructure here though - ostensibly we're trying to encourage people to switch over to electric. Especially up north where all the EVs take a huge range hit in the cold.
In the past, people used to swing South and go through the UP. Gas prices are cheaper. Maybe, the roads are plowed better too as there is more snow on the South side of the big lake. I looked and Marquette has 208 public charging stations. Duluth has 254. Perhaps history will repeat itself with EVs. I bet a lot of people in the Canadian Soo still buy gas on the American side.
Thanks for posting the video. I had a couple of questions pop up after watching it. How feasible is it on current or planned EV battery packs for the owner to repair a cell or module? Can the car run fine with a single cell or module down?
The answer is sometimes. A friend had a 250K+ mile Prius with two bad cells. He said the MPG dropped but he could continue to drive it, lots of warning lights. He bought used, checked cells from eBay for $50 each and installed them himself. Understand he was an guy with decades of experience from working on everything.
My employer has several Leafs. One developed a bad cell or two under warranty. Car gave a battery error on the dash screen and would not move though it would switch on. Nissan sent a truck and took it to the nearest dealer with an EV technician. After a few days (pre-COVID era) it was ready to be picked up. They replaced one or more bad cells - or replaced a whole module and the old module with bad cells was sent to be repaired. I don't know for certain. No cost to us except time to pick it up.
We have had problems with our employer EVs because they need to be driven from time to time so the big battery will keep the small lead-acid battery until the hood charged properly. XMAS Holidays are a problem b/c the cars might not get used for a couple of weeks. They just need a standard charger to boost the small lead acid battery high enough that the EV will continue to charge it from its traction battery and for the car to be on long enough to complete that process.
Here is a video that details the cell replacement process on a Leaf and its expected cost (several years old now). The cost was quite modest i thought.
https://youtu.be/Ws9Y1be8N-U
As for the DIY enthusiast doing battery repairs - it is important to understand the Leaf BEV battery for example is a ~350V battery that can kill you. The process involves removing the internal battery wiring harness so that rather than a ~350V battery, now it is now a steel box containing a bunch of lower voltage battery modules that are quite safe by comparison. But still, rubber gloves, face shield, perhaps rubber mat to stand on, safety checking the gloves for cracks and tears (and these are proper electrical safety gloves, not just surgical gloves or something from Harbor Freight). A person must do their homework before getting started. A battery for a hybrid is likely a lower, safer battery voltage.
Don't want to overwhelm anyone here but tonight I'm watching EV videos that discuss failure modes.
I think there's a broader conversation here, which is that repairing and servicing EVs is going to take a different skillset over ICE engines, and a different approach.
For ICE vehicles, major repairs included things like replacing the clutch, replacing the transmission, fixing a blown head gasket, timing belt/water pump, radiator, etc. Repairs involve a lot of fluids, pressurized lines, and various lubricants, plus dealing with rust/oxidation and seals. Problems are often identified by tracing the source of the leak or the sound it makes. People who've had decades of experience working on cars have developed a level of comfort in doing these things. A lot more of EV repair more closely resembles computers, with software trees to diagnose which module is misbehaving, and a lot more focus on voltage and amperage than fluids and seals. Overall there's much less to break, and most components are less prone to failure - but when things do go wrong it's often a different approach both to diagnose and to fix than we've come to expect.
Yes, high voltage in an EV can kill you - but so can working on ICE cars where lots of people get seriously injured every year (Google tells me 'car mechanic' the 14th most dangerous occupation, with the most common major injury is "trauma by heavy objects". Which makes sense to me ever since my uncle wound up in the hospital when the transmission he was replacing dropped on his chest. He's fine now, and jokes that he 'saved' $600 doing it himself if you ignore the $10k he spent in various medical and recovery costs)
Gruber Motors released this video about a Tesla battery that developed a bad cell and their repair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-B_8oMZNeI
About 7 mins long.
Edited to add:
In another video Mr. Sunglasses said this repair was about $5K. Tesla's price for another battery is $20K-$22K installed at one of their service centers. Tesla's service center doesn't disassemble battery packs and search for bad cells. They simply replace the whole battery. I'm sure the bad battery is rebuilt and returned to service by someone - right?
An individual 18650 cells is about $10 from the aftermarket by the way.
Gruber Motors released this video about a Tesla battery that developed a bad cell and their repair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-B_8oMZNeI
About 7 mins long.
Edited to add:
In another video Mr. Sunglasses said this repair was about $5K. Tesla's price for another battery is $20K-$22K installed at one of their service centers. Tesla's service center doesn't disassemble battery packs and search for bad cells. They simply replace the whole battery. I'm sure the bad battery is rebuilt and returned to service by someone - right?
An individual 18650 cells is about $10 from the aftermarket by the way.
In this video, Peter Gruber says it took just one defective cell out of 7000 to completely disable the car! I thought there was some kind of a sophisticated battery management system that allowed for a more graceful failure mode - the ability to route around the failure somehow
Gruber Motors released this video about a Tesla battery that developed a bad cell and their repair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-B_8oMZNeI
About 7 mins long.
Edited to add:
In another video Mr. Sunglasses said this repair was about $5K. Tesla's price for another battery is $20K-$22K installed at one of their service centers. Tesla's service center doesn't disassemble battery packs and search for bad cells. They simply replace the whole battery. I'm sure the bad battery is rebuilt and returned to service by someone - right?
An individual 18650 cells is about $10 from the aftermarket by the way.
In this video, Peter Gruber says it took just one defective cell out of 7000 to completely disable the car! I thought there was some kind of a sophisticated battery management system that allowed for a more graceful failure mode - the ability to route around the failure somehow
I wonder why that wasn't fixed by Tesla - there's an 8 year warranty of the batteries.
Here's the full warranty info for all the models - https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty
Lately the news if full of articles on the slow in EV sales (and/or the catch-up and overtaking of production levels) such that they are piling up in lots, unsold, while ICEs fly off the shelves. E.g. https://jalopnik.com/ford-mustang-mach-e-dealers-ev-too-much-inventory-1850632717 (https://jalopnik.com/ford-mustang-mach-e-dealers-ev-too-much-inventory-1850632717)
Have we hit saturation of the US EV market? Are vehicle costs, range and charging concerns, and general unfamiliarity with new things going to stall out EV sales?
Lately the news if full of articles on the slow in EV sales (and/or the catch-up and overtaking of production levels) such that they are piling up in lots, unsold, while ICEs fly off the shelves. E.g. https://jalopnik.com/ford-mustang-mach-e-dealers-ev-too-much-inventory-1850632717 (https://jalopnik.com/ford-mustang-mach-e-dealers-ev-too-much-inventory-1850632717)
Have we hit saturation of the US EV market? Are vehicle costs, range and charging concerns, and general unfamiliarity with new things going to stall out EV sales?
Thoughts?
Lately the news if full of articles on the slow in EV sales (and/or the catch-up and overtaking of production levels) such that they are piling up in lots, unsold, while ICEs fly off the shelves. E.g. https://jalopnik.com/ford-mustang-mach-e-dealers-ev-too-much-inventory-1850632717 (https://jalopnik.com/ford-mustang-mach-e-dealers-ev-too-much-inventory-1850632717)
Have we hit saturation of the US EV market? Are vehicle costs, range and charging concerns, and general unfamiliarity with new things going to stall out EV sales?
Thoughts?
That's a Mach E problem more than an EV problem. Chevy Bolt is way up and Tesla is way up.
Mach E YTD 2022: 17,675
Mach E YTD 2023: 14,040
Telsa Y YTD 2022: 107,999
Telsa Y YTD 2023: 190,499
76% sales increase in 2023. Model Y has sold like 20x more than Ford's Mach E unit decrease.
I think the EV market will still continue to grow. In 2024, US EV tax credit can be applied at point of sale. Right now a $55k vehicle payment is ~$100mth more today than it was in 2021 because of interest rates. When the tax credit can be applied at point of sale, that will make more attractive car payments for people especially if the Fed changes course next year and cuts.
https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2023-us-vehicle-sales-figures-by-model/ (https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2023-us-vehicle-sales-figures-by-model/)
Apparently it is not just a Ford problem, but also a Hyundai, GM and Toyota problem as well and one which is skewed toward EV sales, not ICE. [size=78%]https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/slow-selling-evs-are-auto-industrys-new-headache-2023-07-11/ (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/slow-selling-evs-are-auto-industrys-new-headache-2023-07-11/)[/size]
I am very curious about the F150 Lightning, which was such an exciting announcement given the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world. The range, especially when towing, is dismal and this is hurting sales.
I've been watching our local Kia dealership's listings for the Niro EV. They have gone from full price to $2k off, to $2,500 off plus either another $3750 off or 1.49% financing. I haven't set foot in the dealership, so who knows if they actually have any of the 8 listed on the lot.
One hybrid Niro listed, but no PHEVs have been listed since I started trolling.
I've seen 2 Rivian trucks in the area, and a couple Mach-Es and about a thousand Teslas, including a bright yellow and a matte burgundy trying to stand out from the rest of the lookalikes.
Niro EV Wind (base level) and Tesla Model 3 are about the same MSRP before the tax credit, and the Niro doesn't qualify for the credit.
Since we spend about $600 a year on gas for our 14 year old 23mpg HHR, it makes no sense to buy electric, but I sure want to.
For me, it's the cost differential, especially since I don't drive much.
Apparently it is not just a Ford problem, but also a Hyundai, GM and Toyota problem as well and one which is skewed toward EV sales, not ICE. [size=78%]https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/slow-selling-evs-are-auto-industrys-new-headache-2023-07-11/ (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/slow-selling-evs-are-auto-industrys-new-headache-2023-07-11/)[/size]
I am very curious about the F150 Lightning, which was such an exciting announcement given the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world. The range, especially when towing, is dismal and this is hurting sales.
Lightning sales were up 4.1% in Q2 compared to Q1, and 119% YoY:
https://www.teslarati.com/ford-f-150-lighning-sales-q2-2023/ (https://www.teslarati.com/ford-f-150-lighning-sales-q2-2023/)
And that's after every trim level has seen around $20k in price hikes since the initial release.
Towing range being cut in half is not unique to the Lightning, or even EVs. Teslas and Rivians and the new Silverado EV all suffer similar range cuts. ICE equivalents do too, it's just that it's fast and easy to refill a liquid fuel tank vs charging a huge EV battery.
This article summarizes the situation nicely: https://www.thedrive.com/news/were-finally-crossing-the-chasm-with-electric-vehicles
Recently on sort of a whim i test drove a Tesla Model Y. i recently bought a new RAM 1500 and i hate it, terrible truck, even though consumer reports rated them the best. Anyway i wanted a electric truck to start with but the Lightning or rivian are $75k+, so no go there. The Model Y was the first EV i have ever driven, long range - AWD, and it blew my mind. Like literally it felt like being in the future and what all new cars should be. the biggest thing for me was the safety stuff - if you havent ever driven one there is a setting where the infotainment system shows your car and with sonar or cameras knows where all other cars and traffic cones are around you, when you switch lanes there is a rear camera that pops up to show you whats behind you on that side. The fit and finish were excellent and the acceleration was insane - and it wasnt a performance even - just crazy. After the test drive the sales guys asked me how it went, i said it was an eye opening experience, like paradigm breaking, life changing experience. ICE cars can be fun but electric is unreal and the tech that the brand new cars have is other worldly. I think if everyone had the chance to drive one, just giving them a chance, they would also be blown away.
I didnt trade in my truck on the spot as i have some weird stuff happening over the next few months and need a truck but i will absolutely be considering trading the truck for a Model Y in the medium term. And i put in a reservation for a cybertruck.
We are in the market for a car but can't even consider a Tesla because of Musk's outrageous political statements & actions. I wonder how much demand for Teslas has suffered because of him?
Never giving tesla any money is going to be a hard thing to do with NACS becoming the US standard, especially if you want good reliable available chargers.
If people aren't interested in a Tesla, then the Volkswagen ID4 also qualifies for the full $7500 federal tax credit in the US (along with additional state level incentives like the extra $5k we get here in Colorado).
And, if you're not interested in all wheel drive (dual motors), you can get a Tesla Model 3 for $28k (it has a $40k list price and then the $12.5k tax credit). And the ID4 is also very inexpensive, it's a list price of $39k, so here in CO you could get it for $27k. In both cases, that's pretty darn cheap for a good EV.
Gruber Motors released this video about a Tesla battery that developed a bad cell and their repair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-B_8oMZNeI
About 7 mins long.
Edited to add:
In another video Mr. Sunglasses said this repair was about $5K. Tesla's price for another battery is $20K-$22K installed at one of their service centers. Tesla's service center doesn't disassemble battery packs and search for bad cells. They simply replace the whole battery. I'm sure the bad battery is rebuilt and returned to service by someone - right?
An individual 18650 cells is about $10 from the aftermarket by the way.
In this video, Peter Gruber says it took just one defective cell out of 7000 to completely disable the car! I thought there was some kind of a sophisticated battery management system that allowed for a more graceful failure mode - the ability to route around the failure somehow
I am very curious about the F150 Lightning, which was such an exciting announcement given the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world. The range, especially when towing, is dismal and this is hurting sales.
If people aren't interested in a Tesla, then the Volkswagen ID4 also qualifies for the full $7500 federal tax credit in the US (along with additional state level incentives like the extra $5k we get here in Colorado).
And, if you're not interested in all wheel drive (dual motors), you can get a Tesla Model 3 for $28k (it has a $40k list price and then the $12.5k tax credit). And the ID4 is also very inexpensive, it's a list price of $39k, so here in CO you could get it for $27k. In both cases, that's pretty darn cheap for a good EV.
Tax credits are good and well, but lots of people talk about them like they directly reduce the price of these vehicles. You still pay for the full vehicle price up front (potentially financed), and then get some amount of the tax credit when you file taxes that year. If you actually qualify for the full credit, that's great but lots of people won't. I think the more responsible way to approach the purchase is to think of it as paying the full price and then potentially getting some amount of a rebate on that purchase.
I have generally been an early adopter for most technology products. I had a high-speed DSL line and WiFi network in my house by mid 2000 and I bought an iPhone 4 in August 2010. When it comes to EVs however, circumstances have conspired to make me a relatively late adopter. I feel absolutely no FOMO - I am perfectly content to wait for a few years until the EV offerings and charging infrastructure improve.
We are in the market for a car but can't even consider a Tesla because of Musk's outrageous political statements & actions. I wonder how much demand for Teslas has suffered because of him?
I'm right with you on this - will never give a cent to Tesla.
If people aren't interested in a Tesla, then the Volkswagen ID4 also qualifies for the full $7500 federal tax credit in the US (along with additional state level incentives like the extra $5k we get here in Colorado).
And, if you're not interested in all wheel drive (dual motors), you can get a Tesla Model 3 for $28k (it has a $40k list price and then the $12.5k tax credit). And the ID4 is also very inexpensive, it's a list price of $39k, so here in CO you could get it for $27k. In both cases, that's pretty darn cheap for a good EV.
I am very curious about the F150 Lightning, which was such an exciting announcement given the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world. The range, especially when towing, is dismal and this is hurting sales.
Can't remember if I posted this here or not. I used an F150 Lightning to tow a 5500 lbs box trailer. It doubled the power consumption. Roughly 1 KWH per mile at interstate speeds. A Leaf gets roughly 3.5 miles per KWH. The F150 gets around 2 except when it is towing... Not a big deal when a person goes fishing and the round trip is 50 miles. It is a big deal when they are trying to drag their family RV trailer to the beach from middle America.
Never giving tesla any money is going to be a hard thing to do with NACS becoming the US standard, especially if you want good reliable available chargers.No harder than it is today. All the NEVI funded charging stations will have CCS, and Tesla open sourced NACS (SAE will control the standard). Anyone can build a NACS charger or vehicle and not give Tesla a penny, or even ask their permission.
I am very curious about the F150 Lightning, which was such an exciting announcement given the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world. The range, especially when towing, is dismal and this is hurting sales.
Can't remember if I posted this here or not. I used an F150 Lightning to tow a 5500 lbs box trailer. It doubled the power consumption. Roughly 1 KWH per mile at interstate speeds. A Leaf gets roughly 3.5 miles per KWH. The F150 gets around 2 except when it is towing... Not a big deal when a person goes fishing and the round trip is 50 miles. It is a big deal when they are trying to drag their family RV trailer to the beach from middle America.
Towing is hard work for any vehicle. An ICE truck that gets 20mpg unloaded probably gets close to 10mpg towing that same theoretical camper trailer. The difference is that it's currently much easier to locate a refueling station for the ICE truck than an EV charger, and filling the fuel tank from nearly empty to full with liquid fuel tends to take much less time than charging the EV battery from nearly empty to full. This issue is just as much about supporting infrastructure (if not more so) than it is about the type of propulsion.
I am very curious about the F150 Lightning, which was such an exciting announcement given the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world. The range, especially when towing, is dismal and this is hurting sales.
Can't remember if I posted this here or not. I used an F150 Lightning to tow a 5500 lbs box trailer. It doubled the power consumption. Roughly 1 KWH per mile at interstate speeds. A Leaf gets roughly 3.5 miles per KWH. The F150 gets around 2 except when it is towing... Not a big deal when a person goes fishing and the round trip is 50 miles. It is a big deal when they are trying to drag their family RV trailer to the beach from middle America.
Towing is hard work for any vehicle. An ICE truck that gets 20mpg unloaded probably gets close to 10mpg towing that same theoretical camper trailer. The difference is that it's currently much easier to locate a refueling station for the ICE truck than an EV charger, and filling the fuel tank from nearly empty to full with liquid fuel tends to take much less time than charging the EV battery from nearly empty to full. This issue is just as much about supporting infrastructure (if not more so) than it is about the type of propulsion.
Never giving tesla any money is going to be a hard thing to do with NACS becoming the US standard, especially if you want good reliable available chargers.No harder than it is today. All the NEVI funded charging stations will have CCS, and Tesla open sourced NACS (SAE will control the standard). Anyone can build a NACS charger or vehicle and not give Tesla a penny, or even ask their permission.
I am very curious about the F150 Lightning, which was such an exciting announcement given the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world. The range, especially when towing, is dismal and this is hurting sales.
Can't remember if I posted this here or not. I used an F150 Lightning to tow a 5500 lbs box trailer. It doubled the power consumption. Roughly 1 KWH per mile at interstate speeds. A Leaf gets roughly 3.5 miles per KWH. The F150 gets around 2 except when it is towing... Not a big deal when a person goes fishing and the round trip is 50 miles. It is a big deal when they are trying to drag their family RV trailer to the beach from middle America.
Towing is hard work for any vehicle. An ICE truck that gets 20mpg unloaded probably gets close to 10mpg towing that same theoretical camper trailer. The difference is that it's currently much easier to locate a refueling station for the ICE truck than an EV charger, and filling the fuel tank from nearly empty to full with liquid fuel tends to take much less time than charging the EV battery from nearly empty to full. This issue is just as much about supporting infrastructure (if not more so) than it is about the type of propulsion.
The mileage of my vehicles doesn't drop nearly that much when pulling trailers. My diesel Sprinter gets about 17.5 mpg normally and about 14 pulling a 6x12' enclosed trailer with a 2000 lb load. Our old Tundra doesn't have a digital mpg reading, but I know it doesn't drop the normal 15 mpg down to 7.5 mpg.
Other types of vehicles pulling larger trailers probably have higher mileage impacts than I've seen.
According to the EPA, every extra 100 pounds of weight can reduce your MPG by about 1%.
There's very little aerodynamic penalty when pulling a small enclosed trailer behind a van. The van shields the frontal area of the trailer from the oncoming air so there's much less drag. It's why Semi tractors have large fairings to guide air over/around the trailers they're pulling.
Most pickups tow trailers with a frontal area that's larger than the truck and at least partially exposed to oncoming air. There's a bunch more range killing drag to deal with.
Your Sprinter is also a diesel, which is a more appropriate fuel for steady, hard work than gasoline. We use different liquid fuels for different tasks that better suit their attributes. I see a low/zero carbon future the same way. Batteries won't likely get it done for tasks like long distance towing. We'll need to pursue alternatives for applications that see continuous, hard work.
Here's a comparison test between a Lightning EV and a gas powered GMC 1500 towing identical trailers:
https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/ (https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/)
The gas truck is a 2023 GMC Sierra 1500 with the 6.2L engine. The EPA rating for that truck is 17mpg combined (19mpg highway) and 408 total miles of range. The test truck got 8.9mpg per the onboard computer during their towing test which is 52% of the combined rated fuel economy and 46.8% of the rated highway fuel economy.
The Lightning started with 282mi of range and probably could've made it about 95 miles with that trailer at modern highway speeds if they had chosen to really push the envelope.
There's very little aerodynamic penalty when pulling a small enclosed trailer behind a van. The van shields the frontal area of the trailer from the oncoming air so there's much less drag. It's why Semi tractors have large fairings to guide air over/around the trailers they're pulling.
Most pickups tow trailers with a frontal area that's larger than the truck and at least partially exposed to oncoming air. There's a bunch more range killing drag to deal with.
Your Sprinter is also a diesel, which is a more appropriate fuel for steady, hard work than gasoline. We use different liquid fuels for different tasks that better suit their attributes. I see a low/zero carbon future the same way. Batteries won't likely get it done for tasks like long distance towing. We'll need to pursue alternatives for applications that see continuous, hard work.
Here's a comparison test between a Lightning EV and a gas powered GMC 1500 towing identical trailers:
https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/ (https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/)
The gas truck is a 2023 GMC Sierra 1500 with the 6.2L engine. The EPA rating for that truck is 17mpg combined (19mpg highway) and 408 total miles of range. The test truck got 8.9mpg per the onboard computer during their towing test which is 52% of the combined rated fuel economy and 46.8% of the rated highway fuel economy.
The Lightning started with 282mi of range and probably could've made it about 95 miles with that trailer at modern highway speeds if they had chosen to really push the envelope.
Battery power seems perfect for towing - plenty of torque. Maybe in the future trailers will come with their own batteries built into the floor. That way you have the extra electrons just when you need them. The trailers would essentially "pull themselves". Wait, someone has already thought of it! [size=78%]https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/airstream-imagines-its-first-electric-trailer-the-estream-concept/ (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/airstream-imagines-its-first-electric-trailer-the-estream-concept/)[/size]
Ford seems to be the only brand to offer full-size e-vans so far. The range is only about 130 miles, I think. That makes them pretty useless for any type of travel, and towing would obviously be out of the question. Hopefully, they will work towards improving the range and other brands will get in the e-game. Vans can easily have large solar roofs, but even a 1000-watt array wouldn't refill the battery bank much per day compared to the draw. It will be interesting to see where things end up with larger vehicles as the tech evolves.
There's very little aerodynamic penalty when pulling a small enclosed trailer behind a van. The van shields the frontal area of the trailer from the oncoming air so there's much less drag. It's why Semi tractors have large fairings to guide air over/around the trailers they're pulling.
Most pickups tow trailers with a frontal area that's larger than the truck and at least partially exposed to oncoming air. There's a bunch more range killing drag to deal with.
Your Sprinter is also a diesel, which is a more appropriate fuel for steady, hard work than gasoline. We use different liquid fuels for different tasks that better suit their attributes. I see a low/zero carbon future the same way. Batteries won't likely get it done for tasks like long distance towing. We'll need to pursue alternatives for applications that see continuous, hard work.
Here's a comparison test between a Lightning EV and a gas powered GMC 1500 towing identical trailers:
https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/ (https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/)
The gas truck is a 2023 GMC Sierra 1500 with the 6.2L engine. The EPA rating for that truck is 17mpg combined (19mpg highway) and 408 total miles of range. The test truck got 8.9mpg per the onboard computer during their towing test which is 52% of the combined rated fuel economy and 46.8% of the rated highway fuel economy.
The Lightning started with 282mi of range and probably could've made it about 95 miles with that trailer at modern highway speeds if they had chosen to really push the envelope.
Battery power seems perfect for towing - plenty of torque. Maybe in the future trailers will come with their own batteries built into the floor. That way you have the extra electrons just when you need them. The trailers would essentially "pull themselves". Wait, someone has already thought of it! https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/airstream-imagines-its-first-electric-trailer-the-estream-concept/ (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/airstream-imagines-its-first-electric-trailer-the-estream-concept/)
There's very little aerodynamic penalty when pulling a small enclosed trailer behind a van. The van shields the frontal area of the trailer from the oncoming air so there's much less drag. It's why Semi tractors have large fairings to guide air over/around the trailers they're pulling.
Most pickups tow trailers with a frontal area that's larger than the truck and at least partially exposed to oncoming air. There's a bunch more range killing drag to deal with.
Your Sprinter is also a diesel, which is a more appropriate fuel for steady, hard work than gasoline. We use different liquid fuels for different tasks that better suit their attributes. I see a low/zero carbon future the same way. Batteries won't likely get it done for tasks like long distance towing. We'll need to pursue alternatives for applications that see continuous, hard work.
Here's a comparison test between a Lightning EV and a gas powered GMC 1500 towing identical trailers:
https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/ (https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/)
The gas truck is a 2023 GMC Sierra 1500 with the 6.2L engine. The EPA rating for that truck is 17mpg combined (19mpg highway) and 408 total miles of range. The test truck got 8.9mpg per the onboard computer during their towing test which is 52% of the combined rated fuel economy and 46.8% of the rated highway fuel economy.
The Lightning started with 282mi of range and probably could've made it about 95 miles with that trailer at modern highway speeds if they had chosen to really push the envelope.
Battery power seems perfect for towing - plenty of torque. Maybe in the future trailers will come with their own batteries built into the floor. That way you have the extra electrons just when you need them. The trailers would essentially "pull themselves". Wait, someone has already thought of it! https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/airstream-imagines-its-first-electric-trailer-the-estream-concept/ (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/airstream-imagines-its-first-electric-trailer-the-estream-concept/)
There's very little aerodynamic penalty when pulling a small enclosed trailer behind a van. The van shields the frontal area of the trailer from the oncoming air so there's much less drag. It's why Semi tractors have large fairings to guide air over/around the trailers they're pulling.
Most pickups tow trailers with a frontal area that's larger than the truck and at least partially exposed to oncoming air. There's a bunch more range killing drag to deal with.
Your Sprinter is also a diesel, which is a more appropriate fuel for steady, hard work than gasoline. We use different liquid fuels for different tasks that better suit their attributes. I see a low/zero carbon future the same way. Batteries won't likely get it done for tasks like long distance towing. We'll need to pursue alternatives for applications that see continuous, hard work.
Here's a comparison test between a Lightning EV and a gas powered GMC 1500 towing identical trailers:
https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/ (https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/)
The gas truck is a 2023 GMC Sierra 1500 with the 6.2L engine. The EPA rating for that truck is 17mpg combined (19mpg highway) and 408 total miles of range. The test truck got 8.9mpg per the onboard computer during their towing test which is 52% of the combined rated fuel economy and 46.8% of the rated highway fuel economy.
The Lightning started with 282mi of range and probably could've made it about 95 miles with that trailer at modern highway speeds if they had chosen to really push the envelope.
Battery power seems perfect for towing - plenty of torque. Maybe in the future trailers will come with their own batteries built into the floor. That way you have the extra electrons just when you need them. The trailers would essentially "pull themselves". Wait, someone has already thought of it! https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/airstream-imagines-its-first-electric-trailer-the-estream-concept/ (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/airstream-imagines-its-first-electric-trailer-the-estream-concept/)
One good solution might be a small gas (motorcycle) or diesel engine (tractor) that is part of the trailer and is capable of producing enough power to keep the tow vehicle charged. That way the weight would stay with the trailer when the BEV wasn't towing. Somewhat like the refrigeration systems on reefer trailers though perhaps hidden away within the trailer body better. And preferably quieter...
Edit: But yeah, the cost... Makes ICE engines remain the low cost solution for now.
Hopefully, AI will figure this shit out. It just doesn't appear to be humanly possible. lol
There's very little aerodynamic penalty when pulling a small enclosed trailer behind a van. The van shields the frontal area of the trailer from the oncoming air so there's much less drag. It's why Semi tractors have large fairings to guide air over/around the trailers they're pulling.
Most pickups tow trailers with a frontal area that's larger than the truck and at least partially exposed to oncoming air. There's a bunch more range killing drag to deal with.
Your Sprinter is also a diesel, which is a more appropriate fuel for steady, hard work than gasoline. We use different liquid fuels for different tasks that better suit their attributes. I see a low/zero carbon future the same way. Batteries won't likely get it done for tasks like long distance towing. We'll need to pursue alternatives for applications that see continuous, hard work.
Here's a comparison test between a Lightning EV and a gas powered GMC 1500 towing identical trailers:
https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/ (https://insideevs.com/news/594871/ford-f150-lightning-vs-gas-truck-towing-range-single-charge/)
The gas truck is a 2023 GMC Sierra 1500 with the 6.2L engine. The EPA rating for that truck is 17mpg combined (19mpg highway) and 408 total miles of range. The test truck got 8.9mpg per the onboard computer during their towing test which is 52% of the combined rated fuel economy and 46.8% of the rated highway fuel economy.
The Lightning started with 282mi of range and probably could've made it about 95 miles with that trailer at modern highway speeds if they had chosen to really push the envelope.
Battery power seems perfect for towing - plenty of torque. Maybe in the future trailers will come with their own batteries built into the floor. That way you have the extra electrons just when you need them. The trailers would essentially "pull themselves". Wait, someone has already thought of it! https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/airstream-imagines-its-first-electric-trailer-the-estream-concept/ (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/airstream-imagines-its-first-electric-trailer-the-estream-concept/)
One good solution might be a small gas (motorcycle) or diesel engine (tractor) that is part of the trailer and is capable of producing enough power to keep the tow vehicle charged. That way the weight would stay with the trailer when the BEV wasn't towing. Somewhat like the refrigeration systems on reefer trailers though perhaps hidden away within the trailer body better. And preferably quieter...
Edit: But yeah, the cost... Makes ICE engines remain the low cost solution for now.
The idea of a small ICE range extender is not without merit for small passenger vehicles (BMW i3). But things get harder with bigger vehicles doing hard work.
THe BMW i3 gets almost 4mi/kwh per long term driving tests that I've seen. The Lightning in the tow test that I linked was consuming electricity at a rate of >1kwh per mile of travel on the highway. You're going to need a whole lot more than a motorcycle engine to charge an EV at a rate of 1kwh per minute (60KW). Again, the cost and weight of the system becomes problematic.
Here's a 65kw generator for reference (I'm ignoring charging inefficiency for simplicity):
(https://www.depco.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/thumbnail_Image-15.jpg)
So - Range extenders are required to help make electric cars more practical. Necessity is the mother of invention. But, who's it daddy?No, you can just stop buying oversized stuff. And if you transport a big box with the airodynamics of a pregnant cow, just don't drive faster than 45 miles per hour (I think that is a typical speed in the US? EU would be 70km/h).
So - Range extenders are required to help make electric cars more practical. Necessity is the mother of invention. But, who's it daddy?No, you can just stop buying oversized stuff. And if you transport a big box with the airodynamics of a pregnant cow, just don't drive faster than 45 miles per hour (I think that is a typical speed in the US? EU would be 70km/h).
Air resistance is subject to the square, so simply driving slow and using regenerative breaking should give 50% more range. And then use the damned thing and make a break of at least 20min while charging, as you should do anyway after no more than 2 hours of driving.
American car makers stopped selling sedans in USA. You can still get a sedan from Honda, Kia, etc, but Ford and GM do not have new cars only SUVs. They say it's due to customer demand, but some may be due to the extra margin they make on those vehicles they sell with the aerodynamics of a pregnant cow.
I'm not sure you know this, but American car makers stopped selling sedans in USA. You can still get a sedan from Honda, Kia, etc, but Ford and GM do not have new cars only SUVs. They say it's due to customer demand, but some may be due to the extra margin they make on those vehicles they sell with the aerodynamics of a pregnant cow. So - Some of the reason for these bulky vehicles is due to supply and not always demand. I traded in my Focus 3 1/2 years ago and kind of still miss it.I know many EU producers did or do the same. And I think my i10 from Hyundai is also stopped this year. There are still options.
So - Range extenders are required to help make electric cars more practical. Necessity is the mother of invention. But, who's it daddy?No, you can just stop buying oversized stuff. And if you transport a big box with the airodynamics of a pregnant cow, just don't drive faster than 45 miles per hour (I think that is a typical speed in the US? EU would be 70km/h).
Air resistance is subject to the square, so simply driving slow and using regenerative breaking should give 50% more range. And then use the damned thing and make a break of at least 20min while charging, as you should do anyway after no more than 2 hours of driving.
Your big trucks drive at that speed? wow! That's certainly dangerous for anyone on the street.
In Germany it's 80kph max for above 3,5t.
And you see quite a number of Dutch driving that speed to flow with the trucks, and some drive slower.
But you know, if this big distance is your main point, then just don't buy the "pregnant cow" and simply rent something at or close to your goal, it's faster and cheaper! (Not to mention you should travel by train, but I know, the US...)
Really, you guys all need a few good facepunches.
Your big trucks drive at that speed? wow! That's certainly dangerous for anyone on the street.
In Germany it's 80kph max for above 3,5t.
And you see quite a number of Dutch driving that speed to flow with the trucks, and some drive slower.
But you know, if this big distance is your main point, then just don't buy the "pregnant cow" and simply rent something at or close to your goal, it's faster and cheaper! (Not to mention you should travel by train, but I know, the US...)
Really, you guys all need a few good facepunches.
Apparently it is not just a Ford problem, but also a Hyundai, GM and Toyota problem as well and one which is skewed toward EV sales, not ICE. [size=78%]https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/slow-selling-evs-are-auto-industrys-new-headache-2023-07-11/ (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/slow-selling-evs-are-auto-industrys-new-headache-2023-07-11/)[/size]
I am very curious about the F150 Lightning, which was such an exciting announcement given the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world. The range, especially when towing, is dismal and this is hurting sales.
Lightning sales were up 4.1% in Q2 compared to Q1, and 119% YoY:
https://www.teslarati.com/ford-f-150-lighning-sales-q2-2023/ (https://www.teslarati.com/ford-f-150-lighning-sales-q2-2023/)
And that's after every trim level has seen around $20k in price hikes since the initial release.
Towing range being cut in half is not unique to the Lightning, or even EVs. Teslas and Rivians and the new Silverado EV all suffer similar range cuts. ICE equivalents do too, it's just that it's fast and easy to refill a liquid fuel tank vs charging a huge EV battery.
But Lightning sales fell 22% in June, oddly, while production ramped up so inventories are like 90 days now. Ford will be cutting prices soon, no doubt.
So - Range extenders are required to help make electric cars more practical. Necessity is the mother of invention. But, who's it daddy?No, you can just stop buying oversized stuff. And if you transport a big box with the airodynamics of a pregnant cow, just don't drive faster than 45 miles per hour (I think that is a typical speed in the US? EU would be 70km/h).
Air resistance is subject to the square, so simply driving slow and using regenerative breaking should give 50% more range. And then use the damned thing and make a break of at least 20min while charging, as you should do anyway after no more than 2 hours of driving.
Your big trucks drive at that speed? wow! That's certainly dangerous for anyone on the street.
In Germany it's 80kph max for above 3,5t.
And you see quite a number of Dutch driving that speed to flow with the trucks, and some drive slower.
But you know, if this big distance is your main point, then just don't buy the "pregnant cow" and simply rent something at or close to your goal, it's faster and cheaper! (Not to mention you should travel by train, but I know, the US...)
Really, you guys all need a few good facepunches.
I saw this engine article the other day and thought it was cool:
https://www.thedrive.com/news/company-builds-powerful-500cc-one-stroke-engine-immediately-installs-it-in-a-miata (https://www.thedrive.com/news/company-builds-powerful-500cc-one-stroke-engine-immediately-installs-it-in-a-miata)
So - Range extenders are required to help make electric cars more practical. Necessity is the mother of invention. But, who's it daddy?
Hopefully, AI will figure this shit out. It just doesn't appear to be humanly possible. lol
Since I worked run AI for much of my career, I can assure you that it will not :-)
So - Range extenders are required to help make electric cars more practical. Necessity is the mother of invention. But, who's it daddy?No, you can just stop buying oversized stuff. And if you transport a big box with the airodynamics of a pregnant cow, just don't drive faster than 45 miles per hour (I think that is a typical speed in the US? EU would be 70km/h).
Air resistance is subject to the square, so simply driving slow and using regenerative breaking should give 50% more range. And then use the damned thing and make a break of at least 20min while charging, as you should do anyway after no more than 2 hours of driving.
I don't think the politics of the moment would allow a lower speed limit.
I don't think the politics of the moment would allow a lower speed limit.
Probably not but if the incumbent is re-elected he could do it.
You'll love this - our crossover SUV consumes 8.5L per 100 km (~28 mpg). And that is pretty good around here.
Pickups are more like 12L / 100 km. And double that if they are towing a larger RV.
We paid between $3.50 and $4.25 per gallon of gasoline.
...
Finally, I just got back from a trip to British Columbia, and saw a LOT more EVs there. I discovered why after putting gas in my rental car before returning it- gas seems to be >$6/gallon!
Just got an initial quote for Tesla Insurance for my new Model Y. $181 per month, which is MUCH cheaper than anything I could find anywhere else.
Germany. A bit under 300 dollar. A year. Small Hyundai.Just got an initial quote for Tesla Insurance for my new Model Y. $181 per month, which is MUCH cheaper than anything I could find anywhere else.
Since insurance is very regional, how does that compare to other cars for you as a driver in your area?
I'll throw our insurance in for fun - $55.83 / mo. for full coverage on a 2014 Mazda CX-5 with 2 drivers. (Outside Philly area)
Just got an initial quote for Tesla Insurance for my new Model Y. $181 per month, which is MUCH cheaper than anything I could find anywhere else.
Since insurance is very regional, how does that compare to other cars for you as a driver in your area?
I'll throw our insurance in for fun - $55.83 / mo. for full coverage on a 2014 Mazda CX-5 with 2 drivers. (Outside Philly area)
Finally, I just got back from a trip to British Columbia, and saw a LOT more EVs there. I discovered why after putting gas in my rental car before returning it- gas seems to be >$6/gallon!
BC has also gone to great lengths to get fast chargers installed all over the place. I go anywhere in our EV and don't worry about range - there is a charger in every 1 horse town on the highway, and where there is no town there is just a charger in a pullout. Hope BC has installed tons of them, for example - presumably because they've figured out that it's an economic boon to have tired drivers stop for 45 minutes after driving 3-4 hours out of Vancouver.
Finally, I just got back from a trip to British Columbia, and saw a LOT more EVs there. I discovered why after putting gas in my rental car before returning it- gas seems to be >$6/gallon!
BC has also gone to great lengths to get fast chargers installed all over the place. I go anywhere in our EV and don't worry about range - there is a charger in every 1 horse town on the highway, and where there is no town there is just a charger in a pullout. Hope BC has installed tons of them, for example - presumably because they've figured out that it's an economic boon to have tired drivers stop for 45 minutes after driving 3-4 hours out of Vancouver.
I think Starbucks ought to install chargers. Two coffees and a couple of snacks purchased while the owner waits ~30 minute for a recharge. Owners might already be frequent guests of SB. Let's see - ~30 minutes out in the end of a some parking lot at a strip mall or sitting around Starbucks relaxing? Hmmm.... (I'd choose the car and carry snacks/drinks in a oooler b/c SB is too expensive for me more than a couple times per year).
Germany. A bit under 300 dollar. A year. Small Hyundai.Just got an initial quote for Tesla Insurance for my new Model Y. $181 per month, which is MUCH cheaper than anything I could find anywhere else.
Since insurance is very regional, how does that compare to other cars for you as a driver in your area?
I'll throw our insurance in for fun - $55.83 / mo. for full coverage on a 2014 Mazda CX-5 with 2 drivers. (Outside Philly area)
Germany. A bit under 300 dollar. A year. Small Hyundai.Just got an initial quote for Tesla Insurance for my new Model Y. $181 per month, which is MUCH cheaper than anything I could find anywhere else.
Since insurance is very regional, how does that compare to other cars for you as a driver in your area?
I'll throw our insurance in for fun - $55.83 / mo. for full coverage on a 2014 Mazda CX-5 with 2 drivers. (Outside Philly area)
Looks like that driving a lot slower and the lack of vehicles with the aerodynamics of a pregnant cow saves in other ways than fuel consumption.
It certainly helps having less expensive cars, more disciplined drivers (for a given amount) and less driving per head to reduce the average accident damage per head.
It certainly helps having less expensive cars, more disciplined drivers (for a given amount) and less driving per head to reduce the average accident damage per head.
You'd think that, but here are my annual costs per vehicle (from late 2019 to now)--
2017 Bolt - $1340/year
2020 Model 3 LR - $900/yr
2022 Rivian R1T - $800/yr
Insurance usually gives large discounts for driver assistance safety features (which typically correspond to more expensive/newer vehicles).
Insurance usually gives large discounts for driver assistance safety features (which typically correspond to more expensive/newer vehicles).
...because they reduce crashes, thereby reducing risk to the insurance company.
I have a theory that wide-spread adaptation of self-driving cars will come about when the insurance actuaries determine the risk to insuring a self-driving car with certain safety protocols (e.g. dash cams, anti-speeding software) is FAR less than insuring a human with an average or below average risk profile. Or... that you need to charge human drivers a premium.
Time and time again people willingly give up control in exchange for convenience and/or lower prices.
A discussion about insurance prices is pointless without discussing coverage. In my state (NJ), minimum auto insurance is $15k per person for bodily injury and $5k property damage, with a total up to $30k per incident - which is comically low given what car values / repair costs are (nevermind medical costs).German law mandates as minimum 7,5 million EURO for person damage and property damage 1,22 million. There is also a 50K minimum for monetary damage though I am not sure what that means. Maybe everything in the car?
Time and time again people willingly give up control in exchange for convenience and/or lower prices.
Germany. A bit under 300 dollar. A year. Small Hyundai.Just got an initial quote for Tesla Insurance for my new Model Y. $181 per month, which is MUCH cheaper than anything I could find anywhere else.
Since insurance is very regional, how does that compare to other cars for you as a driver in your area?
I'll throw our insurance in for fun - $55.83 / mo. for full coverage on a 2014 Mazda CX-5 with 2 drivers. (Outside Philly area)
Looks like that driving a lot slower and the lack of vehicles with the aerodynamics of a pregnant cow saves in other ways than fuel consumption.
A discussion about insurance prices is pointless without discussing coverage. In my state (NJ), minimum auto insurance is $15k per person for bodily injury and $5k property damage, with a total up to $30k per incident - which is comically low given what car values / repair costs are (nevermind medical costs).It certainly helps having less expensive cars, more disciplined drivers (for a given amount) and less driving per head to reduce the average accident damage per head.
You'd think that, but here are my annual costs per vehicle (from late 2019 to now)--
2017 Bolt - $1340/year
2020 Model 3 LR - $900/yr
2022 Rivian R1T - $800/yr
Germany. A bit under 300 dollar. A year. Small Hyundai.Just got an initial quote for Tesla Insurance for my new Model Y. $181 per month, which is MUCH cheaper than anything I could find anywhere else.
Since insurance is very regional, how does that compare to other cars for you as a driver in your area?
I'll throw our insurance in for fun - $55.83 / mo. for full coverage on a 2014 Mazda CX-5 with 2 drivers. (Outside Philly area)
Looks like that driving a lot slower and the lack of vehicles with the aerodynamics of a pregnant cow saves in other ways than fuel consumption.
A discussion about insurance prices is pointless without discussing coverage. In my state (NJ), minimum auto insurance is $15k per person for bodily injury and $5k property damage, with a total up to $30k per incident - which is comically low given what car values / repair costs are (nevermind medical costs).It certainly helps having less expensive cars, more disciplined drivers (for a given amount) and less driving per head to reduce the average accident damage per head.
You'd think that, but here are my annual costs per vehicle (from late 2019 to now)--
2017 Bolt - $1340/year
2020 Model 3 LR - $900/yr
2022 Rivian R1T - $800/yr
You should talk to your insurer about your Bolt coverage. Is it being driven by a teen or octogenarian?
Our annual costs roughly follow value for our vehicles (which have identical drivers, usage, and coverage).
2015 Lexus $630
2010 Lexus $595
2007 Mazda $400
...
Self driving vehicles is a whole different can o' worms though. Why do I need insurance on my car at all if I'm not the one driving it? It's not like it was my decision that caused the accident. I should hold zero culpability.
...
Self driving vehicles is a whole different can o' worms though. Why do I need insurance on my car at all if I'm not the one driving it? It's not like it was my decision that caused the accident. I should hold zero culpability.
You are responsible for any damage your possessions do to other peoples things. If a step in your home broke and I was hurt you and your insurance would be libel even if you were not home (and I had permission to be in your home). IANAL
well, in a sense you are right - you *should* have no liability beyond proper maintenance of your vehicle. Hence why it could be substantially cheaper. But that's not the only insurance one typically carries on their vehicle (e.g. uninsured/underinsured motorist, road-hazard / disaster, trip interruption and rental reimbursement).
Self driving vehicles is a whole different can o' worms though. Why do I need insurance on my car at all if I'm not the one driving it? It's not like it was my decision that caused the accident. I should hold zero culpability.
Well your tires weren't new enough or your brakes haven't been inspected in the past 30K miles... Your responsibilities as the owner. Or something like that.
Well your tires weren't new enough or your brakes haven't been inspected in the past 30K miles... Your responsibilities as the owner. Or something like that.
Yeah, but I'm talking about an accident caused by the self-driving itself. Assuming I maintain my vehicle properly. No system is perfect, so they'll happen . . . but they're certainly not my fault.
Well your tires weren't new enough or your brakes haven't been inspected in the past 30K miles... Your responsibilities as the owner. Or something like that.
Yeah, but I'm talking about an accident caused by the self-driving itself. Assuming I maintain my vehicle properly. No system is perfect, so they'll happen . . . but they're certainly not my fault.
If I borrow your car and crash it, you are the one stuck with the civil liability. That's why insurance in Canada is attached to the vehicle, not the driver. I always though it was backwards, but maybe there are good reasons.
So today you would be responsible for the behaviour of your self driving car. The law may eventually catch up if we actually get level 3 or higher self driving cars on the road... I wonder what's going on in San Francisco with all their self driving taxis?
By this time in the future you will probably go in from of a robot judge to plead your case.Well your tires weren't new enough or your brakes haven't been inspected in the past 30K miles... Your responsibilities as the owner. Or something like that.
Yeah, but I'm talking about an accident caused by the self-driving itself. Assuming I maintain my vehicle properly. No system is perfect, so they'll happen . . . but they're certainly not my fault.
...
Self driving vehicles is a whole different can o' worms though. Why do I need insurance on my car at all if I'm not the one driving it? It's not like it was my decision that caused the accident. I should hold zero culpability.
You are responsible for any damage your possessions do to other peoples things. If a step in your home broke and I was hurt you and your insurance would be libel even if you were not home (and I had permission to be in your home). IANAL
Yeah, because I'm responsible for the step in my home being in working condition.
If the vehicle I'm driving is licensed for full self-driving and it's in correct working condition, why would I be responsible for it making an accident? I have no control over the software. I have no control over the vehicle. That would be like blaming me for an accident that happens with the bus or train I'm riding in as a passenger. Sure, I paid for the ticket . . . but why should I be culpable?
...
Self driving vehicles is a whole different can o' worms though. Why do I need insurance on my car at all if I'm not the one driving it? It's not like it was my decision that caused the accident. I should hold zero culpability.
You are responsible for any damage your possessions do to other peoples things. If a step in your home broke and I was hurt you and your insurance would be libel even if you were not home (and I had permission to be in your home). IANAL
Yeah, because I'm responsible for the step in my home being in working condition.
If the vehicle I'm driving is licensed for full self-driving and it's in correct working condition, why would I be responsible for it making an accident? I have no control over the software. I have no control over the vehicle. That would be like blaming me for an accident that happens with the bus or train I'm riding in as a passenger. Sure, I paid for the ticket . . . but why should I be culpable?
Volvo (and perhaps Polestar by extension?) came out a few years ago and said they'd be liable instead of their customers:
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/455/volvo-accepting-full-liability-in-autonomous-car-crashes (https://www.thedrive.com/tech/455/volvo-accepting-full-liability-in-autonomous-car-crashes)
But who knows when/if such a vehicle might exist, or if they'll actually put their neck out like that. I for one would be much more likely to buy an autonomous vehicle that the manufacturer had enough faith in to assume liability like that. Not only would it be lower insurance payments, but also it would mean the manufacturer had done enough testing to have faith in their vehicle.
Well your tires weren't new enough or your brakes haven't been inspected in the past 30K miles... Your responsibilities as the owner. Or something like that.
Yeah, but I'm talking about an accident caused by the self-driving itself. Assuming I maintain my vehicle properly. No system is perfect, so they'll happen . . . but they're certainly not my fault.
But who knows when/if such a vehicle might exist, or if they'll actually put their neck out like that. I for one would be much more likely to buy an autonomous vehicle that the manufacturer had enough faith in to assume liability like that. Not only would it be lower insurance payments, but also it would mean the manufacturer had done enough testing to have faith in their vehicle.
But who knows when/if such a vehicle might exist, or if they'll actually put their neck out like that. I for one would be much more likely to buy an autonomous vehicle that the manufacturer had enough faith in to assume liability like that. Not only would it be lower insurance payments, but also it would mean the manufacturer had done enough testing to have faith in their vehicle.
Seems far easier and legally cheaper to say the customer is responsible fo the vehicle when the vehicle is moving much like they do now with the current generation of semi-autonomous vehicles.
But who knows when/if such a vehicle might exist, or if they'll actually put their neck out like that. I for one would be much more likely to buy an autonomous vehicle that the manufacturer had enough faith in to assume liability like that. Not only would it be lower insurance payments, but also it would mean the manufacturer had done enough testing to have faith in their vehicle.
Seems far easier and legally cheaper to say the customer is responsible fo the vehicle when the vehicle is moving much like they do now with the current generation of semi-autonomous vehicles.
Either the system is safe enough that the manufacturer can back it up, or it's not.
If what you're describing is the case, then there will never be true autonomous driving. If the car owner is legally responsible for everything, it would be stupid not to be sitting behind the wheel monitoring every action the vehicle makes 'automatically'.
I'm sure the Merc engineers will pore over the car to make sure you grabbed the wheel when needed
I'm sure the Merc engineers will pore over the car to make sure you grabbed the wheel when needed
If you need to grab the wheel at all, then the car isn't autonomous.
Based on the chart you gave it looks like anything under level 4 is not autonomous.
But who knows when/if such a vehicle might exist, or if they'll actually put their neck out like that. I for one would be much more likely to buy an autonomous vehicle that the manufacturer had enough faith in to assume liability like that. Not only would it be lower insurance payments, but also it would mean the manufacturer had done enough testing to have faith in their vehicle.
Seems far easier and legally cheaper to say the customer is responsible fo the vehicle when the vehicle is moving much like they do now with the current generation of semi-autonomous vehicles.
Either the system is safe enough that the manufacturer can back it up, or it's not.
If what you're describing is the case, then there will never be true autonomous driving. If the car owner is legally responsible for everything, it would be stupid not to be sitting behind the wheel monitoring every action the vehicle makes 'automatically'.
Based on the chart you gave it looks like anything under level 4 is not autonomous.
Level 3 and above is autonomous based on the wording "These are automated driving features" compared to "These are driver support features". One can technically and legally read a newspaper or play a game while in the driver's seat, after all.
It's definitely more obvious when you're in a taxi that doesn't have a driver.
...
Level 3 - 'When the feature requests, you must drive'. The wording is very clear that a driver must always be ready to support the feature with level 3, therefore it's not autonomous. You can't read a newspaper or play a game if you're constantly waiting for the car to dump all control onto you as would be necessary for safe operation.
Level 3 - 'When the feature requests, you must drive'. The wording is very clear that a driver must always be ready to support the feature with level 3, therefore it's not autonomous. You can't read a newspaper or play a game if you're constantly waiting for the car to dump all control onto you as would be necessary for safe operation.
[T]he driver must keep their face visible to the vehicle’s in-car cameras at all times but can also turn their head to talk to a passenger or play a game on the vehicle’s infotainment screen. (A Mercedes engineer suggested playing Tetris, for example.)
It can be a question of degrees. Like how much warning will you get before the human has to take over, 60sec, 10sec, 0.1sec? and why does the human have to take over, road construction up the way or an impending crash and the software does not want to be in control at impact?
"I cant ever relax at home, the smoke detector may go off at any instant" - while partly true it is not exactly a correct representation.
Which I call Bullshit.
Either the software can cope with everything that can come up. Or it can't, and then after 10 seconds you are already in it, whatever it is.
...
Level 3 - 'When the feature requests, you must drive'. The wording is very clear that a driver must always be ready to support the feature with level 3, therefore it's not autonomous. You can't read a newspaper or play a game if you're constantly waiting for the car to dump all control onto you as would be necessary for safe operation.
It can be a question of degrees. Like how much warning will you get before the human has to take over, 60sec, 10sec, 0.1sec? and why does the human have to take over, road construction up the way or an impending crash and the software does not want to be in control at impact?
"I cant ever relax at home, the smoke detector may go off at any instant" - while partly true it is not exactly a correct representation.
So, we might be pulling the trigger and buying an EV. We're looking at the 2023 Kia Niro. There aren't many options, but are there things we should consider? We're in an area that doesn't get below freezing very often, so $1300 extra for the heat pump (which includes a battery heater and heated steering wheel) is probably not worth it.
We're not stuck on the Niro, but most other crossovers seem much bigger. Sedans usually have too low seating for my knees.
So, we might be pulling the trigger and buying an EV. We're looking at the 2023 Kia Niro. There aren't many options, but are there things we should consider? We're in an area that doesn't get below freezing very often, so $1300 extra for the heat pump (which includes a battery heater and heated steering wheel) is probably not worth it.
We're not stuck on the Niro, but most other crossovers seem much bigger. Sedans usually have too low seating for my knees.
That looks quite interesting, although it has a couple show stoppers for me. If I wanted a huge honkin' tablet on the dash, I'd get a Tesla. And a panoramic roof sounds great in Scandinavia, but dreadful in the south. The Volvo has quicker DC charging, though, which could be a sticky point (once or twice a year) with the Niro.So, we might be pulling the trigger and buying an EV. We're looking at the 2023 Kia Niro. There aren't many options, but are there things we should consider? We're in an area that doesn't get below freezing very often, so $1300 extra for the heat pump (which includes a battery heater and heated steering wheel) is probably not worth it.
We're not stuck on the Niro, but most other crossovers seem much bigger. Sedans usually have too low seating for my knees.
The Volvo EX30 (coming soon) looks to be very compelling for a small crossover starting around $35k.
That looks quite interesting, although it has a couple show stoppers for me. If I wanted a huge honkin' tablet on the dash, I'd get a Tesla. And a panoramic roof sounds great in Scandinavia, but dreadful in the south. The Volvo has quicker DC charging, though, which could be a sticky point (once or twice a year) with the Niro.
We don't qualify for the tax rebate, as our income is too low, but Kia is offering $3750 off the price and as low as .9 APR financing (makes paying cash look less compelling). If you lease, they take off the full $7500 up front, but I'd prefer to buy, unless the numbers make it somehow cheaper in the end. I've never even considered leasing, so I don't know much about that.
That looks quite interesting, although it has a couple show stoppers for me. If I wanted a huge honkin' tablet on the dash, I'd get a Tesla. And a panoramic roof sounds great in Scandinavia, but dreadful in the south. The Volvo has quicker DC charging, though, which could be a sticky point (once or twice a year) with the Niro.So, we might be pulling the trigger and buying an EV. We're looking at the 2023 Kia Niro. There aren't many options, but are there things we should consider? We're in an area that doesn't get below freezing very often, so $1300 extra for the heat pump (which includes a battery heater and heated steering wheel) is probably not worth it.
We're not stuck on the Niro, but most other crossovers seem much bigger. Sedans usually have too low seating for my knees.
The Volvo EX30 (coming soon) looks to be very compelling for a small crossover starting around $35k.
We don't qualify for the tax rebate, as our income is too low, but Kia is offering $3750 off the price or as low as .9 APR financing (makes paying cash look less compelling). If you lease, they take off the full $7500 up front, but I'd prefer to buy, unless the numbers make it somehow cheaper in the end. I've never even considered leasing, so I don't know much about that.
I believe the $7500 rebate will be taken off at point of sale in 2024 -- it may be worth waiting a few months?
I believe the $7500 rebate will be taken off at point of sale in 2024 -- it may be worth waiting a few months?
Won't the rebate still only apply to American made cars?
$3,750 of the new credit is based upon the vehicle having at least 40% of its battery critical minerals from the United States or countries with a free trade agreement with the United States.
The other $3,750 of the new credit is based on at least 50% of the battery components of the vehicle coming from the United States or countries with a free trade agreement with the US.
The 40% minerals requirement increases to 50% in 2024, 60% in 2025, 70% in 2026 and 80% in 2027.
The 50% battery components requirement increases to 60% in 2024, 70% in 2026, 80% in 2027, 90% in 2028 and 100% in 2029.
Beginning in 2025, any vehicle with battery minerals or components from a foreign entity of concern are excluded from the tax credit.
In typical style, Toyota has taken their own approach and a long term view. They have reportedly been "secretly" developing a solid state battery with a range of 700-900 miles and recharging time of 10 minutes. If true, it will blow the rest of the industry out of the water and put them in the lead for EVs (and everything else!).
Toyota has been saying this about solid state batteries for some time.
2012
https://phys.org/news/2012-09-toyota-solid-state-lithium-superionic.html (https://phys.org/news/2012-09-toyota-solid-state-lithium-superionic.html)
2017
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2017/07/25/ultrafast-charging-solid-state-ev-batteries-around-the-corner-toyota-confirms/?sh=3ec7d93544bb (https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2017/07/25/ultrafast-charging-solid-state-ev-batteries-around-the-corner-toyota-confirms/?sh=3ec7d93544bb)
2020
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33435923/toyota-solid-state-battery-2025/ (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33435923/toyota-solid-state-battery-2025/)
If they really had a battery like that, they would stop developing hydrogen immediately. But they haven't. It would make a hydrogen infrastructure for consumer vehicles more absurd than it already is.
Edit: I don't doubt they can make that work in a lab. The issue with new battery tech again and again is the ability to scale it and make it in production.
A good signal for it being real would be a factory for the batteries being built somewhere and more factories being built to produce the EVs with this amazing technology because the demand would be outrageous. Can anyone find where these factories are being built?
I guess it works on people like me. I'll hang on to my gas guzzling SUV if it looks like the electric car industry will have a major breakthrough.
As for the hydrogen, it can be used for all sorts of things.
As for the hydrogen, it can be used for all sorts of things.
The kind of battery Toyota is claiming here would have an energy density of 650+ wh/kg. That's enough for small planes, ships and heavy machinery, way more than what cars and semi trucks require. It would be a world changing product if they can make it. For infrastructure, the average charging station costs $20,000 to build. The average hydrogen station costs $1.9 million to build.
What use is a hydrogen fuel cell in the near term with batteries like that? What use is a hydrogen fuel cell with batteries we already have? And who is buying the Toyota Mirai?
I guess it works on people like me. I'll hang on to my gas guzzling SUV if it looks like the electric car industry will have a major breakthrough.
My FIL uses stories like these to delay purchase indefinitely. Each time he thinks about replacing a car he reads some article about some company who are experimenting with a new technology that could either double the range or allow an 80% charge in under 10 minutes and he winds up with another ICE.
Finally, I just got back from a trip to British Columbia, and saw a LOT more EVs there. I discovered why after putting gas in my rental car before returning it- gas seems to be >$6/gallon!
BC has also gone to great lengths to get fast chargers installed all over the place. I go anywhere in our EV and don't worry about range - there is a charger in every 1 horse town on the highway, and where there is no town there is just a charger in a pullout. Hope BC has installed tons of them, for example - presumably because they've figured out that it's an economic boon to have tired drivers stop for 45 minutes after driving 3-4 hours out of Vancouver.
I think Starbucks ought to install chargers. Two coffees and a couple of snacks purchased while the owner waits ~30 minute for a recharge. Owners might already be frequent guests of SB. Let's see - ~30 minutes out in the end of a some parking lot at a strip mall or sitting around Starbucks relaxing? Hmmm.... (I'd choose the car and carry snacks/drinks in a oooler b/c SB is too expensive for me more than a couple times per year).
I wonder about electrical load growth predictions. How much will electric cars affect load growth? Should a utility plan for massive EV sales and build for it now? This ad hints that there may be problems.
https://www.evconnect.com/blog/can-the-power-grid-handle-electric-cars (https://www.evconnect.com/blog/can-the-power-grid-handle-electric-cars)
If many distribution feeders need to be upsized along with many distribution transformers, it could be considerable capital investment.
I wonder about electrical load growth predictions. How much will electric cars affect load growth? Should a utility plan for massive EV sales and build for it now? This ad hints that there may be problems.
https://www.evconnect.com/blog/can-the-power-grid-handle-electric-cars (https://www.evconnect.com/blog/can-the-power-grid-handle-electric-cars)
If many distribution feeders need to be upsized along with many distribution transformers, it could be considerable capital investment.
As long as EV uptake remains slow(ish), electricity providers will have time to add capacity which one hopes is renewable and not gas. Everyone plugging in their EV after a grinding commute home from work will aggravate the evening peak hour issue unless they can smartly wait until after midnight to charge. California has the deepest EV penetration and had some major electricity supply issues in the summer of 2022 heat waves.
I wonder about electrical load growth predictions. How much will electric cars affect load growth? Should a utility plan for massive EV sales and build for it now? This ad hints that there may be problems.
https://www.evconnect.com/blog/can-the-power-grid-handle-electric-cars (https://www.evconnect.com/blog/can-the-power-grid-handle-electric-cars)
If many distribution feeders need to be upsized along with many distribution transformers, it could be considerable capital investment.
As long as EV uptake remains slow(ish), electricity providers will have time to add capacity which one hopes is renewable and not gas. Everyone plugging in their EV after a grinding commute home from work will aggravate the evening peak hour issue unless they can smartly wait until after midnight to charge. California has the deepest EV penetration and had some major electricity supply issues in the summer of 2022 heat waves.
And doesn't CA have that law that in 2035 or whatever, no more gasoline cars will be sold? That's not a lot of time to create all the infrastructure...
I wonder about electrical load growth predictions. How much will electric cars affect load growth? Should a utility plan for massive EV sales and build for it now? This ad hints that there may be problems.
https://www.evconnect.com/blog/can-the-power-grid-handle-electric-cars (https://www.evconnect.com/blog/can-the-power-grid-handle-electric-cars)
If many distribution feeders need to be upsized along with many distribution transformers, it could be considerable capital investment.
As long as EV uptake remains slow(ish), electricity providers will have time to add capacity which one hopes is renewable and not gas. Everyone plugging in their EV after a grinding commute home from work will aggravate the evening peak hour issue unless they can smartly wait until after midnight to charge. California has the deepest EV penetration and had some major electricity supply issues in the summer of 2022 heat waves.
And doesn't CA have that law that in 2035 or whatever, no more gasoline cars will be sold? That's not a lot of time to create all the infrastructure...
Well to be clear, in 2035 (12 years from now) California will no longer allow new passenger vehicles to be sold in state, but there is an exemption and longer glide path for trucks, which make up a substantial fraction of vehicles. Given the lifespan of a modern passenger vehicle is about 12 years, most ICE vehicles sold in California a decade from now will still be on the road in 2040.
Regardless, the grid needs are very much front and center for utilities, and the challenge is surmountable and clearly defined. Utility scale solar projects are taking roughly two years from ground-prep to commission, and gas powered plants can be operational in 3-4 years, and can replace or augment older plants. Large scale wind currently gets bogged down with permitting, but there are literally hundreds already in the queue. The US is currently adding something around 8,000 MW of new wind annually, and that’s increasing at double -digit rates. For off-shore, there’s currently over 30,000 MW already in permitting. It’s unclear how challenges will be resolved, but it’s conceivable that some or most of those will be operational by 2030.
Looking at it through a different lens - the US currently has 275 million horribly ineffficient mini powerplants on wheels called “cars”. From a mechanical engineering standpoint it’s simpler and far more efficient to build a few hundred new powerplants and several thousand turbines and a couple thousand utility scale solar arrays over the next 20 years than it is to build 500 million new mini gasoline power plants on wheels over that same time period.
Much like the "EVs pollute x% more from tires because they weigh more." True, but also doesn't the US's SUV/Truck addiction feed that more than EVs?
Much like the "EVs pollute x% more from tires because they weigh more." True, but also doesn't the US's SUV/Truck addiction feed that more than EVs?
Has demand for EVs in the US shifted away from trucks and SUVs? If not, then the added weight (while not a problem big enough to preclude uptake of electric vehicles) would seem like it's still going to be a problem that needs to be addressed in some way.
I don't care if an EV's tires increase my chance of death from pm2.5 by 2000x if the initial chance of death from pm2.5 was negligible to start with.Not to mention that only a low 2 digit number of people per year die from sharks - on the whole world! The drive to the beach is certainly more dangerous.
Visiting the beach raises my chance of death due to shark attack by infinity-x, because last I checked the midwest lacked any land sharks, but it wouldn't stop me going to the ocean or getting in the water.
I don't care if an EV's tires increase my chance of death from pm2.5 by 2000x if the initial chance of death from pm2.5 was negligible to start with.Not to mention that only a low 2 digit number of people per year die from sharks - on the whole world! The drive to the beach is certainly more dangerous.
Visiting the beach raises my chance of death due to shark attack by infinity-x, because last I checked the midwest lacked any land sharks, but it wouldn't stop me going to the ocean or getting in the water.
The risk of dying from tire "emissions" is a LOT higher though. We are talking about several people per million. How much exactly is of course, like all medical data you can only get through stats, quite unclear. Some say it kills more people than accidents. Others say most of the damage is done by smaller particles then you usually get from tires.
Of course in all those cases driving less is the most beneficial thing you can do to yourself, others, and your wallet.
I don't care if an EV's tires increase my chance of death from pm2.5 by 2000x if the initial chance of death from pm2.5 was negligible to start with.Not to mention that only a low 2 digit number of people per year die from sharks - on the whole world! The drive to the beach is certainly more dangerous.
Visiting the beach raises my chance of death due to shark attack by infinity-x, because last I checked the midwest lacked any land sharks, but it wouldn't stop me going to the ocean or getting in the water.
The risk of dying from tire "emissions" is a LOT higher though. We are talking about several people per million. How much exactly is of course, like all medical data you can only get through stats, quite unclear. Some say it kills more people than accidents. Others say most of the damage is done by smaller particles then you usually get from tires.
Of course in all those cases driving less is the most beneficial thing you can do to yourself, others, and your wallet.
Besides if I drive to the beach, I may not be able to park. Walking to the beach avoids that hassle.
Visiting the beach raises my chance of death due to shark attack by infinity-x, because last I checked the midwest lacked any land sharks, but it wouldn't stop me going to the ocean or getting in the water.
I wonder about electrical load growth predictions. How much will electric cars affect load growth? Should a utility plan for massive EV sales and build for it now? This ad hints that there may be problems.
https://www.evconnect.com/blog/can-the-power-grid-handle-electric-cars (https://www.evconnect.com/blog/can-the-power-grid-handle-electric-cars)
If many distribution feeders need to be upsized along with many distribution transformers, it could be considerable capital investment.
The Kia Niro no longer comes with a Level 1 charging cable. Really? It's not really a deal breaker, but dang, seems cheap. We may eventually want a Level 2 charger installed, but even if we do, it's not going to be instant.
I see a dozen Hyundai Ioniq 5 cars listed locally as "on the lot", but when I chat to ask if they're really on the lot (having been burned before), I just get requests for my phone number or email address. Why do car dealerships have a chat button, but refuse to use it for anything but collecting your info?
This is why I own a 14 year old car.
The Kia Niro no longer comes with a Level 1 charging cable. Really? It's not really a deal breaker, but dang, seems cheap. We may eventually want a Level 2 charger installed, but even if we do, it's not going to be instant.
I see a dozen Hyundai Ioniq 5 cars listed locally as "on the lot", but when I chat to ask if they're really on the lot (having been burned before), I just get requests for my phone number or email address. Why do car dealerships have a chat button, but refuse to use it for anything but collecting your info?
This is why I own a 14 year old car.
Visiting the beach raises my chance of death due to shark attack by infinity-x, because last I checked the midwest lacked any land sharks, but it wouldn't stop me going to the ocean or getting in the water.
Fun fact - you CAN get bitten by large salt- water sharks in the Midwest; Bull sharks travel over a thousand miles up the Mississippi fairly frequently. There have even been a few shark attacks by people swimming in the river as far north as Missouri.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/shark-attacks-landlocked-states-kentucky-missouri-new-mexico/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/shark-attacks-landlocked-states-kentucky-missouri-new-mexico/)
The Kia Niro no longer comes with a Level 1 charging cable. Really? It's not really a deal breaker, but dang, seems cheap. We may eventually want a Level 2 charger installed, but even if we do, it's not going to be instant.The chat button is there to get an input/output field for the bot that asks you for your info. Duh.
I see a dozen Hyundai Ioniq 5 cars listed locally as "on the lot", but when I chat to ask if they're really on the lot (having been burned before), I just get requests for my phone number or email address. Why do car dealerships have a chat button, but refuse to use it for anything but collecting your info?
This is why I own a 14 year old car.
They've gotten more clever. This time the chatbot handed me off to another chatbot with a name and a picture, so I thought just maybe I was talking to an actual person at the dealership.I see a dozen Hyundai Ioniq 5 cars listed locally as "on the lot", but when I chat to ask if they're really on the lot (having been burned before), I just get requests for my phone number or email address. Why do car dealerships have a chat button, but refuse to use it for anything but collecting your info?The chat button is there to get an input/output field for the bot that asks you for your info. Duh.
This is why I own a 14 year old car.
The Kia Niro no longer comes with a Level 1 charging cable. Really? It's not really a deal breaker, but dang, seems cheap. We may eventually want a Level 2 charger installed, but even if we do, it's not going to be instant.
I see a dozen Hyundai Ioniq 5 cars listed locally as "on the lot", but when I chat to ask if they're really on the lot (having been burned before), I just get requests for my phone number or email address. Why do car dealerships have a chat button, but refuse to use it for anything but collecting your info?
This is why I own a 14 year old car.
Avoiding dealers entirely is one strong reason to consider a Tesla.
Saw tons of EVs in Boston, and also suburbs of Arlington and Cambridge. Again, mainly Tesla Model 3s and Ys. I tasked my kids and niece and nephew with counting, they got tired of it. Too many of the same, they complained, and too boring.We live in a similar tech heavy area. Teslas are everywhere.
Boring = mainstream.
A new group of automotive super friends is banding together, promising to build the next big North American electric vehicle charging network. These worldwide automakers — BMW, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, and Stellantis — announced a planned joint venture today to erect easy-to-activate DC fast chargers along US and Canadian highways and in urban environments.
The grand plan for the currently unnamed partnership is to install “at least” 30,000 high-speed EV chargers by 2030, with the first ones to open summer 2024 in the US. The collective plans to leverage National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) funding in the US and will also use other private and public funding from state and federal sources to build out the network.
Current EV charging networks, from Tesla Superchargers to Electrify America, have stations installed in places where people can shop, eat, and use the bathroom. In a similar fashion, these new chargers will also be installed along routes to vacation destinations and in metropolitan areas.
The new stations will connect and charge EV models made by the partnered automakers without having to fumble with another charging station app. The companies also plan to integrate the developing “Plug and Charge” standard that the Federal Highway Administration is attempting to standardize.
“The better experience people have, the faster EV adoption will grow,” GM CEO Mary Barra states in the joint venture press release. Many charging networks today require their own apps and have issues of reliability. Tesla’s Supercharger network, which is considered among the best in the world, will be available to vehicles from automakers including Ford, GM, Volvo, and more without needing people to activate with an app.
The new joint venture is also planned to be entirely powered by renewable energy. It’s not known if renewable energy will directly power them or if the companies plan to buy credits like Rivian announced yesterday.
Canadians will have to wait for “a later stage” before initial stations are installed. All stations will include the standardized Tesla North American Charging Standard (NACS) ports and also the current widely used Combined Charging System (CCS) plugs.
Update July 26th, 2023 11:47AM ET: We’ve received confirmation that the full network is planned for completion by 2030.
You'd think that the petroleum industry would have had the insight to monopolize & monetize charging stations. The billions they've wasted fighting the inevitable would have been better invested in securing their dominance in supplying the new fuel source.Meh - the problem for them is it's impossible to monopolize (or even gain a majority stake in) charging. Most users charge at home most of the time, and any business or home that has modern electrical service can install L2 chargers which are sufficient to cover "daily driving" and even most day trips. At best the petroleum industry could have hoped to control the network of L3 (and they still could to some degree if they wanted). But... that's likely to supply << 5% of all the miles driven.
You'd think that the petroleum industry would have had the insight to monopolize & monetize charging stations. The billions they've wasted fighting the inevitable would have been better invested in securing their dominance in supplying the new fuel source.
Right. The tobacco industry did not try to get into medicine. Or the sugar industry.You'd think that the petroleum industry would have had the insight to monopolize & monetize charging stations. The billions they've wasted fighting the inevitable would have been better invested in securing their dominance in supplying the new fuel source.
Maybe all they need to do is to delay what's coming. The delay will provide them with billions and billions of added revenue.
Right. The tobacco industry did not try to get into medicine. Or the sugar industry.You'd think that the petroleum industry would have had the insight to monopolize & monetize charging stations. The billions they've wasted fighting the inevitable would have been better invested in securing their dominance in supplying the new fuel source.
Maybe all they need to do is to delay what's coming. The delay will provide them with billions and billions of added revenue.
Right. The tobacco industry did not try to get into medicine. Or the sugar industry.You'd think that the petroleum industry would have had the insight to monopolize & monetize charging stations. The billions they've wasted fighting the inevitable would have been better invested in securing their dominance in supplying the new fuel source.
Maybe all they need to do is to delay what's coming. The delay will provide them with billions and billions of added revenue.
Actually, big tobacco did diversify. RJR bought Nabisco and Philip Morris acquired Miller Brewing & Kraft Foods.
You'd think that the petroleum industry would have had the insight to monopolize & monetize charging stations. The billions they've wasted fighting the inevitable would have been better invested in securing their dominance in supplying the new fuel source.Meh - the problem for them is it's impossible to monopolize (or even gain a majority stake in) charging. Most users charge at home most of the time, and any business or home that has modern electrical service can install L2 chargers which are sufficient to cover "daily driving" and even most day trips. At best the petroleum industry could have hoped to control the network of L3 (and they still could to some degree if they wanted). But... that's likely to supply << 5% of all the miles driven.
You'd think that the petroleum industry would have had the insight to monopolize & monetize charging stations. The billions they've wasted fighting the inevitable would have been better invested in securing their dominance in supplying the new fuel source.
Maybe all they need to do is to delay what's coming. The delay will provide them with billions and billions of added revenue.
You'd think that the petroleum industry would have had the insight to monopolize & monetize charging stations. The billions they've wasted fighting the inevitable would have been better invested in securing their dominance in supplying the new fuel source.Meh - the problem for them is it's impossible to monopolize (or even gain a majority stake in) charging. Most users charge at home most of the time, and any business or home that has modern electrical service can install L2 chargers which are sufficient to cover "daily driving" and even most day trips. At best the petroleum industry could have hoped to control the network of L3 (and they still could to some degree if they wanted). But... that's likely to supply << 5% of all the miles driven.
But gas station franchises could have installed fast chargers on site and been ahead of the curve. There are the bathrooms and snacks too. Bucees has done that with Tesla chargers I noticed on a recent trip. Also, I never want to visit a Bucees again. What a circus!
The Kia Niro no longer comes with a Level 1 charging cable. Really? It's not really a deal breaker, but dang, seems cheap. We may eventually want a Level 2 charger installed, but even if we do, it's not going to be instant.
I see a dozen Hyundai Ioniq 5 cars listed locally as "on the lot", but when I chat to ask if they're really on the lot (having been burned before), I just get requests for my phone number or email address. Why do car dealerships have a chat button, but refuse to use it for anything but collecting your info?
This is why I own a 14 year old car.
Avoiding dealers entirely is one strong reason to consider a Tesla.
About double my budget…The Kia Niro no longer comes with a Level 1 charging cable. Really? It's not really a deal breaker, but dang, seems cheap. We may eventually want a Level 2 charger installed, but even if we do, it's not going to be instant.
I see a dozen Hyundai Ioniq 5 cars listed locally as "on the lot", but when I chat to ask if they're really on the lot (having been burned before), I just get requests for my phone number or email address. Why do car dealerships have a chat button, but refuse to use it for anything but collecting your info?
This is why I own a 14 year old car.
Avoiding dealers entirely is one strong reason to consider a Tesla.
Or a Polestar.
On a slightly side note, it was always my understanding that gas stations didn't make much on the actual gas: the items with the large profit margins were the snacks and sodas. If you have to entertain yourself for ~30 min while your car charges, that seems like a great opportunity to sell you a fancy coffee and pastry (or BBQ, whatever).
You'd think that the petroleum industry would have had the insight to monopolize & monetize charging stations. The billions they've wasted fighting the inevitable would have been better invested in securing their dominance in supplying the new fuel source.Meh - the problem for them is it's impossible to monopolize (or even gain a majority stake in) charging. Most users charge at home most of the time, and any business or home that has modern electrical service can install L2 chargers which are sufficient to cover "daily driving" and even most day trips. At best the petroleum industry could have hoped to control the network of L3 (and they still could to some degree if they wanted). But... that's likely to supply << 5% of all the miles driven.
But gas station franchises could have installed fast chargers on site and been ahead of the curve. There are the bathrooms and snacks too. Bucees has done that with Tesla chargers I noticed on a recent trip. Also, I never want to visit a Bucees again. What a circus!
Steady there, Bucees is practically a religion in some states. Big clean bathrooms and all the bbq and hot snacks you can imagine!
Dealer said he’d throw in a Level 1 charger. Now to see if they can dig up something other than black, dark gray, or light gray. Is that really all anyone wants?
I never thought about this before, but was just reading an article that's pushing for 'right to repair' legislation for EVs. Are EVs not like gas cars? With gas cars you just pickup the manual if you want to work on something. From what I'm reading it sounds like many repairs are complicated on EVs because of the software integration and a lot of them are only allowed to be done by the manufacturer.
I never thought about this before, but was just reading an article that's pushing for 'right to repair' legislation for EVs. Are EVs not like gas cars? With gas cars you just pickup the manual if you want to work on something. From what I'm reading it sounds like many repairs are complicated on EVs because of the software integration and a lot of them are only allowed to be done by the manufacturer.The article you need to read is this one:
This one by Cory is a very good read too: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near-future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/I never thought about this before, but was just reading an article that's pushing for 'right to repair' legislation for EVs. Are EVs not like gas cars? With gas cars you just pickup the manual if you want to work on something. From what I'm reading it sounds like many repairs are complicated on EVs because of the software integration and a lot of them are only allowed to be done by the manufacturer.The article you need to read is this one:
https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon
About double my budget…The Kia Niro no longer comes with a Level 1 charging cable. Really? It's not really a deal breaker, but dang, seems cheap. We may eventually want a Level 2 charger installed, but even if we do, it's not going to be instant.
I see a dozen Hyundai Ioniq 5 cars listed locally as "on the lot", but when I chat to ask if they're really on the lot (having been burned before), I just get requests for my phone number or email address. Why do car dealerships have a chat button, but refuse to use it for anything but collecting your info?
This is why I own a 14 year old car.
Avoiding dealers entirely is one strong reason to consider a Tesla.
Or a Polestar.
Dealer said he’d throw in a Level 1 charger. Now to see if they can dig up something other than black, dark gray, or light gray. Is that really all anyone wants?
They were selling lime green cars in the early 2000s. Why is this? Surely, the customers were not clamoring for plum red vehicles. Is it the paint companies?I read once that it's the car companies trying to think what will be a color people will like in the near future. And what they like is depending on general mood - hence black cars when a depression is in sight, white ones or wildy colored for a boom.
QuoteThey were selling lime green cars in the early 2000s. Why is this? Surely, the customers were not clamoring for plum red vehicles. Is it the paint companies?I read once that it's the car companies trying to think what will be a color people will like in the near future. And what they like is depending on general mood - hence black cars when a depression is in sight, white ones or wildy colored for a boom.
The colorful ones started before 2008 crash, the whites started a few years after.
I was not convinced by this, but in absense of any better explanation...
I was happy to hear the news yesterday that Checy is not killing the Bolt, after all.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190569344/chevy-bolt-electric-vehicle-gm-ev
QuoteThey were selling lime green cars in the early 2000s. Why is this? Surely, the customers were not clamoring for plum red vehicles. Is it the paint companies?I read once that it's the car companies trying to think what will be a color people will like in the near future. And what they like is depending on general mood - hence black cars when a depression is in sight, white ones or wildy colored for a boom.
The colorful ones started before 2008 crash, the whites started a few years after.
I was not convinced by this, but in absense of any better explanation...
It’s not wrong. Across all products (and particularly in fashion) companies must decide which pallet to use a year or more in advance. Thus begins a cycle of trying to both anticipating what customers might want and trying to influence their decisions. There’s even a color of the year. With cars it’s not as straightforward as slapping on a coat of paint. The designers want interiors to compliment exteriors and not clash. Orders for the leather, carpet and other upholstery are made years in advance.
Good for GM. The Bolt is not the kind of mainstream option the U.S. public wants, but it is an affordable vehicle for early adopters and enthusiasts, which can keep the brand top of mind for when they do have mainstream options like the Equinox EV available to buy.
Still think theAvalancheSilverado seems to lean too hard into the niche design, but no worse than the Cybertruck. Previews of the 2025 Ram EV suggest it's a modest approach like Ford did with the Lightning. My point just being that GM should be poised to sell lots of EVs but I don't know if they'll pull it off.
Off-topic GM (mostly ICE) rant:Spoiler: show
Good for GM. The Bolt is not the kind of mainstream option the U.S. public wants, but it is an affordable vehicle for early adopters and enthusiasts, which can keep the brand top of mind for when they do have mainstream options like the Equinox EV available to buy.
The Bolt is amazing -- they have improved it a lot since it first came out, too. In 2019 I bought a loaded 2017 Premier and this year my SO bought a 2023 EUV (not top trim) and hers is way nicer than mine was. Smoother throttle/regen transitions, too.
QuoteThey were selling lime green cars in the early 2000s. Why is this? Surely, the customers were not clamoring for plum red vehicles. Is it the paint companies?I read once that it's the car companies trying to think what will be a color people will like in the near future. And what they like is depending on general mood - hence black cars when a depression is in sight, white ones or wildy colored for a boom.
The colorful ones started before 2008 crash, the whites started a few years after.
I was not convinced by this, but in absense of any better explanation...
It’s not wrong. Across all products (and particularly in fashion) companies must decide which pallet to use a year or more in advance. Thus begins a cycle of trying to both anticipating what customers might want and trying to influence their decisions. There’s even a color of the year. With cars it’s not as straightforward as slapping on a coat of paint. The designers want interiors to compliment exteriors and not clash. Orders for the leather, carpet and other upholstery are made years in advance.
I've often wondered about how much the customer demands a particular colour vs the manufacturer provides only certain colours.
Like, when we were looking for a new Corolla in 2017 Toyota offered four shades of grey, white, black, maroon, and navy blue. I don't like any of those colours. But if I was buying a car I'd end up with one of them. And then I was reading articles about how those are the most popular car colours in Canada . . . but it makes me wonder if they're only 'popular' because there's nothing else available.
With EV tech evolving so quickly, I'm starting to consider leasing a Niro EV. Besides, Kia is offering $7500 off on the leases ($5k up front, and $2500 "residual value support").
Otherwise, they're offering $3750 off for buying. And I'd have to get a gray car, regardless.
I've never leased before. Horrid idea?
Good for GM. The Bolt is not the kind of mainstream option the U.S. public wants, but it is an affordable vehicle for early adopters and enthusiasts, which can keep the brand top of mind for when they do have mainstream options like the Equinox EV available to buy.
The Bolt is amazing -- they have improved it a lot since it first came out, too. In 2019 I bought a loaded 2017 Premier and this year my SO bought a 2023 EUV (not top trim) and hers is way nicer than mine was. Smoother throttle/regen transitions, too.
Oh no disrespect meant to the Bolt specifically. Just that small cars are a relatively small part of the U.S. market, and hatchbacks make up less than a quarter of those. So a hatchback EV is indeed a niche.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-demand-by-vehicle-type/
https://www.motor1.com/news/587230/suvs-still-rule-us-market/
With EV tech evolving so quickly, I'm starting to consider leasing a Niro EV. Besides, Kia is offering $7500 off on the leases ($5k up front, and $2500 "residual value support").
Otherwise, they're offering $3750 off for buying. And I'd have to get a gray car, regardless.
I've never leased before. Horrid idea?
A couple of years back, there were a few people getting sub-$100/mo EV leases. What's leasehackr talking about these days?
I've often wondered about how much the customer demands a particular colour vs the manufacturer provides only certain colours.
Like, when we were looking for a new Corolla in 2017 Toyota offered four shades of grey, white, black, maroon, and navy blue. I don't like any of those colours. But if I was buying a car I'd end up with one of them. And then I was reading articles about how those are the most popular car colours in Canada . . . but it makes me wonder if they're only 'popular' because there's nothing else available.
Speaking of colors, I recently noticed Plasti-Dip offers Glow-in-the-Dark paint. I doubt if it would be legal, but Glow sure would be a different color choice for a car.
I've often wondered about how much the customer demands a particular colour vs the manufacturer provides only certain colours.
Like, when we were looking for a new Corolla in 2017 Toyota offered four shades of grey, white, black, maroon, and navy blue. I don't like any of those colours. But if I was buying a car I'd end up with one of them. And then I was reading articles about how those are the most popular car colours in Canada . . . but it makes me wonder if they're only 'popular' because there's nothing else available.
Well, I can only say: If you ever get the chance to buy a yellow car, do it.
It makes finding it on the parking lot extremely easy and it makes a definitely feelable difference in heating up.
Last thing of course applies to white too, but if a quarter of the cars are white, you need to have a good memory for parking...
About 80% of all cars sold in the US are white, black or silver/gray. The remaining 20% are mostly red or blue.
About 80% of all cars sold in the US are white, black or silver/gray. The remaining 20% are mostly red or blue.
Here's the color options for the Tesla Model 3.Spoiler: show
About 80% of all cars sold in the US are white, black or silver/gray. The remaining 20% are mostly red or blue.
Here's the color options for the Tesla Model 3.Spoiler: show
You would think old Elon would have done green for the environmental thing.
Drove that 99 miles to a tiny dealership and picked up the blue Kia Niro EV. So! Much! Tech!
I'm hopeful we won't regret the purchase, but so far, it's nice to drive, even if absolutely no new car seats are as comfortable as our old Chevy HHR's seats. Why is that?
Drove that 99 miles to a tiny dealership and picked up the blue Kia Niro EV. So! Much! Tech!
I'm hopeful we won't regret the purchase, but so far, it's nice to drive, even if absolutely no new car seats are as comfortable as our old Chevy HHR's seats. Why is that?
with tyres taller than the average person, are the size of a modest two-storey house and carry ore loads between 220 and 400 tonnes0
Finally, an electric truck big enough for Americans!
https://thedriven.io/2023/06/23/bhp-says-battery-electric-cheaper-than-hydrogen-as-it-dumps-diesel-for-haul-trucks/Quotewith tyres taller than the average person, are the size of a modest two-storey house and carry ore loads between 220 and 400 tonnes0
0 https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/monster-movers-bhp-tests-electric-trucks-the-size-of-two-storey-house-20230526-p5dbjb.html
Finally, an electric truck big enough for Americans!
https://thedriven.io/2023/06/23/bhp-says-battery-electric-cheaper-than-hydrogen-as-it-dumps-diesel-for-haul-trucks/Quotewith tyres taller than the average person, are the size of a modest two-storey house and carry ore loads between 220 and 400 tonnes0
0 https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/monster-movers-bhp-tests-electric-trucks-the-size-of-two-storey-house-20230526-p5dbjb.html
A lot of those gigantic mining trucks - even the ones that use diesel - already have electric drive trains. Because you need that massive torque to get the thing to move - often its a diesel generator powering electric motors.
Finally, an electric truck big enough for Americans!
https://thedriven.io/2023/06/23/bhp-says-battery-electric-cheaper-than-hydrogen-as-it-dumps-diesel-for-haul-trucks/Quotewith tyres taller than the average person, are the size of a modest two-storey house and carry ore loads between 220 and 400 tonnes0
0 https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/monster-movers-bhp-tests-electric-trucks-the-size-of-two-storey-house-20230526-p5dbjb.html
A lot of those gigantic mining trucks - even the ones that use diesel - already have electric drive trains. Because you need that massive torque to get the thing to move - often its a diesel generator powering electric motors.
Can we talk Level 2 chargers here? While we probably won't actually need one, our local power company is paying up to $1100 to get the electrical work done. Hey, I'll take free (assuming it won't cost more than that). We have a 200 amp panel with a 30 amp breaker that's currently unused (and turned off).
Is a 30 amp circuit sufficient? Any recommended chargers?
Is a 30 amp circuit sufficient? Any recommended chargers?
I don't know anything about Level 2 chargers, but a quick search shows that you'd need 40-60 amps.
The panel is in the garage, about 12" from where we want to hang the charger. I don't think anything is wired to that turned off breaker since it's labeled "spare".
The car's a Kia Niro, with about a 65 kWh battery.
Looking on Amazon, wall charges range from sub $200 to almost $700. We don't want to burn down the house, so I was hoping for some recommendations on chargers. I think thatthis (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09ZNN3JB7) one (Emporia brand), which was recommended by Car & Driver, can be set for a 30amp circuit (or 40 or 50), but would I just be paying for extra capacity I wouldn't be able to use? Are there good brands that are just for 30amp circuits?
We have an electrician coming tomorrow; I'm trying to get an idea of what we want/need.
Can we talk Level 2 chargers here? While we probably won't actually need one, our local power company is paying up to $1100 to get the electrical work done. Hey, I'll take free (assuming it won't cost more than that). We have a 200 amp panel with a 30 amp breaker that's currently unused (and turned off).I pre-wired a box in the garage for a future electric car charger in the last home I built on a 50a circuit, recommended by my electrician.
Is a 30 amp circuit sufficient? Any recommended chargers?
The panel is in the garage, about 12" from where we want to hang the charger. I don't think anything is wired to that turned off breaker since it's labeled "spare".
The car's a Kia Niro, with about a 65 kWh battery.
Looking on Amazon, wall charges range from sub $200 to almost $700. We don't want to burn down the house, so I was hoping for some recommendations on chargers. I think thatthis (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09ZNN3JB7) one (Emporia brand), which was recommended by Car & Driver, can be set for a 30amp circuit (or 40 or 50), but would I just be paying for extra capacity I wouldn't be able to use? Are there good brands that are just for 30amp circuits?
We have an electrician coming tomorrow; I'm trying to get an idea of what we want/need.
The panel is in the garage, about 12" from where we want to hang the charger. I don't think anything is wired to that turned off breaker since it's labeled "spare".
The car's a Kia Niro, with about a 65 kWh battery.
Looking on Amazon, wall charges range from sub $200 to almost $700. We don't want to burn down the house, so I was hoping for some recommendations on chargers. I think thatthis (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09ZNN3JB7) one (Emporia brand), which was recommended by Car & Driver, can be set for a 30amp circuit (or 40 or 50), but would I just be paying for extra capacity I wouldn't be able to use? Are there good brands that are just for 30amp circuits?
We have an electrician coming tomorrow; I'm trying to get an idea of what we want/need.
If that's the case you should install a larger breaker because it won't cost much more. That will allow you to use a larger charger if you ever want to. It would also come in handy if you ever need to use it for a welder or an air compressor.
The panel is in the garage, about 12" from where we want to hang the charger. I don't think anything is wired to that turned off breaker since it's labeled "spare".
The car's a Kia Niro, with about a 65 kWh battery.
Looking on Amazon, wall charges range from sub $200 to almost $700. We don't want to burn down the house, so I was hoping for some recommendations on chargers. I think thatthis (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09ZNN3JB7) one (Emporia brand), which was recommended by Car & Driver, can be set for a 30amp circuit (or 40 or 50), but would I just be paying for extra capacity I wouldn't be able to use? Are there good brands that are just for 30amp circuits?
We have an electrician coming tomorrow; I'm trying to get an idea of what we want/need.
The car's a Kia Niro, with about a 65 kWh battery.
Kia's now offering $3750 off a purchase (or that $7500 off with a lease). Do to a Musk allergy, we never seriously considered the Tesla. Besides, Teslas are ubiquitous here, and I wanted something I could find in a parking lot... We at least window shopped about everything else in the class, but the Niro best met our needs. The Ionic 5 might have beat it except that the seats were painfully uncomfortable to me.The car's a Kia Niro, with about a 65 kWh battery.
How did you decide on the Niro? I love the size and form of it, but starting at 40k MSRP with no Federal tax credit puts it at the same price as the base Model Y with tax credit. Did you lease?
Not sure whether it would help or not but as a matter of habit I remove any dealer logos they put on my cars. Maybe the local dealer won't realize that you didn't buy it there in a matter of months. Dealers seem to have alot of turnover so maybe not much institutional memory.Yes, I took that off immediately.
Not sure whether it would help or not but as a matter of habit I remove any dealer logos they put on my cars. Maybe the local dealer won't realize that you didn't buy it there in a matter of months. Dealers seem to have alot of turnover so maybe not much institutional memory.Yes, I took that off immediately.
TIL that there's a 30% non-refundable tax credit here in the US for EV chargers. The power company is paying for the install, but this will be a reduction on the cost of the charger itself. Nice!
Americans express limited confidence that the country will build the necessary infrastructure to support large numbers of EVs on the roads. Some 17% say they are extremely or very confident this will happen, while 30% are somewhat confident. And 53% are not too or not at all confident.
Some interesting data in the latest Pew survey on attitudes towards EVs:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/13/how-americans-view-electric-vehicles/QuoteAmericans express limited confidence that the country will build the necessary infrastructure to support large numbers of EVs on the roads. Some 17% say they are extremely or very confident this will happen, while 30% are somewhat confident. And 53% are not too or not at all confident.
My takeaway from this survey is that after the EV enthusiasts have bought their EVs, its going to be hard to persuade the less enthusiastic.
“With all of these influences shaping today’s EV market, the biggest friction point for consideration is the availability of public chargers,” said Stewart Stropp, executive director of EV intelligence at J.D. Power. "The growth in public charging isn’t keeping pace with the rising number of EVs on the road. While owners are impressed by what automakers are offering, they’re also thinking about how, when and where they’ll be able to charge their vehicles away from home. A resounding effort to build out and improve the public charging infrastructure will emphatically increase EV purchase consideration.”
...and of course it's also worth noting that almost all of the ~80 million SFH already can charge EVs overnight, and for a typical user 90% of charging is done at home.
I see a huge runway for additional users to join, before the infrastructure catches up. Based on the workshops I've attended I expect fast charging infrastructure to be fairly mature as little as 5 years. I do think peak travel holidays might get bumpy for the next 2-3 years as so many new EV owners collide with peak demand for plugs.
Its more than bit irrational - similar to people who buy much larger vehicles than they need (like pickup trucks) for the couple of times a year they need to move something big.
...and of course it's also worth noting that almost all of the ~80 million SFH already can charge EVs overnight, and for a typical user 90% of charging is done at home.
I see a huge runway for additional users to join, before the infrastructure catches up. Based on the workshops I've attended I expect fast charging infrastructure to be fairly mature as little as 5 years. I do think peak travel holidays might get bumpy for the next 2-3 years as so many new EV owners collide with peak demand for plugs.
Indeed, there is a quote about this very point in the JD Power survey. Even though road trips are exceptional uses, that's what seems to be driving buying decisions.
Its more than bit irrational - similar to people who buy much larger vehicles than they need (like pickup trucks) for the couple of times a year they need to move something big.
There was deep cultural conditioning when I learned to drive around making sure the tank was full. Gas was expensive and options for filling the tank were limited. As most irrational fears, seeing past is difficult. Who hasn't been stranded with an empty tank? It is hard to comprehend the ease and convenience of plugging in at home and the shift away from having to rely on a service station that you have less control over....and of course it's also worth noting that almost all of the ~80 million SFH already can charge EVs overnight, and for a typical user 90% of charging is done at home.
I see a huge runway for additional users to join, before the infrastructure catches up. Based on the workshops I've attended I expect fast charging infrastructure to be fairly mature as little as 5 years. I do think peak travel holidays might get bumpy for the next 2-3 years as so many new EV owners collide with peak demand for plugs.
Indeed, there is a quote about this very point in the JD Power survey. Even though road trips are exceptional uses, that's what seems to be driving buying decisions.
Its more than bit irrational - similar to people who buy much larger vehicles than they need (like pickup trucks) for the couple of times a year they need to move something big.
...and of course it's also worth noting that almost all of the ~80 million SFH already can charge EVs overnight, and for a typical user 90% of charging is done at home.
I see a huge runway for additional users to join, before the infrastructure catches up. Based on the workshops I've attended I expect fast charging infrastructure to be fairly mature as little as 5 years. I do think peak travel holidays might get bumpy for the next 2-3 years as so many new EV owners collide with peak demand for plugs.
Indeed, there is a quote about this very point in the JD Power survey. Even though road trips are exceptional uses, that's what seems to be driving buying decisions.
Its more than bit irrational - similar to people who buy much larger vehicles than they need (like pickup trucks) for the couple of times a year they need to move something big.
I don't really see it as irrational to care about ability to make longer trips - I care about making longer trips, too.
Right now, my family has one car that meets all our use cases. Several of my family members live in areas with street parking only, so we couldn't even count on being able to charge while visiting. If there's no public chargers in those areas, we'd have to either own two cars, or pay through the nose to rent every time we want to visit our families.
A once monthly trip to visit family out of state requiring a rental car would easily be the difference in cost between gas/maintenance. Plus far less flexibility in emergencies - if one of my parents takes a fall, there's a big difference between jumping in the car and going, vs having to arrange a rental.
So tell me again why it's irrational to care about charging infrastructure?
I don't really see it as irrational to care about ability to make longer trips - I care about making longer trips, too.
Right now, my family has one car that meets all our use cases. Several of my family members live in areas with street parking only, so we couldn't even count on being able to charge while visiting. If there's no public chargers in those areas, we'd have to either own two cars, or pay through the nose to rent every time we want to visit our families.
A once monthly trip to visit family out of state requiring a rental car would easily be the difference in cost between gas/maintenance. Plus far less flexibility in emergencies - if one of my parents takes a fall, there's a big difference between jumping in the car and going, vs having to arrange a rental.
So tell me again why it's irrational to care about charging infrastructure?
...and of course it's also worth noting that almost all of the ~80 million SFH already can charge EVs overnight, and for a typical user 90% of charging is done at home.
I see a huge runway for additional users to join, before the infrastructure catches up. Based on the workshops I've attended I expect fast charging infrastructure to be fairly mature as little as 5 years. I do think peak travel holidays might get bumpy for the next 2-3 years as so many new EV owners collide with peak demand for plugs.
Indeed, there is a quote about this very point in the JD Power survey. Even though road trips are exceptional uses, that's what seems to be driving buying decisions.
Its more than bit irrational - similar to people who buy much larger vehicles than they need (like pickup trucks) for the couple of times a year they need to move something big.
I don't really see it as irrational to care about ability to make longer trips - I care about making longer trips, too.
Right now, my family has one car that meets all our use cases. Several of my family members live in areas with street parking only, so we couldn't even count on being able to charge while visiting. If there's no public chargers in those areas, we'd have to either own two cars, or pay through the nose to rent every time we want to visit our families.
A once monthly trip to visit family out of state requiring a rental car would easily be the difference in cost between gas/maintenance. Plus far less flexibility in emergencies - if one of my parents takes a fall, there's a big difference between jumping in the car and going, vs having to arrange a rental.
So tell me again why it's irrational to care about charging infrastructure?
Currently it takes ~5 minutes of planning to map out chargers on a planned route and then a ~30 minute stop every ~4 hours of driving until you reach your destination.
A quick check to find whether your destination has an L2 (or even a basic L1/120v outlet) for overnight charging.
Again, not as convenient as ICE but also not prohibitively cumbersome, especially if a 200+ mile day of driving happens only a few times per year. Far better (IMO) to concentrate on the other 99% of driving days, and how much better the experience is in an EV.
...but this is how people commonly buy things here in the US. So many people buy pickups not because they need their utility on a weekly basis, but because they might want to haul something a couple times each year. To meet those hypothetical outlier trips they spend thousands more annually
Currently it takes ~5 minutes of planning to map out chargers on a planned route and then a ~30 minute stop every ~4 hours of driving until you reach your destination.
Doesn't feel that easy when I'm hearing all the stories - on this forum! - of people pulling up to a charging station that was on their planned route, only to find the whole thing is out of order. Then you get to add the on-the-fly stress of trying to find another charger close enough to make it, having to drive further out of your way, and being late to your destination.QuoteA quick check to find whether your destination has an L2 (or even a basic L1/120v outlet) for overnight charging.
Pretty sure I mentioned street parking at someone's home, so... no, there is no overnight charging at the destination, not even by standard outlet. Especially in some locations, I could wind up parked several blocks away from the house.QuoteAgain, not as convenient as ICE but also not prohibitively cumbersome, especially if a 200+ mile day of driving happens only a few times per year. Far better (IMO) to concentrate on the other 99% of driving days, and how much better the experience is in an EV.
Also pretty sure I mentioned once a month trips - if that counts as "a few times a year" to you, fine, but it's definitely not 1% of my driving days.
In fact, let's do the math.
30 days in a month: 10 days driving to the office (2 days/week), call it 5 days driving longer distances still within range without requiring a charge, and 2 days long driving with no charging at destination, gives me 17 total driving days.
I get ~12% of my driving days. If we did it by miles instead, probably 50%?Quote...but this is how people commonly buy things here in the US. So many people buy pickups not because they need their utility on a weekly basis, but because they might want to haul something a couple times each year. To meet those hypothetical outlier trips they spend thousands more annually
These are not hypothetical trips, this is actual usage.
Really sick of this narrative that everyone can get by with only charging at home, 30 min stops every 4 hours is not a big deal (that's a lot of added time to a long trip!), and everyone who worries about range and charging networks hasn't considered it properly. Some of us have, and it is still a real problem.
I'm happy for everyone that has travel destinations near major highways with in-service, well maintained chargers every few exits, but that really isn't everyone.
Currently it takes ~5 minutes of planning to map out chargers on a planned route and then a ~30 minute stop every ~4 hours of driving until you reach your destination.
Doesn't feel that easy when I'm hearing all the stories - on this forum! - of people pulling up to a charging station that was on their planned route, only to find the whole thing is out of order. Then you get to add the on-the-fly stress of trying to find another charger close enough to make it, having to drive further out of your way, and being late to your destination.QuoteA quick check to find whether your destination has an L2 (or even a basic L1/120v outlet) for overnight charging.
Pretty sure I mentioned street parking at someone's home, so... no, there is no overnight charging at the destination, not even by standard outlet. Especially in some locations, I could wind up parked several blocks away from the house.QuoteAgain, not as convenient as ICE but also not prohibitively cumbersome, especially if a 200+ mile day of driving happens only a few times per year. Far better (IMO) to concentrate on the other 99% of driving days, and how much better the experience is in an EV.
Also pretty sure I mentioned once a month trips - if that counts as "a few times a year" to you, fine, but it's definitely not 1% of my driving days.
In fact, let's do the math.
30 days in a month: 10 days driving to the office (2 days/week), call it 5 days driving longer distances still within range without requiring a charge, and 2 days long driving with no charging at destination, gives me 17 total driving days.
I get ~12% of my driving days. If we did it by miles instead, probably 50%?Quote...but this is how people commonly buy things here in the US. So many people buy pickups not because they need their utility on a weekly basis, but because they might want to haul something a couple times each year. To meet those hypothetical outlier trips they spend thousands more annually
These are not hypothetical trips, this is actual usage.
Really sick of this narrative that everyone can get by with only charging at home, 30 min stops every 4 hours is not a big deal (that's a lot of added time to a long trip!), and everyone who worries about range and charging networks hasn't considered it properly. Some of us have, and it is still a real problem.
I'm happy for everyone that has travel destinations near major highways with in-service, well maintained chargers every few exits, but that really isn't everyone.
You seem to be arguing for your personal use case when I am speaking more broadly about the public response to the polls that 2sk22 quoted and the broader question of this thread. Yes, absolutely there are use cases where EVs have bigger drawbacks than is typical. You may indeed be one.
As for broken chargers, that’s where “plan your route comes in”. Simple enough to see whether a station has been online recently, and to have more than a singular recharging option. As for having to walk “several blocks” for overnight charging (or get a Lyft/Uber for the “last mile”) - yes that’s a potential annoyance, but I personally find it fairly minor, particularly if you consider the money saved on a 500 mile round trip over ICE. Others may value the inconvenience/savings factor differently.
Yes, you can do route planning in 5 minutes, and yes you can see if the charger has been operational recently in that time frame. I suspect people don't because they don't do this type of planning - they simply know "hey, there's a charger off Exit XX" and are surprised. Certainly it's an added step over finding a petrol station (when's the last time you looked up whether a given station had all its pumps functioning and has fuel in their holding tanks?)
Very interesting to hear there's no charging "at all". I've yet to encounter that in the last year, and I drive to some pretty tiny towns. It seems many public garages, town halls, almost all car dealerships, and many restaurants have L2 chargers now.
I'm not walking back my claim - I do find it irrational. But that's ok, us humans do all sorts of things that are irrational. We aren't Vulcans. I'm not arguing that your use case has more disadvantages than your typical driver.
Currently it takes ~5 minutes of planning to map out chargers on a planned route and then a ~30 minute stop every ~4 hours of driving until you reach your destination.
Doesn't feel that easy when I'm hearing all the stories - on this forum! - of people pulling up to a charging station that was on their planned route, only to find the whole thing is out of order. Then you get to add the on-the-fly stress of trying to find another charger close enough to make it, having to drive further out of your way, and being late to your destination.
News articles like these don't instill confidence in the public -
https://www.autoblog.com/2023/04/15/a-9-hour-drive-in-toyota-s-new-electric-suv-showed-me-how-brutal-ev-road-trips-can-be-with-the-wrong-car/ (https://www.autoblog.com/2023/04/15/a-9-hour-drive-in-toyota-s-new-electric-suv-showed-me-how-brutal-ev-road-trips-can-be-with-the-wrong-car/)
https://abc7ny.com/ev-chargers-electric-vehicles-tesla-charging-stations/12889177/ (https://abc7ny.com/ev-chargers-electric-vehicles-tesla-charging-stations/12889177/)
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/10/13/wyoming-ev-road-trip-15-hours-from-cheyenne-to-casper/ (https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/10/13/wyoming-ev-road-trip-15-hours-from-cheyenne-to-casper/)
How do you usually find that information?
How do you usually find that information?
PlugShare (https://www.plugshare.com/) is the best resource I've found.
How do you usually find that information?
PlugShare (https://www.plugshare.com/) is the best resource I've found.
Thanks RWD! Are you using the "Check ins" feature to guess whether the charger is operational? Looks like the one in my dad's town, the last check in was Nov 2022, and the person notes that they were not able to use it because they couldn't get the app to work. And the next nearest one has been offline since March. Does not fill me with confidence, but at least it's more information than the other site I tried.
More chargers need to be in expected places for the mainstream folks to see them w/o looking at an app.
The first EV owners were what I'd call "bleeding edge". Now, it's more like "leading edge". In a couple more years, it will be mainstream. I mean, it took a while for the horse and buggy to go away, too.
For trips, I look for DC fast chargers along the way, not necessarily at the destination, since they're mainly along main highways.
I recognize Teslas, but the others seem to blend in (I've noticed many new ICE cars are hiding their tailpipes, now). The only semi-reliable way for me to recognize a non-Tesla EV is in parking lots and on residential streets, when they emit that otherworldly sound to warn pedestrians. Hybrids, PHEVs (when they're running on battery) and EVs all will, though.The first EV owners were what I'd call "bleeding edge". Now, it's more like "leading edge". In a couple more years, it will be mainstream. I mean, it took a while for the horse and buggy to go away, too.
For trips, I look for DC fast chargers along the way, not necessarily at the destination, since they're mainly along main highways.
I've noticed that the number of EV owners on my block has ramped up dramatically in the past six months to a year. There are two Teslas but the rest are a variety of makes/models.
Solar panels would be a great addition to the rest stop charger plan. Even better might be a monitor in the lobby area showing EV and solar panel stats.
Production/consumption currently, over the past week/month/year. Consumption by the rest stop services and by EVs separately.
A little educational moment for anyone that cares to look.
I recognize Teslas, but the others seem to blend in (I've noticed many new ICE cars are hiding their tailpipes, now). The only semi-reliable way for me to recognize a non-Tesla EV is in parking lots and on residential streets, when they emit that otherworldly sound to warn pedestrians. Hybrids, PHEVs (when they're running on battery) and EVs all will, though.The first EV owners were what I'd call "bleeding edge". Now, it's more like "leading edge". In a couple more years, it will be mainstream. I mean, it took a while for the horse and buggy to go away, too.
For trips, I look for DC fast chargers along the way, not necessarily at the destination, since they're mainly along main highways.
I've noticed that the number of EV owners on my block has ramped up dramatically in the past six months to a year. There are two Teslas but the rest are a variety of makes/models.
I'm having a devil of a time with route planning on PlugShare and ABRP, but I can at least see the chargers along the route. Google maps has chargers listed, and I read that Apple will be adding EV charging route planning in the next iOS update.
I've also seen a lot of misinformation about opening up the Tesla network to other EVs. The main problem I see is their short charging cables that are set up to reach the Tesla port and little else. Other than that, it seems they would just need a dongle and permission, no?
Solar panels would be a great addition to the rest stop charger plan. Even better might be a monitor in the lobby area showing EV and solar panel stats.
Production/consumption currently, over the past week/month/year. Consumption by the rest stop services and by EVs separately.
A little educational moment for anyone that cares to look.
A related idea running around with the new mini-nuclear plants is to put them along interstate truck routes. This would service the extremely high instant demand needed for electric semis, but I imagine would also be quite beneficial for busy pedestrian EV travel.
Not sure of the cost benefit of that vs solar panels and local battery stations, but there is no real logistical reason to need the solar panels located on site excepting for the few times that production meets demand. Otherwise, the panels will still have to use the grid infrastructure to disperse overproduction, and grid will be needed for when demand isn't enough. Not really much different than having a solar farm offsite. The grid would still need to meet maximum demand if solar isn't producing, so there wouldn't be any resource savings having the panels on site.
We call it "the angels".
Solar panels would be a great addition to the rest stop charger plan. Even better might be a monitor in the lobby area showing EV and solar panel stats.
Production/consumption currently, over the past week/month/year. Consumption by the rest stop services and by EVs separately.
A little educational moment for anyone that cares to look.
A related idea running around with the new mini-nuclear plants is to put them along interstate truck routes. This would service the extremely high instant demand needed for electric semis, but I imagine would also be quite beneficial for busy pedestrian EV travel.
Not sure of the cost benefit of that vs solar panels and local battery stations, but there is no real logistical reason to need the solar panels located on site excepting for the few times that production meets demand. Otherwise, the panels will still have to use the grid infrastructure to disperse overproduction, and grid will be needed for when demand isn't enough. Not really much different than having a solar farm offsite. The grid would still need to meet maximum demand if solar isn't producing, so there wouldn't be any resource savings having the panels on site.
True - I was thinking about the rest stops we have across the bottom half of the continent that could benefit from a sun shade over the parking areas in the summer for people sitting in their cars. When I lived in southern Italy, autostrada gas stations sometimes offered carport like parking so people could rest for a moment and not get baked. Air conditioners in cars were not ubiquitous back then. Seemed like a great idea.
Of course here in the USA shade and benches are not a given b/c perhaps we are being urged to rent a place to sit inside a restaurant (buy food!) or to prevent the comfort of homeless?
Yes, the devil is in the details. Frankly I'd like to see solar on everything that faces the sun - especially big commercial properties like warehouses, schools, and parking lots.
I believe an old [US] federal law prohibits charging stations at rest stops because it prohibits certain commercialization at the rest stops.
We call it "the angels".
Not the SUV I heard this morning. Sounded a little like it ran over a farm yard animal. Didn't pay attention to the brand - maybe a Rav4 PHEV?
EV charging network ChargePoint has opened a new Network Operations Center to monitor its network of more than 243,000 charging ports in North America and Europe.
Solar panels would be a great addition to the rest stop charger plan. Even better might be a monitor in the lobby area showing EV and solar panel stats.
Production/consumption currently, over the past week/month/year. Consumption by the rest stop services and by EVs separately.
A little educational moment for anyone that cares to look.
A related idea running around with the new mini-nuclear plants is to put them along interstate truck routes. This would service the extremely high instant demand needed for electric semis, but I imagine would also be quite beneficial for busy pedestrian EV travel.
Not sure of the cost benefit of that vs solar panels and local battery stations, but there is no real logistical reason to need the solar panels located on site excepting for the few times that production meets demand. Otherwise, the panels will still have to use the grid infrastructure to disperse overproduction, and grid will be needed for when demand isn't enough. Not really much different than having a solar farm offsite. The grid would still need to meet maximum demand if solar isn't producing, so there wouldn't be any resource savings having the panels on site.
True - I was thinking about the rest stops we have across the bottom half of the continent that could benefit from a sun shade over the parking areas in the summer for people sitting in their cars. When I lived in southern Italy, autostrada gas stations sometimes offered carport like parking so people could rest for a moment and not get baked. Air conditioners in cars were not ubiquitous back then. Seemed like a great idea.
Of course here in the USA shade and benches are not a given b/c perhaps we are being urged to rent a place to sit inside a restaurant (buy food!) or to prevent the comfort of homeless?
Yes, the devil is in the details. Frankly I'd like to see solar on everything that faces the sun - especially big commercial properties like warehouses, schools, and parking lots.
Yeah, some roofs have surprisingly light weight resistance. And a ton of solar modules weights an surprising amount of a ton. Though imho the biggest problem should be wind, if you put them flat you don't need the heavy metal construction to hold them down (or fear that the roof would lift off in a storm).
Roofs seem easy to adapt and re-engineer. Not a mystery I mean.
Roofs seem easy to adapt and re-engineer. Not a mystery I mean.
Conceptually easy does not necessarily mean cost efficient. Different buildings of different ages and design means you need to evaluate each one on its own = time & money. With California's solar requirement on new single family homes I could see something similar on other new structures.
It occurred to me the other day that Aptera's solar car could be a very good fit for me, I drive once every few weeks and park on the street or in a lot that will not have EV charging for many many years. Not at all sure Aptera will make and sell a viable product and I hope my current beater lasts a lot longer but could be a cool option down the line.
Am I the only one who thinks we are marketing and building EVs all wrong?
Roofs seem easy to adapt and re-engineer. Not a mystery I mean.
Conceptually easy does not necessarily mean cost efficient. Different buildings of different ages and design means you need to evaluate each one on its own = time & money. With California's solar requirement on new single family homes I could see something similar on other new structures.
It occurred to me the other day that Aptera's solar car could be a very good fit for me, I drive once every few weeks and park on the street or in a lot that will not have EV charging for many many years. Not at all sure Aptera will make and sell a viable product and I hope my current beater lasts a lot longer but could be a cool option down the line.
How quick does modern gas go bad in a tank? I'm like you. I don't have an electric car and only use a few gallons every few weeks. I guess sunshine never goes bad.
Am I the only one who thinks we are marketing and building EVs all wrong? The manufacturers seem to be in an EV range arms race to make the biggest, heaviest, longest range vehicles. We are agonizing over infrastructure to allow for long range road trips. We seem to be ignoring that most Americans live in households with two or more cars. Most live in single family homes and thus have access to home charging. The average commute is less than 30 minutes each way. It seems to me that we should be concentrating our efforts on making EVs with modest range (say 150 miles) that are lighter and cheaper. I'm guessing that the auto makers have done market research that tells them consumers want big long range vehicles, but what have they done to influence the market?
The other marketing mistake is focusing on environmental issues. Half the country is in denial about climate change and the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Maybe we'd get more traction if we started emphasizing things like energy independence and national security. If we can get half of our cars running on electricity that can be produced by renewables, natural gas or even, god forbid, coal, we could largely insulate ourselves from hostile nations like Russia and Saudi Arabia manipulating the price of oil.
Am I the only one who thinks we are marketing and building EVs all wrong? The manufacturers seem to be in an EV range arms race to make the biggest, heaviest, longest range vehicles. We are agonizing over infrastructure to allow for long range road trips. We seem to be ignoring that most Americans live in households with two or more cars. Most live in single family homes and thus have access to home charging. The average commute is less than 30 minutes each way. It seems to me that we should be concentrating our efforts on making EVs with modest range (say 150 miles) that are lighter and cheaper. I'm guessing that the auto makers have done market research that tells them consumers want big long range vehicles, but what have they done to influence the market?
The other marketing mistake is focusing on environmental issues. Half the country is in denial about climate change and the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Maybe we'd get more traction if we started emphasizing things like energy independence and national security. If we can get half of our cars running on electricity that can be produced by renewables, natural gas or even, god forbid, coal, we could largely insulate ourselves from hostile nations like Russia and Saudi Arabia manipulating the price of oil.
I completely agree with you! I think EVs with smaller batteries and PHEVs will work better for a lot of people and save overall on energy costs.
I'm guessing that the auto makers have done market research that tells them consumers want big long range vehicles, but what have they done to influence the market?As a car maker, why should I put effort in convinving people to buy cars that make me less profit?
Really?
First you open up the thing and need to make sure that still no rain goes through, so you might need a second temporary roof. Then you replace the carrying elements with stronger ones, maybe the surface too. Then, because of the higher weight, you need to place more carrying elements inside the building (which might annoy people a tiny bit) or increase the weight capacity of the walls.
By which point it's cheaper to just tear everything down and build it new, giving the "climate change is a leftist hoax" group a good argument that solar is too expensive.
Am I the only one who thinks we are marketing and building EVs all wrong? The manufacturers seem to be in an EV range arms race to make the biggest, heaviest, longest range vehicles. We are agonizing over infrastructure to allow for long range road trips. We seem to be ignoring that most Americans live in households with two or more cars. Most live in single family homes and thus have access to home charging. The average commute is less than 30 minutes each way. It seems to me that we should be concentrating our efforts on making EVs with modest range (say 150 miles) that are lighter and cheaper. I'm guessing that the auto makers have done market research that tells them consumers want big long range vehicles, but what have they done to influence the market?
The other marketing mistake is focusing on environmental issues. Half the country is in denial about climate change and the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Maybe we'd get more traction if we started emphasizing things like energy independence and national security. If we can get half of our cars running on electricity that can be produced by renewables, natural gas or even, god forbid, coal, we could largely insulate ourselves from hostile nations like Russia and Saudi Arabia manipulating the price of oil.
I completely agree with you! I think EVs with smaller batteries and PHEVs will work better for a lot of people and save overall on energy costs.
I'm guessing that the auto makers have done market research that tells them consumers want big long range vehicles, but what have they done to influence the market?As a car maker, why should I put effort in convinving [sic] people to buy cars that make me less profit?
Also don't underestimate the scale effects. Currently I think every singe [sic] car maker except Tesla and BYD is losing money with each car sold.
You seem to be arguing for your personal use case when I am speaking more broadly about the public response to the polls that 2sk22 quoted and the broader question of this thread. Yes, absolutely there are use cases where EVs have bigger drawbacks than is typical. You may indeed be one.
As for broken chargers, that’s where “plan your route comes in”. Simple enough to see whether a station has been online recently, and to have more than a singular recharging option. As for having to walk “several blocks” for overnight charging (or get a Lyft/Uber for the “last mile”) - yes that’s a potential annoyance, but I personally find it fairly minor, particularly if you consider the money saved on a 500 mile round trip over ICE. Others may value the inconvenience/savings factor differently.
Am I the only one who thinks we are marketing and building EVs all wrong? The manufacturers seem to be in an EV range arms race to make the biggest, heaviest, longest range vehicles. We are agonizing over infrastructure to allow for long range road trips. We seem to be ignoring that most Americans live in households with two or more cars. Most live in single family homes and thus have access to home charging. The average commute is less than 30 minutes each way. It seems to me that we should be concentrating our efforts on making EVs with modest range (say 150 miles) that are lighter and cheaper. I'm guessing that the auto makers have done market research that tells them consumers want big long range vehicles, but what have they done to influence the market?
The other marketing mistake is focusing on environmental issues. Half the country is in denial about climate change and the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Maybe we'd get more traction if we started emphasizing things like energy independence and national security. If we can get half of our cars running on electricity that can be produced by renewables, natural gas or even, god forbid, coal, we could largely insulate ourselves from hostile nations like Russia and Saudi Arabia manipulating the price of oil.
I completely agree with you! I think EVs with smaller batteries and PHEVs will work better for a lot of people and save overall on energy costs.
I agree too. My EV "obsession" is a small forward controls truck smaller than a 1960s VW van that has a top speed of 60 mph. I think their specs are impossible but I'm willing to daydream that it could be possible. A solar panel incorporated into the roof helps add miles to the range they claim. (XBus "pickup Bus").
Would be perfect in the small town where I live. My coworker drives a 1990s miniature forward controls Japanese (JDM) truck. If that is legal, why not the XBus? Hope they make it to market and it isn't vaporware.
I fully expect our government here in the :"Land of the Free" will slap the Chicken Tax on it or declare it hazardous to consumers and refuse to allow it to be imported. Meanwhile a hot rod guy can drag an old car out of a field and make a myriad of custom changes that potentially compromise its safety, and half ass repairs - and that is 50-states legal. -eye roll-
(I'm not down on the hot rod guy, I'm related to a bunch of those folks and I count myself as one).
Am I the only one who thinks we are marketing and building EVs all wrong? The manufacturers seem to be in an EV range arms race to make the biggest, heaviest, longest range vehicles. We are agonizing over infrastructure to allow for long range road trips. We seem to be ignoring that most Americans live in households with two or more cars. Most live in single family homes and thus have access to home charging. The average commute is less than 30 minutes each way. It seems to me that we should be concentrating our efforts on making EVs with modest range (say 150 miles) that are lighter and cheaper. I'm guessing that the auto makers have done market research that tells them consumers want big long range vehicles, but what have they done to influence the market?
The other marketing mistake is focusing on environmental issues. Half the country is in denial about climate change and the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Maybe we'd get more traction if we started emphasizing things like energy independence and national security. If we can get half of our cars running on electricity that can be produced by renewables, natural gas or even, god forbid, coal, we could largely insulate ourselves from hostile nations like Russia and Saudi Arabia manipulating the price of oil.
I completely agree with you! I think EVs with smaller batteries and PHEVs will work better for a lot of people and save overall on energy costs.
I agree too. My EV "obsession" is a small forward controls truck smaller than a 1960s VW van that has a top speed of 60 mph. I think their specs are impossible but I'm willing to daydream that it could be possible. A solar panel incorporated into the roof helps add miles to the range they claim. (XBus "pickup Bus").
Would be perfect in the small town where I live. My coworker drives a 1990s miniature forward controls Japanese (JDM) truck. If that is legal, why not the XBus? Hope they make it to market and it isn't vaporware.
I fully expect our government here in the :"Land of the Free" will slap the Chicken Tax on it or declare it hazardous to consumers and refuse to allow it to be imported. Meanwhile a hot rod guy can drag an old car out of a field and make a myriad of custom changes that potentially compromise its safety, and half ass repairs - and that is 50-states legal. -eye roll-
(I'm not down on the hot rod guy, I'm related to a bunch of those folks and I count myself as one).
Am I the only one who thinks we are marketing and building EVs all wrong? The manufacturers seem to be in an EV range arms race to make the biggest, heaviest, longest range vehicles. We are agonizing over infrastructure to allow for long range road trips. We seem to be ignoring that most Americans live in households with two or more cars. Most live in single family homes and thus have access to home charging. The average commute is less than 30 minutes each way. It seems to me that we should be concentrating our efforts on making EVs with modest range (say 150 miles) that are lighter and cheaper. I'm guessing that the auto makers have done market research that tells them consumers want big long range vehicles, but what have they done to influence the market?
The other marketing mistake is focusing on environmental issues. Half the country is in denial about climate change and the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Maybe we'd get more traction if we started emphasizing things like energy independence and national security. If we can get half of our cars running on electricity that can be produced by renewables, natural gas or even, god forbid, coal, we could largely insulate ourselves from hostile nations like Russia and Saudi Arabia manipulating the price of oil.
I completely agree with you! I think EVs with smaller batteries and PHEVs will work better for a lot of people and save overall on energy costs.
I agree too. My EV "obsession" is a small forward controls truck smaller than a 1960s VW van that has a top speed of 60 mph. I think their specs are impossible but I'm willing to daydream that it could be possible. A solar panel incorporated into the roof helps add miles to the range they claim. (XBus "pickup Bus").
Would be perfect in the small town where I live. My coworker drives a 1990s miniature forward controls Japanese (JDM) truck. If that is legal, why not the XBus? Hope they make it to market and it isn't vaporware.
I fully expect our government here in the :"Land of the Free" will slap the Chicken Tax on it or declare it hazardous to consumers and refuse to allow it to be imported. Meanwhile a hot rod guy can drag an old car out of a field and make a myriad of custom changes that potentially compromise its safety, and half ass repairs - and that is 50-states legal. -eye roll-
(I'm not down on the hot rod guy, I'm related to a bunch of those folks and I count myself as one).
Technology Connections (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJOfyMCEzjQ)' take on the potential standardization of charging plugs in the US, and how he hopes charging infrastructure will evolve.
Technology Connections (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJOfyMCEzjQ)' take on the potential standardization of charging plugs in the US, and how he hopes charging infrastructure will evolve.
I also am a fan of Alec Watson - always watch his videos. This was an exceptionally useful video and addressed most of my questions about plugs and charging.
I was also glad that he mentioned a problem that occurred to me: fast chargers are typically uncovered in the middle of a parking lot. Getting a charge while on a road trip when it's raining would not be pleasant. On a recent long distance trip in my ICE car, we had to fill up gas when raining a couple of times. I would not like to get soaked having to go out in the rain to plug in my vehicle. Having some kind of an awning would be much appreciated.
He notes that that fast charging stations will have to become like current gas stations which I think is right on the mark. The main problem with this however is that fast charging takes a lot longer than filling up gas so many more charging stalls will be necessary to serve the same volume of cars. So charging stations will require more area. This is not a problem on a rural interstate but would absolutely be a problem in more densely populated area.
Technology Connections (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJOfyMCEzjQ)' take on the potential standardization of charging plugs in the US, and how he hopes charging infrastructure will evolve.
I also am a fan of Alec Watson - always watch his videos. This was an exceptionally useful video and addressed most of my questions about plugs and charging.
I was also glad that he mentioned a problem that occurred to me: fast chargers are typically uncovered in the middle of a parking lot. Getting a charge while on a road trip when it's raining would not be pleasant. On a recent long distance trip in my ICE car, we had to fill up gas when raining a couple of times. I would not like to get soaked having to go out in the rain to plug in my vehicle. Having some kind of an awning would be much appreciated.
He notes that that fast charging stations will have to become like current gas stations which I think is right on the mark. The main problem with this however is that fast charging takes a lot longer than filling up gas so many more charging stalls will be necessary to serve the same volume of cars. So charging stations will require more area. This is not a problem on a rural interstate but would absolutely be a problem in more densely populated area.
I actually think it's playing out in reverse of this.
I agree that covers/shades would be nice. But gas stations don't have them because they're convenient. It's because they're required to provide shelter in order to prevent gas spills from being washed into storm drains. And chargers can really be put in any existing parking lot since they don't have the infrastructure needs of underground fuel tanks. So chargers can really just be distributed among the parking lots of existing businesses.
I see this happening in real time, as I live in an urban area, near a freeway, with lots of new commercial construction. Just in the last year we've had DCFC's installed at a new gas station, grocery store, In & Out and Costco all within a few miles of my house. DCFC's are going in incredibly quick in urban areas with high EV penetration. And since EV drivers charge ~80% at home on average, it won't require that many DCFC's. Although it will make holiday travel painful when everyone is on the road at the same time.
Urban areas are also easier to build DCFC's in, as the infrastructure behind the charger is already configured for industrial grade hookups, and these areas are served by large public utilities that can invest capital in expansion.
In contrast, DCFC's are fairly difficult to install in rural areas. As an extreme example, a small town with 200 people along a major interstate might have had their power needs established in the 1950's before home air conditioning was a thing. And they're probably served by a tiny utility that doesn't have a lot of capital to deploy for improvements. A city like this would have thousands of cars passing by in a hour. But DCFC's are nearly impossible to install because the transformers and even the medium duty power lines run to the nearest substation are maybe sized for the energy needs of 30 years ago. The power needs of a significant EV charging stop might be larger than the power needs of the town itself. These power upgrades can quickly add up into the millions. The problem of today is getting a station of 2-4 chargers installed in underserved rural towns. The problem of tomorrow is getting hundreds of chargers installed in these small towns along major travel corridors. It's not a small logistical lift.
This is coming, looks like $39k before any rebates - https://www.canoo.com/canoo/
...
I agree that covers/shades would be nice. But gas stations don't have them because they're convenient. It's because they're required to provide shelter in order to prevent gas spills from being washed into storm drains.
...
I find it annoying when someone leaves their vehicle at the gas pump and goes inside to shop/restroom or whatever when I am waiting for an open slot. Do people come across chargers with fully charged vehicles sitting there with nobody around for extended times? Do chargers display for the public to see any information? (charge state, time to completion, start time, etc.?)I once found a Nissan Leaf on the free 50kw charger at work and it said it had been on there for 10 hours. And another time the 4 non-tesla chargers at our airport were all occupied by cars not charging - including one car I swear I saw in the same spot when I dropped my wife off the week before. The airport one was much more annoying because I just unplugged the one at work, charged my car for 15 minutes and left.
I find it annoying when someone leaves their vehicle at the gas pump and goes inside to shop/restroom or whatever when I am waiting for an open slot. Do people come across chargers with fully charged vehicles sitting there with nobody around for extended times? Do chargers display for the public to see any information? (charge state, time to completion, start time, etc.?)
Thanks @NorCal , thanks @dandarc for the data/anecdote points and information. We are hopefully at least a decade away from needing to replace a vehicle and I will optimistically assume that a bunch of this will be cleared by then. But of course things happen and all these little points enter into my decision analysis. I try to plan the next vehicle well in advance of needing one, though it is mostly just trying to stay a bit in the loop with things.
The supporting infrastructure for technology is a fascinating subject. I was working with Caterpillar on the early days of the Tier 4 interim off-highway emissions regulations (~2011 implementation depending on power level). In a meeting with some decently higher ups in the engine division in 2006 one of the managers stated "we are going with an SCR/DEF solution; however, we are NOT going to put in the infrastructure for DEF availability in the US. " They pivoted in early 2008 away from SCR/DEF for that emissions tier level and I always wondered how many nails were in the coffin. The DEF infrastructure was not projected to be robust for some time. The general engine tech (at CAT) was not quite maturing at the proper rate. The supply base for the catalysts was still a few years from being ready. And so on. But I always remember that line about the supply chain.
Li-ion batteries are near their physical limit. You can squeeze out a bit more with better surrounding material etc. but I doubt their energy density will double once more.
Similar it is for loading. Every loading will have losses - which means heat. They already need to be cooled for fast charge. What do you want to do with double the density and 3 times loading speed? That is 6 times heat in a more denser, means harder to cool package.
And we are talking cars here, not "transports" as in goods. There the batteries need to be a lot bigger (10times?), at least for the current model of driving nearly everything in a truck for basically every distance.
Li-ion batteries are near their physical limit. You can squeeze out a bit more with better surrounding material etc. but I doubt their energy density will double once more.
Similar it is for loading. Every loading will have losses - which means heat. They already need to be cooled for fast charge. What do you want to do with double the density and 3 times loading speed? That is 6 times heat in a more denser, means harder to cool package.
And we are talking cars here, not "transports" as in goods. There the batteries need to be a lot bigger (10times?), at least for the current model of driving nearly everything in a truck for basically every distance.
First of all that are 2 different things. For HDDs you only need to find new ways to make smaller work. But there is no way to make more electrons inhabit the same space outside some drastic measures (Ever heard of fusion energy? The only thing to solve there is how to keep ions in place, just like in batteries.)Li-ion batteries are near their physical limit. You can squeeze out a bit more with better surrounding material etc. but I doubt their energy density will double once more.
Similar it is for loading. Every loading will have losses - which means heat. They already need to be cooled for fast charge. What do you want to do with double the density and 3 times loading speed? That is 6 times heat in a more denser, means harder to cool package.
And we are talking cars here, not "transports" as in goods. There the batteries need to be a lot bigger (10times?), at least for the current model of driving nearly everything in a truck for basically every distance.
I remember reading an article many years ago talking hard drive density - at the time, 80GB drives were the largest on the market and this article was saying that due to xyz reasons, we were hitting the ceiling of what was possible to store on magnetic platter drives. Today's hard drives are exceeding 20TB, or over 250x what was allegedly the ceiling previously.
Technology has ways of progressing - we're not there yet, but it's only recently that a lot of attention has gone into battery development. I'm curious to see where we are a decade from now.
First of all that are 2 different things. For HDDs you only need to find new ways to make smaller work. But there is no way to make more electrons inhabit the same space outside some drastic measures (Ever heard of fusion energy? The only thing to solve there is how to keep ions in place, just like in batteries.)Li-ion batteries are near their physical limit. You can squeeze out a bit more with better surrounding material etc. but I doubt their energy density will double once more.
Similar it is for loading. Every loading will have losses - which means heat. They already need to be cooled for fast charge. What do you want to do with double the density and 3 times loading speed? That is 6 times heat in a more denser, means harder to cool package.
And we are talking cars here, not "transports" as in goods. There the batteries need to be a lot bigger (10times?), at least for the current model of driving nearly everything in a truck for basically every distance.
I remember reading an article many years ago talking hard drive density - at the time, 80GB drives were the largest on the market and this article was saying that due to xyz reasons, we were hitting the ceiling of what was possible to store on magnetic platter drives. Today's hard drives are exceeding 20TB, or over 250x what was allegedly the ceiling previously.
Technology has ways of progressing - we're not there yet, but it's only recently that a lot of attention has gone into battery development. I'm curious to see where we are a decade from now.
And beside, the producers cheated. A 3TB disk you buy for your PC is just 3 disk with 1TB each packed together. The platters are close to the physical/economical limit for bits/space.
Similar thing for PV btw. That's why they are trying multi-layered PVs, organic PVs and so on. But those are new technologies.
Even the new technologies in view today are not gonna be revolutionary. Redox-flow, solid state... those might be cheaper. Or have more cycles. Or load faster or sometimes even several better stats. But nothing revolutionary that makes me think those are good enough for long range truck hauling.
Li-ion batteries are near their physical limit. You can squeeze out a bit more with better surrounding material etc. but I doubt their energy density will double once more.
Similar it is for loading. Every loading will have losses - which means heat. They already need to be cooled for fast charge. What do you want to do with double the density and 3 times loading speed? That is 6 times heat in a more denser, means harder to cool package.
And we are talking cars here, not "transports" as in goods. There the batteries need to be a lot bigger (10times?), at least for the current model of driving nearly everything in a truck for basically every distance.
First of all that are 2 different things. For HDDs you only need to find new ways to make smaller work. But there is no way to make more electrons inhabit the same space outside some drastic measures (Ever heard of fusion energy? The only thing to solve there is how to keep ions in place, just like in batteries.)Li-ion batteries are near their physical limit. You can squeeze out a bit more with better surrounding material etc. but I doubt their energy density will double once more.
Similar it is for loading. Every loading will have losses - which means heat. They already need to be cooled for fast charge. What do you want to do with double the density and 3 times loading speed? That is 6 times heat in a more denser, means harder to cool package.
And we are talking cars here, not "transports" as in goods. There the batteries need to be a lot bigger (10times?), at least for the current model of driving nearly everything in a truck for basically every distance.
I remember reading an article many years ago talking hard drive density - at the time, 80GB drives were the largest on the market and this article was saying that due to xyz reasons, we were hitting the ceiling of what was possible to store on magnetic platter drives. Today's hard drives are exceeding 20TB, or over 250x what was allegedly the ceiling previously.
Technology has ways of progressing - we're not there yet, but it's only recently that a lot of attention has gone into battery development. I'm curious to see where we are a decade from now.
And beside, the producers cheated. A 3TB disk you buy for your PC is just 3 disk with 1TB each packed together. The platters are close to the physical/economical limit for bits/space.
Similar thing for PV btw. That's why they are trying multi-layered PVs, organic PVs and so on. But those are new technologies.
Even the new technologies in view today are not gonna be revolutionary. Redox-flow, solid state... those might be cheaper. Or have more cycles. Or load faster or sometimes even several better stats. But nothing revolutionary that makes me think those are good enough for long range truck hauling.
Even the new technologies in view today are not gonna be revolutionary. Redox-flow, solid state... those might be cheaper. Or have more cycles. Or load faster or sometimes even several better stats. But nothing revolutionary that makes me think those are good enough for long range truck hauling.
Tesla Semi already has the ability to do 500 miles fully loaded.
What on earth are you talking about?Even the new technologies in view today are not gonna be revolutionary. Redox-flow, solid state... those might be cheaper. Or have more cycles. Or load faster or sometimes even several better stats. But nothing revolutionary that makes me think those are good enough for long range truck hauling.
Tesla Semi already has the ability to do 500 miles fully loaded.
1) I believe that when I see it done in the winter mountains.
2) I was talking about freight, not your apple pie when you visit grandma. Several tons of freight.
3) Does the Tesla Semi come for 30K? because that's roughly what it needs to be when it should scale to a 7,5t truck that is competitive. Not to mention that every highway station would need at least 100 chargers to charge the trucks up overnight. (And I am not even counting those that stand outside the parking spots)
Even the new technologies in view today are not gonna be revolutionary. Redox-flow, solid state... those might be cheaper. Or have more cycles. Or load faster or sometimes even several better stats. But nothing revolutionary that makes me think those are good enough for long range truck hauling.
Tesla Semi already has the ability to do 500 miles fully loaded.
1) I believe that when I see it done in the winter mountains.
2) I was talking about freight, not your apple pie when you visit grandma. Several tons of freight.
3) Does the Tesla Semi come for 30K? because that's roughly what it needs to be when it should scale to a 7,5t truck that is competitive. Not to mention that every highway station would need at least 100 chargers to charge the trucks up overnight. (And I am not even counting those that stand outside the parking spots)
Even the new technologies in view today are not gonna be revolutionary. Redox-flow, solid state... those might be cheaper. Or have more cycles. Or load faster or sometimes even several better stats. But nothing revolutionary that makes me think those are good enough for long range truck hauling.
Tesla Semi already has the ability to do 500 miles fully loaded.
1) I believe that when I see it done in the winter mountains.
2) I was talking about freight, not your apple pie when you visit grandma. Several tons of freight.
3) Does the Tesla Semi come for 30K? because that's roughly what it needs to be when it should scale to a 7,5t truck that is competitive. Not to mention that every highway station would need at least 100 chargers to charge the trucks up overnight. (And I am not even counting those that stand outside the parking spots)
Even the new technologies in view today are not gonna be revolutionary. Redox-flow, solid state... those might be cheaper. Or have more cycles. Or load faster or sometimes even several better stats. But nothing revolutionary that makes me think those are good enough for long range truck hauling.
Tesla Semi already has the ability to do 500 miles fully loaded.
1) I believe that when I see it done in the winter mountains.
2) I was talking about freight, not your apple pie when you visit grandma. Several tons of freight.
3) Does the Tesla Semi come for 30K? because that's roughly what it needs to be when it should scale to a 7,5t truck that is competitive. Not to mention that every highway station would need at least 100 chargers to charge the trucks up overnight. (And I am not even counting those that stand outside the parking spots)
Fully loaded? Yes.
Mountains with 4000 feet of elevation? Yes.
500 miles on a single charge? Yes.
Here's the article and the video - https://insideevs.com/news/624672/watch-fully-loaded-tesla-semi-cover-500-miles-on-single-charge/
Even the new technologies in view today are not gonna be revolutionary. Redox-flow, solid state... those might be cheaper. Or have more cycles. Or load faster or sometimes even several better stats. But nothing revolutionary that makes me think those are good enough for long range truck hauling.
Tesla Semi already has the ability to do 500 miles fully loaded.
1) I believe that when I see it done in the winter mountains.
2) I was talking about freight, not your apple pie when you visit grandma. Several tons of freight.
3) Does the Tesla Semi come for 30K? because that's roughly what it needs to be when it should scale to a 7,5t truck that is competitive. Not to mention that every highway station would need at least 100 chargers to charge the trucks up overnight. (And I am not even counting those that stand outside the parking spots)
Fully loaded? Yes.
Mountains with 4000 feet of elevation? Yes.
500 miles on a single charge? Yes.
Here's the article and the video - https://insideevs.com/news/624672/watch-fully-loaded-tesla-semi-cover-500-miles-on-single-charge/
Their car range was deceptively off by ~20%. Should we trust that "fully loaded" from Tesla means 80k/82k? How much of that is cargo and how much is the unknown cab and battery weight?
Or maybe "fully loaded" from Tesla means by volume and/or just loaded enough to make it to the distribution center without a charge?
Besides the promotional videos and statements, has anyone independently loaded up a Tesla semi to 82k pounds? And why not?
Tesla Semi already has the ability to do 500 miles fully loaded.
1) I believe that when I see it done in the winter mountains.
2) I was talking about freight, not your apple pie when you visit grandma. Several tons of freight.
3) Does the Tesla Semi come for 30K? because that's roughly what it needs to be when it should scale to a 7,5t truck that is competitive. Not to mention that every highway station would need at least 100 chargers to charge the trucks up overnight. (And I am not even counting those that stand outside the parking spots)
Fully loaded? Yes.
Mountains with 4000 feet of elevation? Yes.
500 miles on a single charge? Yes.
Here's the article and the video - https://insideevs.com/news/624672/watch-fully-loaded-tesla-semi-cover-500-miles-on-single-charge/
Their car range was deceptively off by ~20%. Should we trust that "fully loaded" from Tesla means 80k/82k? How much of that is cargo and how much is the unknown cab and battery weight?
Or maybe "fully loaded" from Tesla means by volume and/or just loaded enough to make it to the distribution center without a charge?
Besides the promotional videos and statements, has anyone independently loaded up a Tesla semi to 82k pounds? And why not?
Pepsi bought a bunch of the Semi's and they talk about fully loading them and getting 450 miles, here - https://runonless.com/roled-profiles/pepsico/
I think this is pretty damn cool. People should be excited about this.
Regarding Tesla Semis: Most people are familiar with Teslas “superchargers”, their L3 charging network which is by far the most built out in NA.
For their commercial heavy trucks Tesla is adding “mega chargers” which can put out 750 kW of DC current or 3x more than the v3 superchargers.
The US is putting so much into transitioning to EV, but I hear almost nothing about mass transit. Why don't we have high-speed rail in the US? Our airports are busier than ever & it's a PITA to fly. Will we ever have a bullet train running from Miami to Boston? What magic is required to make that happen? How many cars & planes could a modern rail system displace? How much CO2 could one eliminate from being generated?
The US is putting so much into transitioning to EV, but I hear almost nothing about mass transit. Why don't we have high-speed rail in the US? Our airports are busier than ever & it's a PITA to fly. Will we ever have a bullet train running from Miami to Boston? What magic is required to make that happen? How many cars & planes could a modern rail system displace? How much CO2 could one eliminate from being generated?
The US is putting so much into transitioning to EV, but I hear almost nothing about mass transit. Why don't we have high-speed rail in the US? Our airports are busier than ever & it's a PITA to fly. Will we ever have a bullet train running from Miami to Boston? What magic is required to make that happen? How many cars & planes could a modern rail system displace? How much CO2 could one eliminate from being generated?
There is A LOT of multi-lane highways. Just transform 2 of them into rails. No land needed. Capacity doubled. Emissions quartered, costs halved.The US is putting so much into transitioning to EV, but I hear almost nothing about mass transit. Why don't we have high-speed rail in the US? Our airports are busier than ever & it's a PITA to fly. Will we ever have a bullet train running from Miami to Boston? What magic is required to make that happen? How many cars & planes could a modern rail system displace? How much CO2 could one eliminate from being generated?
Right-of-way is a pretty big barrier to building new train infrastructure in the US.
Is all this just over the use of the term "long haul"? New tech enables new options that may or may not fit into existing classifications, would it make you happy to call the Tesla truck a "longer than short haul" - something else?
There is A LOT of multi-lane highways. Just transform 2 of them into rails. No land needed. Capacity doubled. Emissions quartered, costs halved.The US is putting so much into transitioning to EV, but I hear almost nothing about mass transit. Why don't we have high-speed rail in the US? Our airports are busier than ever & it's a PITA to fly. Will we ever have a bullet train running from Miami to Boston? What magic is required to make that happen? How many cars & planes could a modern rail system displace? How much CO2 could one eliminate from being generated?
Right-of-way is a pretty big barrier to building new train infrastructure in the US.
Tesla has chosen to put larger batteries in their electric Semi than the other manufacturers, which provides more headline grabbing range but increases cost and weight (reducing freight efficiency). Pepsi (or the taxpayers in this case) are paying for ~500 miles of battery capacity in trucks that are used for 100 mile routes. That's a lot of extra cost and weight.
500 miles point to point is cool, but it's a single route that was particularly advantageous, done under pretty ideal circumstances (at night with less traffic, cooler temps so no HVAC use, no precip to impact rolling resistance, etc) and had super expensive chargers at each end that were heavily or fully funded by tax dollars. That's a lot different than the way that most long haul trucking is currently done. And if most other trucking companies don't have the massive subsidy from local government paying for the trucks and chargers/electrical service upgrades, then the math probably gets pretty ugly. Oh, and the Tesla doesn't currently have a place for the driver to sleep which makes it a non-starter for most true "over the road" scenarios.
It's not nearly that easy. Multi-lane highways generally aren't next to the existing train stations, so in addition to the infrastructure of the track, you'd need to build all the stations, plus the roads and parking to reach those stations. Even if you just want to make the station an exit off the highway, that's still a lot of expensive infrastructure and additional space, beyond just trading a lane of highway into a rail.
Regarding Tesla Semis: Most people are familiar with Teslas “superchargers”, their L3 charging network which is by far the most built out in NA.
For their commercial heavy trucks Tesla is adding “mega chargers” which can put out 750 kW of DC current or 3x more than the v3 superchargers.
Yep. Way more power needed, which means way higher cost to install. And they seem to use a different connector than the NACS that Tesla prefers, so the Semi may not even be able to utilize the regular Supercharger network:
(https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/2023/01/Tesla-Semi-31.jpg?fit=around%7C875:492)
It's not nearly that easy. Multi-lane highways generally aren't next to the existing train stations, so in addition to the infrastructure of the track, you'd need to build all the stations, plus the roads and parking to reach those stations.
at your local corner store gas station that only sells gasoline?Such a thing exists?
It's not nearly that easy. Multi-lane highways generally aren't next to the existing train stations, so in addition to the infrastructure of the track, you'd need to build all the stations, plus the roads and parking to reach those stations. Even if you just want to make the station an exit off the highway, that's still a lot of expensive infrastructure and additional space, beyond just trading a lane of highway into a rail.
I've long thought that the interstate media would be the perfect place for passenger train rails. Then visited Chicago and lo and behold they did that with their commuter trains.
My imagined version has the trains running in the media with under passes to stations located in towns along the route.
We'd love to have a train to ride from here to the big metro where we attend concerts and other entertainment. Attend the concert and ride home to our town sleepy or tipsy with no problems. Right now I drive DW/teen/friends to the concerts and then park somewhere nearby. Grab a coffee and/or sandwich (use their wifi) and nap. Saves a little on parking, and I'm 100% good to drive while they gleefully recount how great the concert was and fall asleep.
It's not nearly that easy. Multi-lane highways generally aren't next to the existing train stations, so in addition to the infrastructure of the track, you'd need to build all the stations, plus the roads and parking to reach those stations.
MEEEEPP! US confusion! You don't need parking spaces at a train station! Well, a hand full for Taxis and a bus loop. But that is way less than your average clover leaf.
Not to mention: If the US is known for one thing, than for the amount of space. Just look what all the single family houses are using! The vast stroads! Space galore!
I mean, if it is for a new highway (lane), the "space" problem is the same, just worse, and those are still build, so it's not like it's physically or legally impossible.
Worst case, build the trains above the highways. Or under. Works in other places, so why not in the US? (btw. In Tokyo train lines are build above rivers (well, canals)).
Is all this just over the use of the term "long haul"? New tech enables new options that may or may not fit into existing classifications, would it make you happy to call the Tesla truck a "longer than short haul" - something else?
Regarding Tesla Semis: Most people are familiar with Teslas “superchargers”, their L3 charging network which is by far the most built out in NA.
For their commercial heavy trucks Tesla is adding “mega chargers” which can put out 750 kW of DC current or 3x more than the v3 superchargers.
Yep. Way more power needed, which means way higher cost to install. And they seem to use a different connector than the NACS that Tesla prefers, so the Semi may not even be able to utilize the regular Supercharger network:
(https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/2023/01/Tesla-Semi-31.jpg?fit=around%7C875:492)
That's one of the more absurd criticisms I've heard yet -- do you also expect a Freightliner with a 53 foot trailer to be able to fuel up at your local corner store gas station that only sells gasoline? Of course not.
It's not nearly that easy. Multi-lane highways generally aren't next to the existing train stations, so in addition to the infrastructure of the track, you'd need to build all the stations, plus the roads and parking to reach those stations.
MEEEEPP! US confusion! You don't need parking spaces at a train station! Well, a hand full for Taxis and a bus loop. But that is way less than your average clover leaf.
Not to mention: If the US is known for one thing, than for the amount of space. Just look what all the single family houses are using! The vast stroads! Space galore!
I mean, if it is for a new highway (lane), the "space" problem is the same, just worse, and those are still build, so it's not like it's physically or legally impossible.
Worst case, build the trains above the highways. Or under. Works in other places, so why not in the US? (btw. In Tokyo train lines are build above rivers (well, canals)).Quoteat your local corner store gas station that only sells gasoline?Such a thing exists?
I know a hand full of stations here in Germany that only sell diesel, but those are afaik generally not open for the public but only companies, or it's a sort of agri collective.
But a fuel station without diesel? Never seen one.
It's not nearly that easy. Multi-lane highways generally aren't next to the existing train stations, so in addition to the infrastructure of the track, you'd need to build all the stations, plus the roads and parking to reach those stations.
MEEEEPP! US confusion! You don't need parking spaces at a train station! Well, a hand full for Taxis and a bus loop. But that is way less than your average clover leaf.
Not to mention: If the US is known for one thing, than for the amount of space. Just look what all the single family houses are using! The vast stroads! Space galore!
I mean, if it is for a new highway (lane), the "space" problem is the same, just worse, and those are still build, so it's not like it's physically or legally impossible.
Worst case, build the trains above the highways. Or under. Works in other places, so why not in the US? (btw. In Tokyo train lines are build above rivers (well, canals)).Quoteat your local corner store gas station that only sells gasoline?Such a thing exists?
I know a hand full of stations here in Germany that only sell diesel, but those are afaik generally not open for the public but only companies, or it's a sort of agri collective.
But a fuel station without diesel? Never seen one.
I assume you mean median, but if you meant something else let me know and I'll adjust my response.
Not all interstates have medians, particularly when going through cities. 95 runs from NY to FL, and runs directly through the centers of Philly, Baltimore, Wilmington, etc. Going through those cities, the highway is frequently elevated above the city, with the regular city streets passing below it. If you're really lucky, the Amtrack line runs parallel or beneath the highway, but mostly it doesn't. (I can't tell if the street view photo I tried to attached worked or not, but this is the view from a city street. That overpass IS the interstate. Where would you like the train to run?)
It's not nearly that easy. Multi-lane highways generally aren't next to the existing train stations, so in addition to the infrastructure of the track, you'd need to build all the stations, plus the roads and parking to reach those stations.
MEEEEPP! US confusion! You don't need parking spaces at a train station! Well, a hand full for Taxis and a bus loop. But that is way less than your average clover leaf.
Not to mention: If the US is known for one thing, than for the amount of space. Just look what all the single family houses are using! The vast stroads! Space galore!
I mean, if it is for a new highway (lane), the "space" problem is the same, just worse, and those are still build, so it's not like it's physically or legally impossible.
Worst case, build the trains above the highways. Or under. Works in other places, so why not in the US? (btw. In Tokyo train lines are build above rivers (well, canals)).Quoteat your local corner store gas station that only sells gasoline?Such a thing exists?
I know a hand full of stations here in Germany that only sell diesel, but those are afaik generally not open for the public but only companies, or it's a sort of agri collective.
But a fuel station without diesel? Never seen one.
Its easy to find gas stations here in my part of the USA that don't sell diesel. Almost no cars burn diesel here. Some of the largest pickup trucks do. Only a small portion of the white van commercial vehicles do.
The agri-collection you mention would be called a farmer's co-op (cooperative). The ones in my area also sell diesel which is untaxed for tractors and other farm machinery. It is very bad to put this diesel in a pickup truck and drive that pickup truck on the road. I'm told they can stop a truck and check to see if they are running gas station diesel or co-op diesel (somehow, dye?). Perhaps that dye would stain the fuel filter. A person could be heavily fined for doing the wrong thing.
It's not nearly that easy. Multi-lane highways generally aren't next to the existing train stations, so in addition to the infrastructure of the track, you'd need to build all the stations, plus the roads and parking to reach those stations.
MEEEEPP! US confusion! You don't need parking spaces at a train station! Well, a hand full for Taxis and a bus loop. But that is way less than your average clover leaf.
Not to mention: If the US is known for one thing, than for the amount of space. Just look what all the single family houses are using! The vast stroads! Space galore!
I mean, if it is for a new highway (lane), the "space" problem is the same, just worse, and those are still build, so it's not like it's physically or legally impossible.
Worst case, build the trains above the highways. Or under. Works in other places, so why not in the US? (btw. In Tokyo train lines are build above rivers (well, canals)).Quoteat your local corner store gas station that only sells gasoline?Such a thing exists?
I know a hand full of stations here in Germany that only sell diesel, but those are afaik generally not open for the public but only companies, or it's a sort of agri collective.
But a fuel station without diesel? Never seen one.
Its easy to find gas stations here in my part of the USA that don't sell diesel. Almost no cars burn diesel here. Some of the largest pickup trucks do. Only a small portion of the white van commercial vehicles do.
The agri-collection you mention would be called a farmer's co-op (cooperative). The ones in my area also sell diesel which is untaxed for tractors and other farm machinery. It is very bad to put this diesel in a pickup truck and drive that pickup truck on the road. I'm told they can stop a truck and check to see if they are running gas station diesel or co-op diesel (somehow, dye?). Perhaps that dye would stain the fuel filter. A person could be heavily fined for doing the wrong thing.
Yep the agricultural diesel typically has red dye in it. Huge huge huge fines if you're caught using it on road.
Farm diesel used to have higher sulfur content, but these days it's just road diesel with red dye in it. The only reason you'd get in trouble for using it in road vehicles is because it's often taxed less or not at all. Skipping out on taxes is obviously something that governments tend to take pretty seriously, but there should be no difference in performance or emissions when using farm diesel in road vehicles or using road diesel in farm vehicles.
Farm diesel used to have higher sulfur content, but these days it's just road diesel with red dye in it. The only reason you'd get in trouble for using it in road vehicles is because it's often taxed less or not at all. Skipping out on taxes is obviously something that governments tend to take pretty seriously, but there should be no difference in performance or emissions when using farm diesel in road vehicles or using road diesel in farm vehicles.
How about fuel oil? (heating oil) Isn't that taxed at a lower level? Is it dyed?
Is all this just over the use of the term "long haul"? New tech enables new options that may or may not fit into existing classifications, would it make you happy to call the Tesla truck a "longer than short haul" - something else?
Yeah, it more or less comes down to a misunderstanding of what "long haul" truly is, or what jobs batteries are and are not good at. Lots of people assume incorrectly that all semis are the same, so the Tesla Semi can surely do long haul stuff, and we can then simply extrapolate that we can solve a lot of these issues with more/bigger batteries. We see similar thinking with buses. School buses and city buses are strong candidates for electrification because they do lots of stop and go driving at relatively low speeds, in defined routes. A Greyhound bus or motorcoach is also a bus, but they spend their days traveling long distances at higher speeds on less defined routes. These are not good candidates for batteries.
The fact is that duty cycles matter. Batteries can be great at doing light duty work, or even heavy duty work for short periods of time. They're not a realistic option for lots of tasks that involve hard work for long periods of time, or with limited down time, or lack of access to charging. This is why a Ford Lightning F150 is a terrific Suburban Cowboy commuter or local contractor rig, and a terrible tow vehicle. It's why a Model 3 Performance can be a great drivers car, but can't complete a bunch of fast laps on a race track. Or why a battery powered chainsaw/lawn mower/etc might work great for a homeowner, but can't run all day like a gas one used by professionals.
The Tesla Semi is a day cab. These types of trucks are intended to start and finish their days on the same routes over and over. They have no sleeping accommodations for drivers, they don't typically travel more than a couple hundred miles from a central base. EV trucks can currently do this work reasonably well, and it's an important part of trucking. But it doesn't mean that we're on our way to having all of the semis that you see on interstates running on electrons.
The Tesla Semi in particular has opted for larger batteries than other EV semis. This gives them the ability to travel further, but most day cab trucks aren't used in that manner. They don't drive 500 miles one-way and then stop. They start and finish their days from the same location. Musk himself claimed at one point that 80% of freight in the US is moved less than 250 miles, which is more or less what the gov says:
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Moving-Goods-in-the-United-States/bcyt-rqmu/
So a fleet buyer might look at the extra cost for the 1000kwh battery and decide to go another route instead. Or they might be a weight sensitive application, where the additional weight of that huge battery reduces the freight efficiency. If we're worried about climate change, why are we putting 1000kwh batteries into trucks to service a very small portion of the trucking demand? Split that battery into 2 500kwh packs and double the impact. It would reduce the price, improve the freight efficiency, and increase adoption/environmental benefit. Leave the long haul or heavy work stuff for other cleaner tech.
Is all this just over the use of the term "long haul"? New tech enables new options that may or may not fit into existing classifications, would it make you happy to call the Tesla truck a "longer than short haul" - something else?
Yeah, it more or less comes down to a misunderstanding of what "long haul" truly is, or what jobs batteries are and are not good at. Lots of people assume incorrectly that all semis are the same, so the Tesla Semi can surely do long haul stuff, and we can then simply extrapolate that we can solve a lot of these issues with more/bigger batteries. We see similar thinking with buses. School buses and city buses are strong candidates for electrification because they do lots of stop and go driving at relatively low speeds, in defined routes. A Greyhound bus or motorcoach is also a bus, but they spend their days traveling long distances at higher speeds on less defined routes. These are not good candidates for batteries.
The fact is that duty cycles matter. Batteries can be great at doing light duty work, or even heavy duty work for short periods of time. They're not a realistic option for lots of tasks that involve hard work for long periods of time, or with limited down time, or lack of access to charging. This is why a Ford Lightning F150 is a terrific Suburban Cowboy commuter or local contractor rig, and a terrible tow vehicle. It's why a Model 3 Performance can be a great drivers car, but can't complete a bunch of fast laps on a race track. Or why a battery powered chainsaw/lawn mower/etc might work great for a homeowner, but can't run all day like a gas one used by professionals.
The Tesla Semi is a day cab. These types of trucks are intended to start and finish their days on the same routes over and over. They have no sleeping accommodations for drivers, they don't typically travel more than a couple hundred miles from a central base. EV trucks can currently do this work reasonably well, and it's an important part of trucking. But it doesn't mean that we're on our way to having all of the semis that you see on interstates running on electrons.
The Tesla Semi in particular has opted for larger batteries than other EV semis. This gives them the ability to travel further, but most day cab trucks aren't used in that manner. They don't drive 500 miles one-way and then stop. They start and finish their days from the same location. Musk himself claimed at one point that 80% of freight in the US is moved less than 250 miles, which is more or less what the gov says:
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Moving-Goods-in-the-United-States/bcyt-rqmu/
So a fleet buyer might look at the extra cost for the 1000kwh battery and decide to go another route instead. Or they might be a weight sensitive application, where the additional weight of that huge battery reduces the freight efficiency. If we're worried about climate change, why are we putting 1000kwh batteries into trucks to service a very small portion of the trucking demand? Split that battery into 2 500kwh packs and double the impact. It would reduce the price, improve the freight efficiency, and increase adoption/environmental benefit. Leave the long haul or heavy work stuff for other cleaner tech.
There are several other companies out there doing mid-range (and short range) electric trucks. So it's been possible for a while now, to buy a truck that can do mid-range routes. The long term criticism of BEV's was that 'they can't do long haul work'. Well, the Tesla Semi is the answer to that. Yes, now they can.
Is all this just over the use of the term "long haul"? New tech enables new options that may or may not fit into existing classifications, would it make you happy to call the Tesla truck a "longer than short haul" - something else?
Yeah, it more or less comes down to a misunderstanding of what "long haul" truly is, or what jobs batteries are and are not good at. Lots of people assume incorrectly that all semis are the same, so the Tesla Semi can surely do long haul stuff, and we can then simply extrapolate that we can solve a lot of these issues with more/bigger batteries. We see similar thinking with buses. School buses and city buses are strong candidates for electrification because they do lots of stop and go driving at relatively low speeds, in defined routes. A Greyhound bus or motorcoach is also a bus, but they spend their days traveling long distances at higher speeds on less defined routes. These are not good candidates for batteries.
The fact is that duty cycles matter. Batteries can be great at doing light duty work, or even heavy duty work for short periods of time. They're not a realistic option for lots of tasks that involve hard work for long periods of time, or with limited down time, or lack of access to charging. This is why a Ford Lightning F150 is a terrific Suburban Cowboy commuter or local contractor rig, and a terrible tow vehicle. It's why a Model 3 Performance can be a great drivers car, but can't complete a bunch of fast laps on a race track. Or why a battery powered chainsaw/lawn mower/etc might work great for a homeowner, but can't run all day like a gas one used by professionals.
The Tesla Semi is a day cab. These types of trucks are intended to start and finish their days on the same routes over and over. They have no sleeping accommodations for drivers, they don't typically travel more than a couple hundred miles from a central base. EV trucks can currently do this work reasonably well, and it's an important part of trucking. But it doesn't mean that we're on our way to having all of the semis that you see on interstates running on electrons.
The Tesla Semi in particular has opted for larger batteries than other EV semis. This gives them the ability to travel further, but most day cab trucks aren't used in that manner. They don't drive 500 miles one-way and then stop. They start and finish their days from the same location. Musk himself claimed at one point that 80% of freight in the US is moved less than 250 miles, which is more or less what the gov says:
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Moving-Goods-in-the-United-States/bcyt-rqmu/
So a fleet buyer might look at the extra cost for the 1000kwh battery and decide to go another route instead. Or they might be a weight sensitive application, where the additional weight of that huge battery reduces the freight efficiency. If we're worried about climate change, why are we putting 1000kwh batteries into trucks to service a very small portion of the trucking demand? Split that battery into 2 500kwh packs and double the impact. It would reduce the price, improve the freight efficiency, and increase adoption/environmental benefit. Leave the long haul or heavy work stuff for other cleaner tech.
There are several other companies out there doing mid-range (and short range) electric trucks. So it's been possible for a while now, to buy a truck that can do mid-range routes. The long term criticism of BEV's was that 'they can't do long haul work'. Well, the Tesla Semi is the answer to that. Yes, now they can.
And what I'm saying is that a single 500 mile route in a day cab doesn't really qualify as "long haul". It has no sleeper. There are essentially no chargers to support it. And 500 miles isn't quite a full shift's worth of driving (600-650 miles per shift is fairly common with current ICE trucks). Elon says that the 500 mile trip took 8 hours. A driver's shift is typically 11 hours. That's a 3 hours per day that the Tesla driver isn't moving down the road, which is a pretty big deal in an industry where truck buying decisions are made based on 1% fuel economy differences.
The Tesla Semi is capable of making a very specific 500 mile trip between super expensive, taxpayer funded chargers. Other than that, it's limited to being a short haul truck like all other day cabs, and all other EV semis. The majority of it's use involves starting and finishing it's day at the same location, charging overnight and doing it again the next day. That's not what "long haul" trucking is, and it's probably not currently cost comparative to the status quo.
There's nothing at all wrong with EV semis for short haul work if the financial math or regulations support that. And I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that they don't currently work for long haul duty cycles or usage.
If Tesla were truly going for long haul, "Over the road" trucking the truck would need a sleeper (adding weight and cost to the cab), and it would need closer to 700 miles of range (adding weight and cost to the cab). Both of those choices would obviously hurt the freight efficiency and mean that less freight would be hauled per truckload too. I'm ignoring the lack of charging infrastructure for the sake of simplicity.
So what we have is a truck that can't do actual long haul work (open ended, all day interstate driving to random locations), but one that's probably got far more capability than needed for the vast majority of short haul work. Unless the Tesla is priced similar to other EV semis (giving the buyer more capability for less money), no fleet buyer is going to overpay for capability they don't need. The entire industry is about optimization, and paying for 500 miles of battery capacity when you only really need 200-300 is not optimized. There was supposed to be a shorter range Tesla Semi at some point, but I haven't seen/heard anything about it in a long time. That's the one that would really be enticing for many fleet buyers because the smaller battery would reduce weight and cost, and would likely be better optimized for their usage than a truck that can do more than short haul, but less than long haul.
You can see they already have a major presence along the major highways. For trucking it'd just need to be along these same areas, but larger. And probably fewer of them.
You can see they already have a major presence along the major highways. For trucking it'd just need to be along these same areas, but larger. And probably fewer of them.
Way larger. A megacharger is, what, 1.6 MW at 480v? Enough megachargers at, say, Love's Truck Stop would mean a substation. Who's going to pay for that construction?
Not encouraging it, but it's pretty rare for police to dip your tanks from a traffic stop. Very occasionally for trucks, but I bet if you ran a small diesel car on farm gas you would never have it checked.
Not encouraging it, but it's pretty rare for police to dip your tanks from a traffic stop. Very occasionally for trucks, but I bet if you ran a small diesel car on farm gas you would never have it checked.
I knew someone in Italy that ran his car on ag diesel 100% of the time back in the early 90s. Pretty neat idea I thought as a non-farm kid with no understanding of the rules or the risks. He was never caught.
The difference in cost there was huge. The difference in cost here probably wouldn't be worth the risk of being caught in a small car. In a thirsty pickup, might be different math.
Not encouraging it, but it's pretty rare for police to dip your tanks from a traffic stop. Very occasionally for trucks, but I bet if you ran a small diesel car on farm gas you would never have it checked.
I knew someone in Italy that ran his car on ag diesel 100% of the time back in the early 90s. Pretty neat idea I thought as a non-farm kid with no understanding of the rules or the risks. He was never caught.
The difference in cost there was huge. The difference in cost here probably wouldn't be worth the risk of being caught in a small car. In a thirsty pickup, might be different math.
Around here LEOs are known to keep an eye on the petrol-stations and will ticket drivers that are blatantly filling their vehicles with agricultural (non-taxed) fuel. Occasionally you'll hear about state inspection checkpoints that will also dip the tanks for diesel cars as you pass through. And as you cross back and forth over the US/CAN boarder agents can do whatever inspections they want.
Even if you are morally ok with breaking the laws, the cost-benefit of saving a couple hundred bucks per year vs the fines and potential impoundment of your vehicle make it very unworth the risk IMO.
Not encouraging it, but it's pretty rare for police to dip your tanks from a traffic stop. Very occasionally for trucks, but I bet if you ran a small diesel car on farm gas you would never have it checked.
I knew someone in Italy that ran his car on ag diesel 100% of the time back in the early 90s. Pretty neat idea I thought as a non-farm kid with no understanding of the rules or the risks. He was never caught.
The difference in cost there was huge. The difference in cost here probably wouldn't be worth the risk of being caught in a small car. In a thirsty pickup, might be different math.
You would have to be pretty stupid to get caught filling your car at the station though. Just throw the gas in a few jerry cans with your farm equipment and then fill it back at home.
Is all this just over the use of the term "long haul"? New tech enables new options that may or may not fit into existing classifications, would it make you happy to call the Tesla truck a "longer than short haul" - something else?
Yeah, it more or less comes down to a misunderstanding of what "long haul" truly is, or what jobs batteries are and are not good at. Lots of people assume incorrectly that all semis are the same, so the Tesla Semi can surely do long haul stuff, and we can then simply extrapolate that we can solve a lot of these issues with more/bigger batteries. We see similar thinking with buses. School buses and city buses are strong candidates for electrification because they do lots of stop and go driving at relatively low speeds, in defined routes. A Greyhound bus or motorcoach is also a bus, but they spend their days traveling long distances at higher speeds on less defined routes. These are not good candidates for batteries.
The fact is that duty cycles matter. Batteries can be great at doing light duty work, or even heavy duty work for short periods of time. They're not a realistic option for lots of tasks that involve hard work for long periods of time, or with limited down time, or lack of access to charging. This is why a Ford Lightning F150 is a terrific Suburban Cowboy commuter or local contractor rig, and a terrible tow vehicle. It's why a Model 3 Performance can be a great drivers car, but can't complete a bunch of fast laps on a race track. Or why a battery powered chainsaw/lawn mower/etc might work great for a homeowner, but can't run all day like a gas one used by professionals.
The Tesla Semi is a day cab. These types of trucks are intended to start and finish their days on the same routes over and over. They have no sleeping accommodations for drivers, they don't typically travel more than a couple hundred miles from a central base. EV trucks can currently do this work reasonably well, and it's an important part of trucking. But it doesn't mean that we're on our way to having all of the semis that you see on interstates running on electrons.
The Tesla Semi in particular has opted for larger batteries than other EV semis. This gives them the ability to travel further, but most day cab trucks aren't used in that manner. They don't drive 500 miles one-way and then stop. They start and finish their days from the same location. Musk himself claimed at one point that 80% of freight in the US is moved less than 250 miles, which is more or less what the gov says:
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Moving-Goods-in-the-United-States/bcyt-rqmu/ (https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Moving-Goods-in-the-United-States/bcyt-rqmu/)
So a fleet buyer might look at the extra cost for the 1000kwh battery and decide to go another route instead. Or they might be a weight sensitive application, where the additional weight of that huge battery reduces the freight efficiency. If we're worried about climate change, why are we putting 1000kwh batteries into trucks to service a very small portion of the trucking demand? Split that battery into 2 500kwh packs and double the impact. It would reduce the price, improve the freight efficiency, and increase adoption/environmental benefit. Leave the long haul or heavy work stuff for other cleaner tech.
There are several other companies out there doing mid-range (and short range) electric trucks. So it's been possible for a while now, to buy a truck that can do mid-range routes. The long term criticism of BEV's was that 'they can't do long haul work'. Well, the Tesla Semi is the answer to that. Yes, now they can.
And what I'm saying is that a single 500 mile route in a day cab doesn't really qualify as "long haul". It has no sleeper. There are essentially no chargers to support it. And 500 miles isn't quite a full shift's worth of driving (600-650 miles per shift is fairly common with current ICE trucks). Elon says that the 500 mile trip took 8 hours. A driver's shift is typically 11 hours. That's a 3 hours per day that the Tesla driver isn't moving down the road, which is a pretty big deal in an industry where truck buying decisions are made based on 1% fuel economy differences.
The Tesla Semi is capable of making a very specific 500 mile trip between super expensive, taxpayer funded chargers. Other than that, it's limited to being a short haul truck like all other day cabs, and all other EV semis. The majority of it's use involves starting and finishing it's day at the same location, charging overnight and doing it again the next day. That's not what "long haul" trucking is, and it's probably not currently cost comparative to the status quo.
There's nothing at all wrong with EV semis for short haul work if the financial math or regulations support that. And I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that they don't currently work for long haul duty cycles or usage.
If Tesla were truly going for long haul, "Over the road" trucking the truck would need a sleeper (adding weight and cost to the cab), and it would need closer to 700 miles of range (adding weight and cost to the cab). Both of those choices would obviously hurt the freight efficiency and mean that less freight would be hauled per truckload too. I'm ignoring the lack of charging infrastructure for the sake of simplicity.
So what we have is a truck that can't do actual long haul work (open ended, all day interstate driving to random locations), but one that's probably got far more capability than needed for the vast majority of short haul work. Unless the Tesla is priced similar to other EV semis (giving the buyer more capability for less money), no fleet buyer is going to overpay for capability they don't need. The entire industry is about optimization, and paying for 500 miles of battery capacity when you only really need 200-300 is not optimized. There was supposed to be a shorter range Tesla Semi at some point, but I haven't seen/heard anything about it in a long time. That's the one that would really be enticing for many fleet buyers because the smaller battery would reduce weight and cost, and would likely be better optimized for their usage than a truck that can do more than short haul, but less than long haul.
These are very similar objections that people raised about EV's in general - too expensive, take too long to charge, don't go far enough on a charge, etc....
I'm not saying your points are not valid. In fact I agree with many of them. But I also think they are backward looking and not forward looking.
The biggest issue I see going forward is the charging infrastructure needs to be built out. If that is accomplished then the rest of the points fade away, IMO.
Luckily, Tesla seems to be pretty good at building out chargers, and for much cheaper than the rest of the industry. Hell, look at what they built out (from scratch) for regular BEV's already:
(https://brilliantmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/Tesla-NA.png)
You can see they already have a major presence along the major highways. For trucking it'd just need to be along these same areas, but larger. And probably fewer of them.
Is all this just over the use of the term "long haul"? New tech enables new options that may or may not fit into existing classifications, would it make you happy to call the Tesla truck a "longer than short haul" - something else?
Yeah, it more or less comes down to a misunderstanding of what "long haul" truly is, or what jobs batteries are and are not good at. Lots of people assume incorrectly that all semis are the same, so the Tesla Semi can surely do long haul stuff, and we can then simply extrapolate that we can solve a lot of these issues with more/bigger batteries. We see similar thinking with buses. School buses and city buses are strong candidates for electrification because they do lots of stop and go driving at relatively low speeds, in defined routes. A Greyhound bus or motorcoach is also a bus, but they spend their days traveling long distances at higher speeds on less defined routes. These are not good candidates for batteries.
The fact is that duty cycles matter. Batteries can be great at doing light duty work, or even heavy duty work for short periods of time. They're not a realistic option for lots of tasks that involve hard work for long periods of time, or with limited down time, or lack of access to charging. This is why a Ford Lightning F150 is a terrific Suburban Cowboy commuter or local contractor rig, and a terrible tow vehicle. It's why a Model 3 Performance can be a great drivers car, but can't complete a bunch of fast laps on a race track. Or why a battery powered chainsaw/lawn mower/etc might work great for a homeowner, but can't run all day like a gas one used by professionals.
The Tesla Semi is a day cab. These types of trucks are intended to start and finish their days on the same routes over and over. They have no sleeping accommodations for drivers, they don't typically travel more than a couple hundred miles from a central base. EV trucks can currently do this work reasonably well, and it's an important part of trucking. But it doesn't mean that we're on our way to having all of the semis that you see on interstates running on electrons.
The Tesla Semi in particular has opted for larger batteries than other EV semis. This gives them the ability to travel further, but most day cab trucks aren't used in that manner. They don't drive 500 miles one-way and then stop. They start and finish their days from the same location. Musk himself claimed at one point that 80% of freight in the US is moved less than 250 miles, which is more or less what the gov says:
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Moving-Goods-in-the-United-States/bcyt-rqmu/ (https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Moving-Goods-in-the-United-States/bcyt-rqmu/)
So a fleet buyer might look at the extra cost for the 1000kwh battery and decide to go another route instead. Or they might be a weight sensitive application, where the additional weight of that huge battery reduces the freight efficiency. If we're worried about climate change, why are we putting 1000kwh batteries into trucks to service a very small portion of the trucking demand? Split that battery into 2 500kwh packs and double the impact. It would reduce the price, improve the freight efficiency, and increase adoption/environmental benefit. Leave the long haul or heavy work stuff for other cleaner tech.
There are several other companies out there doing mid-range (and short range) electric trucks. So it's been possible for a while now, to buy a truck that can do mid-range routes. The long term criticism of BEV's was that 'they can't do long haul work'. Well, the Tesla Semi is the answer to that. Yes, now they can.
And what I'm saying is that a single 500 mile route in a day cab doesn't really qualify as "long haul". It has no sleeper. There are essentially no chargers to support it. And 500 miles isn't quite a full shift's worth of driving (600-650 miles per shift is fairly common with current ICE trucks). Elon says that the 500 mile trip took 8 hours. A driver's shift is typically 11 hours. That's a 3 hours per day that the Tesla driver isn't moving down the road, which is a pretty big deal in an industry where truck buying decisions are made based on 1% fuel economy differences.
The Tesla Semi is capable of making a very specific 500 mile trip between super expensive, taxpayer funded chargers. Other than that, it's limited to being a short haul truck like all other day cabs, and all other EV semis. The majority of it's use involves starting and finishing it's day at the same location, charging overnight and doing it again the next day. That's not what "long haul" trucking is, and it's probably not currently cost comparative to the status quo.
There's nothing at all wrong with EV semis for short haul work if the financial math or regulations support that. And I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that they don't currently work for long haul duty cycles or usage.
If Tesla were truly going for long haul, "Over the road" trucking the truck would need a sleeper (adding weight and cost to the cab), and it would need closer to 700 miles of range (adding weight and cost to the cab). Both of those choices would obviously hurt the freight efficiency and mean that less freight would be hauled per truckload too. I'm ignoring the lack of charging infrastructure for the sake of simplicity.
So what we have is a truck that can't do actual long haul work (open ended, all day interstate driving to random locations), but one that's probably got far more capability than needed for the vast majority of short haul work. Unless the Tesla is priced similar to other EV semis (giving the buyer more capability for less money), no fleet buyer is going to overpay for capability they don't need. The entire industry is about optimization, and paying for 500 miles of battery capacity when you only really need 200-300 is not optimized. There was supposed to be a shorter range Tesla Semi at some point, but I haven't seen/heard anything about it in a long time. That's the one that would really be enticing for many fleet buyers because the smaller battery would reduce weight and cost, and would likely be better optimized for their usage than a truck that can do more than short haul, but less than long haul.
These are very similar objections that people raised about EV's in general - too expensive, take too long to charge, don't go far enough on a charge, etc....
I'm not saying your points are not valid. In fact I agree with many of them. But I also think they are backward looking and not forward looking.
The biggest issue I see going forward is the charging infrastructure needs to be built out. If that is accomplished then the rest of the points fade away, IMO.
Luckily, Tesla seems to be pretty good at building out chargers, and for much cheaper than the rest of the industry. Hell, look at what they built out (from scratch) for regular BEV's already:
(https://brilliantmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/Tesla-NA.png)
You can see they already have a major presence along the major highways. For trucking it'd just need to be along these same areas, but larger. And probably fewer of them.
I'm surprised how few chargers Canada has. Are they not interest in electric vehicles? Too cold?
I'm surprised how few chargers Canada has. Are they not interest in electric vehicles? Too cold?
Here's a snapshot of just the L3 (DC fast chargers) in Quebec, Canada. On the map posted above there's only 3 map points (Montreal, Quebec and what looks like Rimouski.
In reality there are hundreds (277 in this map-view along).
For reference, this covers roughly the QUebec/Ontario boarder in the west to about 25km east of Quebec City.
(https://i.ibb.co/GRFvS4z/L3-fast-chargers.png)
Apparently EV sales are cooling rapidly...
https://www.businessinsider.com/dealers-turning-away-evs-velectric-cars-demand-cools-inventory-2023-8
Dealers have always been against electric cars, and previously have done everything they can to tank sales. Is this another case of more of the same?
Dealers have always been against electric cars, and previously have done everything they can to tank sales. Is this another case of more of the same?
Why? I thought dealers would happily sell anything they can. But if the cars are not selling as fast as they are being made, then inventory builds and who wants cars sitting around?
I agree that the article sounds like a few specific dealers that are complaining, rather than proper evidence of a slowdown. But @JLee posted global numbers rather than U.S., so it's not apples to apples either.
https://insideevs.com/news/681553/us-bev-registrations-jun2023/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/20/cars/electric-cars-sales-gas-cars-dg/index.html
The CNN article tries to be more nuanced, but also bases most of its conclusion on "projections from the US Energy Information Administration."
My unimportant opinion... I think VW is just getting started here in the U.S. GM and Ford are trying but haven't brought (more) affordable models (excluding the defunct Bolt) to compete in the under $40k market. I continue to be shocked how many people are willing to cough up the money for Teslas. *shrug*
Dealers have always been against electric cars, and previously have done everything they can to tank sales. Is this another case of more of the same?
Why? I thought dealers would happily sell anything they can. But if the cars are not selling as fast as they are being made, then inventory builds and who wants cars sitting around?
Maintenance. Maintenance, oil changes, and other services are a huge part of dealer profit. And that's significantly reduced with EVs.
Dealers have always been against electric cars, and previously have done everything they can to tank sales. Is this another case of more of the same?
Why? I thought dealers would happily sell anything they can. But if the cars are not selling as fast as they are being made, then inventory builds and who wants cars sitting around?
Maintenance. Maintenance, oil changes, and other services are a huge part of dealer profit. And that's significantly reduced with EVs.
Not sure how that would cause a sudden oversupply.
Apparently EV sales are cooling rapidly...
https://www.businessinsider.com/dealers-turning-away-evs-velectric-cars-demand-cools-inventory-2023-8
Its easy to blame dealers but I think there is something to the assertion that the early adopters have all bought their fill of EVs and its going to be a bit harder to get the next batch of buyers.
Who all aren't buying EVs?
- People like me with relatively new ICE vehicle
- Those who live in apartments and simply can't keep an EV
- Those who can't afford an EV despite the tax breaks
- People whose use case does not mesh well with current realities of EV charging
I agree that the article sounds like a few specific dealers that are complaining, rather than proper evidence of a slowdown. But @JLee posted global numbers rather than U.S., so it's not apples to apples either.
https://insideevs.com/news/681553/us-bev-registrations-jun2023/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/20/cars/electric-cars-sales-gas-cars-dg/index.html
The CNN article tries to be more nuanced, but also bases most of its conclusion on "projections from the US Energy Information Administration."
My unimportant opinion... I think VW is just getting started here in the U.S. GM and Ford are trying but haven't brought (more) affordable models (excluding the defunct Bolt) to compete in the under $40k market. I continue to be shocked how many people are willing to cough up the money for Teslas. *shrug*
Teslas aren't that expensive, especially with the federal tax credit coming back. A top trim Camry hybrid is $34k, and a Model 3 can be ~$33k after tax credit.
Its easy to blame dealers but I think there is something to the assertion that the early adopters have all bought their fill of EVs and its going to be a bit harder to get the next batch of buyers.
Who all aren't buying EVs?
- People like me with relatively new ICE vehicle
- Those who live in apartments and simply can't keep an EV
- Those who can't afford an EV despite the tax breaks
- People whose use case does not mesh well with current realities of EV charging
I agree that the article sounds like a few specific dealers that are complaining, rather than proper evidence of a slowdown. But @JLee posted global numbers rather than U.S., so it's not apples to apples either.
https://insideevs.com/news/681553/us-bev-registrations-jun2023/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/20/cars/electric-cars-sales-gas-cars-dg/index.html
The CNN article tries to be more nuanced, but also bases most of its conclusion on "projections from the US Energy Information Administration."
My unimportant opinion... I think VW is just getting started here in the U.S. GM and Ford are trying but haven't brought (more) affordable models (excluding the defunct Bolt) to compete in the under $40k market. I continue to be shocked how many people are willing to cough up the money for Teslas. *shrug*
Teslas aren't that expensive, especially with the federal tax credit coming back. A top trim Camry hybrid is $34k, and a Model 3 can be ~$33k after tax credit.
But you're comparing a "top trim" Camry to an entry level Model 3. Meanwhile, Model Y sales are the ones increasing, while it starts at ~$51-54k (entry level trim.)
I don't suspect people are cross-shopping the Camry and Model 3 (or Model Y) - but if they were, they'd be facing the up front cost before credit, and the loaded Camry and wondering if it's really worth that extra money. If they are sold on EV, then sure - but then they aren't cross-shopping a Camry. They just don't have other good options at that price point. But going on average transaction prices, I don't think "entry level Model 3 after tax credit" is the most common scenario.
I'm confused as to why you "continue to be shocked" that people are willing to spend money on Teslas when the average new car transaction price is pushing $50k. It seems you're more shocked that people are willing to spend money on cars in general than specifically Tesla?
I'm confused as to why you "continue to be shocked" that people are willing to spend money on Teslas when the average new car transaction price is pushing $50k. It seems you're more shocked that people are willing to spend money on cars in general than specifically Tesla?
Its easy to blame dealers but I think there is something to the assertion that the early adopters have all bought their fill of EVs and its going to be a bit harder to get the next batch of buyers.
Who all aren't buying EVs?
- People like me with relatively new ICE vehicle
- Those who live in apartments and simply can't keep an EV
- Those who can't afford an EV despite the tax breaks
- People whose use case does not mesh well with current realities of EV charging
Regarding using non taxed diesel on the road: now that the statute of limitations has passed, I will admit to using heating oil for years in my diesel van.
I was doing a lot of whole house remodels 20+ years ago and every one of them was pulling out an old oil ( diesel ) tank and furnace and installing natural gas.
The companies that were decommissioning the tanks would remove the oil, and charge more per gallon than the cost of the oil.
I provided this service to my clients for free ;-)
Yes, it was illegal. Home heating oil in the US is the same as off road diesel and so it works fine in diesel vehicles, but it is not taxed for road use.Regarding using non taxed diesel on the road: now that the statute of limitations has passed, I will admit to using heating oil for years in my diesel van.
I was doing a lot of whole house remodels 20+ years ago and every one of them was pulling out an old oil ( diesel ) tank and furnace and installing natural gas.
The companies that were decommissioning the tanks would remove the oil, and charge more per gallon than the cost of the oil.
I provided this service to my clients for free ;-)
Was that illegal? I'm not sure it is. Using biodiesel from french fry oil is legal AFAIK.
I'm confused as to why you "continue to be shocked" that people are willing to spend money on Teslas when the average new car transaction price is pushing $50k. It seems you're more shocked that people are willing to spend money on cars in general than specifically Tesla?
I, for one, am shocked by this, particularly in this forum. There are a number of new EVs for less than a Tesla, not to mention used ones.
Yes, it was illegal. Home heating oil in the US is the same as off road diesel and so it works fine in diesel vehicles, but it is not taxed for road use.Regarding using non taxed diesel on the road: now that the statute of limitations has passed, I will admit to using heating oil for years in my diesel van.
I was doing a lot of whole house remodels 20+ years ago and every one of them was pulling out an old oil ( diesel ) tank and furnace and installing natural gas.
The companies that were decommissioning the tanks would remove the oil, and charge more per gallon than the cost of the oil.
I provided this service to my clients for free ;-)
Was that illegal? I'm not sure it is. Using biodiesel from french fry oil is legal AFAIK.
Using fry oil to make biodiesel is different, and not illegal.
You can also run a diesel on straight fry oil if you filter it and pre heat it. Just don't shut down the engine while it's running on straight fry oil or you will have a congealed mess on your hands.
I'm confused as to why you "continue to be shocked" that people are willing to spend money on Teslas when the average new car transaction price is pushing $50k. It seems you're more shocked that people are willing to spend money on cars in general than specifically Tesla?
I, for one, am shocked by this, particularly in this forum. There are a number of new EVs for less than a Tesla, not to mention used ones.
Indeed, and there's one in my driveway. My specific argument was why specifically target Tesla at that price point instead of all cars at that price point?
I'm confused as to why you "continue to be shocked" that people are willing to spend money on Teslas when the average new car transaction price is pushing $50k. It seems you're more shocked that people are willing to spend money on cars in general than specifically Tesla?
Regarding using non taxed diesel on the road: now that the statute of limitations has passed, I will admit to using heating oil for years in my diesel van.
I was doing a lot of whole house remodels 20+ years ago and every one of them was pulling out an old oil ( diesel ) tank and furnace and installing natural gas.
The companies that were decommissioning the tanks would remove the oil, and charge more per gallon than the cost of the oil.
I provided this service to my clients for free ;-)
I agree that $50k is very expensive. I also remember when 3 years was the standard length of a car loan. Now it seems to be 5 years.I believe 6 years is more common now.
I agree that $50k is very expensive. I also remember when 3 years was the standard length of a car loan. Now it seems to be 5 years.I believe 6 years is more common now.
https://www.lendingtree.com/auto/debt-statistics/#Averageautoloanterms
I agree that $50k is very expensive. I also remember when 3 years was the standard length of a car loan. Now it seems to be 5 years.I believe 6 years is more common now.
https://www.lendingtree.com/auto/debt-statistics/#Averageautoloanterms
When we were buying our EV they kept trying to steer us to a 7 year (84 month) loan, at 6.3%
The finance officer seemed very skeptical of us wanting to do 36 month with the intent to pay it off in under a year. Sadly, delays in delivery resulted in us completely missing the sub-3% car loan offers.
Maybe. But it'd be a fried chicken and waffle fries aroma. ;-pYes, it was illegal. Home heating oil in the US is the same as off road diesel and so it works fine in diesel vehicles, but it is not taxed for road use.Regarding using non taxed diesel on the road: now that the statute of limitations has passed, I will admit to using heating oil for years in my diesel van.
I was doing a lot of whole house remodels 20+ years ago and every one of them was pulling out an old oil ( diesel ) tank and furnace and installing natural gas.
The companies that were decommissioning the tanks would remove the oil, and charge more per gallon than the cost of the oil.
I provided this service to my clients for free ;-)
Was that illegal? I'm not sure it is. Using biodiesel from french fry oil is legal AFAIK.
Using fry oil to make biodiesel is different, and not illegal.
You can also run a diesel on straight fry oil if you filter it and pre heat it. Just don't shut down the engine while it's running on straight fry oil or you will have a congealed mess on your hands.
Can you coal roll with french fry oil?
Maybe. But it'd be a fried chicken and waffle fries aroma. ;-p
Can you coal roll with french fry oil?
Coal roll to drive fast food sales. Genius move, you heard it here first.
The more I read about all the BS there is with charging these electric cars on trips, the more I think these range extender motors are attractive. If Mazda could put a small rotary engine helper in my future electric car, it could save me a big hassle some day. It would also mean less battery to haul around. Sure it's not quite as environmentally friendly, but I've never been one to stay up nights worrying about my carbon footprint.
Plus with the plug-in hybrid, the motor can power the vehicle directly when needed. The smaller that rotary "just to charge the battery" motor is, the less the chance it can generate electricity fast enough to keep the car performance more or less normal when the battery is low enough you really need the extra range.The more I read about all the BS there is with charging these electric cars on trips, the more I think these range extender motors are attractive. If Mazda could put a small rotary engine helper in my future electric car, it could save me a big hassle some day. It would also mean less battery to haul around. Sure it's not quite as environmentally friendly, but I've never been one to stay up nights worrying about my carbon footprint.
What you are describing is a PHEV. They can be wonderful (I own one, as do my parents), and I highly recommend them to people - especially those that can’t accept the current charging infrastructure differences. For most people it will result in an 80-90% reduction in fuel consumption, and PHEVs have a much lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles, only being surpassed by BEVs during the second half of their life expectancies.
I don't think they even build cars with a motor so weak it can't get your car to 100km/h / 70 miles. Okay, maybe those f*** huge F-150&Co actually need 50PS to do that with their air resistance and weight, but still.Plus with the plug-in hybrid, the motor can power the vehicle directly when needed. The smaller that rotary "just to charge the battery" motor is, the less the chance it can generate electricity fast enough to keep the car performance more or less normal when the battery is low enough you really need the extra range.The more I read about all the BS there is with charging these electric cars on trips, the more I think these range extender motors are attractive. If Mazda could put a small rotary engine helper in my future electric car, it could save me a big hassle some day. It would also mean less battery to haul around. Sure it's not quite as environmentally friendly, but I've never been one to stay up nights worrying about my carbon footprint.
What you are describing is a PHEV. They can be wonderful (I own one, as do my parents), and I highly recommend them to people - especially those that can’t accept the current charging infrastructure differences. For most people it will result in an 80-90% reduction in fuel consumption, and PHEVs have a much lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles, only being surpassed by BEVs during the second half of their life expectancies.
I don't think they even build cars with a motor so weak it can't get your car to 100km/h / 70 miles. Okay, maybe those f*** huge F-150&Co actually need 50PS to do that with their air resistance and weight, but still.Plus with the plug-in hybrid, the motor can power the vehicle directly when needed. The smaller that rotary "just to charge the battery" motor is, the less the chance it can generate electricity fast enough to keep the car performance more or less normal when the battery is low enough you really need the extra range.The more I read about all the BS there is with charging these electric cars on trips, the more I think these range extender motors are attractive. If Mazda could put a small rotary engine helper in my future electric car, it could save me a big hassle some day. It would also mean less battery to haul around. Sure it's not quite as environmentally friendly, but I've never been one to stay up nights worrying about my carbon footprint.
What you are describing is a PHEV. They can be wonderful (I own one, as do my parents), and I highly recommend them to people - especially those that can’t accept the current charging infrastructure differences. For most people it will result in an 80-90% reduction in fuel consumption, and PHEVs have a much lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles, only being surpassed by BEVs during the second half of their life expectancies.
I don't think they even build cars with a motor so weak it can't get your car to 100km/h / 70 miles. Okay, maybe those f*** huge F-150&Co actually need 50PS to do that with their air resistance and weight, but still.Plus with the plug-in hybrid, the motor can power the vehicle directly when needed. The smaller that rotary "just to charge the battery" motor is, the less the chance it can generate electricity fast enough to keep the car performance more or less normal when the battery is low enough you really need the extra range.The more I read about all the BS there is with charging these electric cars on trips, the more I think these range extender motors are attractive. If Mazda could put a small rotary engine helper in my future electric car, it could save me a big hassle some day. It would also mean less battery to haul around. Sure it's not quite as environmentally friendly, but I've never been one to stay up nights worrying about my carbon footprint.
What you are describing is a PHEV. They can be wonderful (I own one, as do my parents), and I highly recommend them to people - especially those that can’t accept the current charging infrastructure differences. For most people it will result in an 80-90% reduction in fuel consumption, and PHEVs have a much lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles, only being surpassed by BEVs during the second half of their life expectancies.
The old air cooled VW 1200 CC engines got to 60 miles / hour (96 km /hour). I would think if you had a one liter engine with a turbo it would work just fine. Here's the other thing to consider. It doesn't run as many hours as a "normal" car. The battery will do the job for the small trips which make up the bulk of one's travel. Even with that turbo, the engine should last a long time.
That does look like a good compromise. I'm going on 4 years with my car and have about 16,000 miles on it so I suspect the electric car market will be mature before I need another vehicle.
Having a couple folks in our family that have worked for dealerships the common loans these days at 7-9 years. 5 years was gone a LONG time ago.I agree that $50k is very expensive. I also remember when 3 years was the standard length of a car loan. Now it seems to be 5 years.I believe 6 years is more common now.
https://www.lendingtree.com/auto/debt-statistics/#Averageautoloanterms
Having a couple folks in our family that have worked for dealerships the common loans these days at 7-9 years. 5 years was gone a LONG time ago.I agree that $50k is very expensive. I also remember when 3 years was the standard length of a car loan. Now it seems to be 5 years.I believe 6 years is more common now.
https://www.lendingtree.com/auto/debt-statistics/#Averageautoloanterms (https://www.lendingtree.com/auto/debt-statistics/#Averageautoloanterms)
Yes but most people are not getting 0% loans and they take the longest period possible to get the lowest payment. I've got family members who get a new car ever 2-3 years and they show how financially savvy they are because their monthly payment dropped AND they have a new care, but it's because they went from a 7 year to a 9 year loan and then will do the same thing in 2-3 years again.Having a couple folks in our family that have worked for dealerships the common loans these days at 7-9 years. 5 years was gone a LONG time ago.I agree that $50k is very expensive. I also remember when 3 years was the standard length of a car loan. Now it seems to be 5 years.I believe 6 years is more common now.
https://www.lendingtree.com/auto/debt-statistics/#Averageautoloanterms (https://www.lendingtree.com/auto/debt-statistics/#Averageautoloanterms)
Back when they had 0% interest loans it made sense to get the longest loan period you possibly could. You would be nuts not to, as long as the sales price was fair.
When referring to potentially degraded performance,I don't think they even build cars with a motor so weak it can't get your car to 100km/h / 70 miles. Okay, maybe those f*** huge F-150&Co actually need 50PS to do that with their air resistance and weight, but still.Plus with the plug-in hybrid, the motor can power the vehicle directly when needed. The smaller that rotary "just to charge the battery" motor is, the less the chance it can generate electricity fast enough to keep the car performance more or less normal when the battery is low enough you really need the extra range.The more I read about all the BS there is with charging these electric cars on trips, the more I think these range extender motors are attractive. If Mazda could put a small rotary engine helper in my future electric car, it could save me a big hassle some day. It would also mean less battery to haul around. Sure it's not quite as environmentally friendly, but I've never been one to stay up nights worrying about my carbon footprint.
What you are describing is a PHEV. They can be wonderful (I own one, as do my parents), and I highly recommend them to people - especially those that can’t accept the current charging infrastructure differences. For most people it will result in an 80-90% reduction in fuel consumption, and PHEVs have a much lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles, only being surpassed by BEVs during the second half of their life expectancies.
The old air cooled VW 1200 CC engines got to 60 miles / hour (96 km /hour). I would think if you had a one liter engine with a turbo it would work just fine. Here's the other thing to consider. It doesn't run as many hours as a "normal" car. The battery will do the job for the small trips which make up the bulk of one's travel. Even with that turbo, the engine should last a long time.
That does look like a good compromise. I'm going on 4 years with my car and have about 16,000 miles on it so I suspect the electric car market will be mature before I need another vehicle.
For another data-point, my parent's Volt recently passed 120,000 miles, but had fewer than 17,000 miles on the engine during that timeframe. On average the engine was powering the car for less than 50 miles each week, despite the car being driven pretty extensively. They bought fuel less than once per month.
I don't think they even build cars with a motor so weak it can't get your car to 100km/h / 70 miles. Okay, maybe those f*** huge F-150&Co actually need 50PS to do that with their air resistance and weight, but still.Plus with the plug-in hybrid, the motor can power the vehicle directly when needed. The smaller that rotary "just to charge the battery" motor is, the less the chance it can generate electricity fast enough to keep the car performance more or less normal when the battery is low enough you really need the extra range.The more I read about all the BS there is with charging these electric cars on trips, the more I think these range extender motors are attractive. If Mazda could put a small rotary engine helper in my future electric car, it could save me a big hassle some day. It would also mean less battery to haul around. Sure it's not quite as environmentally friendly, but I've never been one to stay up nights worrying about my carbon footprint.
What you are describing is a PHEV. They can be wonderful (I own one, as do my parents), and I highly recommend them to people - especially those that can’t accept the current charging infrastructure differences. For most people it will result in an 80-90% reduction in fuel consumption, and PHEVs have a much lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles, only being surpassed by BEVs during the second half of their life expectancies.
We just made the switch. Someone hit me and totaled my car, so I was in a position where I needed a new car. During the time I started looking more closely at hybrid and BEV/PHEV options and we noticed that Kia had come out with a Sorento PHEV. My wife had been looking for a fuel efficient mid-size SUV with a third row to fit kids in as we often take neighbor kids to school, practices, etc. and we were planning to just wait a few more years until BEV versions of those came to market, but decided that the PHEV would meet our needs if our other car was already a BEV.
So, I ended up getting a Model Y and we found a year old Kia Sorento PHEV near us, so we got that for my wife. So far it has been great. The PHEV is perfect for her daily commutes that range from 12 to about 30 miles depending on if the kids have sports after school. It was also perfect for us as we had to drive 200 miles to get the Model Y, after the 35 miles were gone it just switched to hybrid mode, so we didn't have to worry about trying to find a non Supercharger charging station for a day long up and back trip.
So in a matter of 3 weeks we went from two older ICE cars with pretty poor gas mileage to a BEV and a PHEV and so far so good.
...
The BMW i3 REX (range extender) has a 650cc motorcycle engine. 33HP output I believe I read. The one I drove ~150 miles was totally capable of running 100 kph with the air conditioner on once the battery was depleted.
Genius design. A little odd looking but mechanically/electrically very well done.
To this day I still think that car was underrated. I'd love to see a re-fresh of the design using more modern battery designs/implemented lessons learned BMW has from this + the iX and their other EVs. It was a great little EV, but lacked the range to really make it a truly amazing option.
Has fuel spiked up in price there recently? No doubt that any sudden increase in the price of fuel gets people to consider EVs.
Has fuel spiked up in price there recently? No doubt that any sudden increase in the price of fuel gets people to consider EVs.
Fuel prices will not spike in the US until a bit before our presidential election in a year. Cant have those hippie leftist sort of almost doing things to reduce Global Warming at the expense of a few billionaires profits.
Has fuel spiked up in price there recently? No doubt that any sudden increase in the price of fuel gets people to consider EVs.
Fuel prices will not spike in the US until a bit before our presidential election in a year. Cant have those hippie leftist sort of almost doing things to reduce Global Warming at the expense of a few billionaires profits.
Curious why you think fuel prices will pike around this time next year…
Has fuel spiked up in price there recently? No doubt that any sudden increase in the price of fuel gets people to consider EVs.
Fuel prices will not spike in the US until a bit before our presidential election in a year. Cant have those hippie leftist sort of almost doing things to reduce Global Warming at the expense of a few billionaires profits.
Curious why you think fuel prices will pike around this time next year…
"I did that" Joe Biden stickers on gas pumps when prices went up a bit ago. Lots of the country some how thinks the president controls gas prices and some Jewish space lazar is coming for them so they need a freedom machine aka F150's to continue being rugged individualists just like all the other guys in their office park. And Joe Biden not keeping gas prices low is proof that he does not want 'real Americans' to be free. So they will vote R and the R's being slightly less included to address GW or slightly more inclined to preserve entrenched carbon based energy suppliers will push back on whatever environmental policies they can and when gas goes down 0.4$/gal they will declare victory and say what a bad man Biden was. But maybe I am just a bit syndical.
...
As the presidential election gets closer it will be interesting to hear what the Republican message will be. Frankly, I haven't seen them doing a lot for the common citizen. There's always the noise about cutting taxes and they can cherry pick Federal programs that seem to be a waste of money. The abortion thing won't go well for them. A few reminders how Republicans invaded the Capital won't help them a bit. Every one of the candidates is not hot to trot on the Climate Change issue.
This could be the year where a third party candidate emerges like Ross Perot did a few years back. This time - The third party candidate could win
I suspect Chinese brand cars may be a difficult sell Stateside, but it seems that most of the less-expensive EVs are coming from China.
I bought a Model Y and the build quality is pretty impressive on my car. Zero issues externally and internally the only issue is some noise from panels vibrating when driving over rough roads (which Tesla is in the process of fixing for me, under warranty).
I wasn't planning on buying a car at all as my old Acura MDX (a 2007 model) was doing just fine and I was planning to drive it for at least 2 or 3 more years. But I had an accident and totaled it. So, needed a car and the used car market was ridiculously expensive (most used cars were 70 to 80% of the price of a new car back in July). Anyway, bought an EV because I realized that whatever car I bought would be my car for the next 10 years and I needed really need to cut the gasoline use NOW rather than 10 years from now.
So, build quality on the on the newer Teslas is pretty impressive - at least as good as my old Acura (although not quite as good as BMW/Mercedes/Porsche).
I bought a Model Y and the build quality is pretty impressive on my car. Zero issues externally and internally the only issue is some noise from panels vibrating when driving over rough roads (which Tesla is in the process of fixing for me, under warranty).
I wasn't planning on buying a car at all as my old Acura MDX (a 2007 model) was doing just fine and I was planning to drive it for at least 2 or 3 more years. But I had an accident and totaled it. So, needed a car and the used car market was ridiculously expensive (most used cars were 70 to 80% of the price of a new car back in July). Anyway, bought an EV because I realized that whatever car I bought would be my car for the next 10 years and I needed really need to cut the gasoline use NOW rather than 10 years from now.
So, build quality on the on the newer Teslas is pretty impressive - at least as good as my old Acura (although not quite as good as BMW/Mercedes/Porsche).
If being an American brand, and actually MADE in America, is super important, I wonder why more people on the right aren't fans of Tesla. The 4 models from Tesla are THE MOST American made cars, taking up the top 4 spots:
https://www.cars.com/american-made-index/
Not only that, they are based out of Texas and their CEO is some kind of Libertarian.
If being an American brand, and actually MADE in America, is super important, I wonder why more people on the right aren't fans of Tesla. The 4 models from Tesla are THE MOST American made cars, taking up the top 4 spots:
https://www.cars.com/american-made-index/
Not only that, they are based out of Texas and their CEO is some kind of Libertarian.
Men want to push on the gas peddle, hear noise and see black smoke - it strokes their ego. And they want to think they are the type of man that will drive out into the country and do stuff, even if they never actually have and 'aint no charging station where I go'.
Also Tesla started as a 'left coast elites brand'.
...
Kinda funny - in their quest to have superchargers with 50 miles of every inch of interstate and highway in the lower 48, Tesla built one of the biggest charging stations in one of the must rural and remote towns in my region. It’s a place where the dominant economic activity is hunting and fishing and there’s fewer than 600 year-round residents, many of whom live on “unimproved roads” with big pickups. But the town has a dozen superchargers for the people passing through!
This topic has gone on for 72 pages so I apologize in advance if this has already been asked - would anyone here buy a used EV that is out of battery warranty?Didn't even cross my mind to check battery warranty when we bought our 2014 Leaf in 2019. I honestly don't know if it was in warranty or not.
This topic has gone on for 72 pages so I apologize in advance if this has already been asked - would anyone here buy a used EV that is out of battery warranty?I would (and I have!)
This topic has gone on for 72 pages so I apologize in advance if this has already been asked - would anyone here buy a used EV that is out of battery warranty?Depends on the price and my range requirements. For short trips where a battery that's depleted by 30% is no big deal, yeah I'd consider it at the right price.
This topic has gone on for 72 pages so I apologize in advance if this has already been asked - would anyone here buy a used EV that is out of battery warranty?Didn't even cross my mind to check battery warranty when we bought our 2014 Leaf in 2019. I honestly don't know if it was in warranty or not.
So that makes at least 1, but of course buying out of warranty (if indeed it was out of warranty) did not at all mean buying without regards to battery health at all.
...
Just something I found on the web. I've read that while the feds require 100K miles, Tesla warranties their batteries for 150K miles.
I'm confused as to why you "continue to be shocked" that people are willing to spend money on Teslas when the average new car transaction price is pushing $50k. It seems you're more shocked that people are willing to spend money on cars in general than specifically Tesla?
Count me as one shocked that many people are spending $50K+ on any car whatever the power source. Do people really have this much money or are they part of a growing debt bubble?
I absolutely won't spend like that. I can, but won't. It is a depreciating asset that sits is vulnerable in parking lots and sits outside in my driveway.
Edited for typos.
I'm confused as to why you "continue to be shocked" that people are willing to spend money on Teslas when the average new car transaction price is pushing $50k. It seems you're more shocked that people are willing to spend money on cars in general than specifically Tesla?
Count me as one shocked that many people are spending $50K+ on any car whatever the power source. Do people really have this much money or are they part of a growing debt bubble?
I absolutely won't spend like that. I can, but won't. It is a depreciating asset that sits is vulnerable in parking lots and sits outside in my driveway.
Edited for typos.
Might be because they aren't all as expensive as you *may* think. 2023 Inventory Tesla M3 is ~$32,600 all in after federal tax rebate, so not including any potential state incentives. A $24k Toyota Corolla Hybrid will cost more to own and drive over 200,000 miles, will burn over 4,000 gallons of fossil fuel in that time($15,000), require 27 oil changes($2,000) or roughly 135 gallons of extremely contaminated oil, along with potentially increased maintenance cost of a drastically more complex ICE/hybrid setup.
I don't find people spending $50k on a car shocking at all. Why? I know people other than frugal people who spend time on frugal financial websites. Almost no one I run across on a daily basis thinks twice about taking out a 7 year loan on a $40-$80k gas guzzling SUV or pickup as long as they can qualify for whatever payment the dealer shows them. It's pretty common knowledge that for the majority of Americans, "can I get approved for financing" = "I can afford". Many of the customers at the Starbucks where my daughter works pay enough at Starbucks to finance a brand new Tesla since they spend $30/day every single day at Starbucks. They pull up in their financed gas hog $50k SUV talking on their financed $1500 iPhone 15 Pro Max with their $300/month cellular plan on their way home to order their daily meal via Door Dash so they can sit down and watch TV via their $300/month internet/cable/streaming package. Am I shocked people will spend $50k on a car?
The only currently used "ways around it" are:I believe an old [US] federal law prohibits charging stations at rest stops because it prohibits certain commercialization at the rest stops.
There's ways around it or the Chicagoland interstate oasis thing wouldn't have been a thing.
It is possible that tollways are the way around it though and I don't know that I want to encourage that. I mean paying for use is probably good but having to check to make sure the transponder worked and you won't get a fine is bullshit.
Well to be clear, in 2035 (12 years from now) California will no longer allow new passenger vehicles to be sold in state, but there is an exemption and longer glide path for trucks, which make up a substantial fraction of vehicles. Given the lifespan of a modern passenger vehicle is about 12 years, most ICE vehicles sold in California a decade from now will still be on the road in 2040.Moderate correction. Conversion will be even slower: The median age of a vehicle currently on the road is 12 years, not the median lifespan. Half are newer, half older. Median age at retirement is going to be somewhere upwards of 20 years.
I don't find people spending $50k on a car shocking at all. Why? I know people other than frugal people who spend time on frugal financial websites. Almost no one I run across on a daily basis thinks twice about taking out a 7 year loan on a $40-$80k gas guzzling SUV or pickup as long as they can qualify for whatever payment the dealer shows them. It's pretty common knowledge that for the majority of Americans, "can I get approved for financing" = "I can afford". Many of the customers at the Starbucks where my daughter works pay enough at Starbucks to finance a brand new Tesla since they spend $30/day every single day at Starbucks. They pull up in their financed gas hog $50k SUV talking on their financed $1500 iPhone 15 Pro Max with their $300/month cellular plan on their way home to order their daily meal via Door Dash so they can sit down and watch TV via their $300/month internet/cable/streaming package. Am I shocked people will spend $50k on a car?
The folks at Marketplace (NPR podcast) said that people's credit card debt is growing again. I guess at some point the spending will slow whether the spenders like it or not.
The folks at Marketplace (NPR podcast) said that people's credit card debt is growing again. I guess at some point the spending will slow whether the spenders like it or not.
People still have credit card debt? Wow I must run in some unique circles as nobody I know had CC debt anymore. I figured it was something people had gotten wise to, but I guess not....
The folks at Marketplace (NPR podcast) said that people's credit card debt is growing again. I guess at some point the spending will slow whether the spenders like it or not.
People still have credit card debt? Wow I must run in some unique circles as nobody I know had CC debt anymore. I figured it was something people had gotten wise to, but I guess not....
You are kidding right? Credit card debt is at all time highs...but those that do pay massive interest fees do pay for my credit card perks, I guess.
https://www.lendingtree.com/credit-cards/credit-card-debt-statistics/
Every dollar debt is a dollar wealth for someone else, and every dollar wealth is a dollar debt for someone else. There is no wealth without debt und no debt without wealth.I understand your point, but it’s not what we were discussing. We are talking about debt on ccs that are not paid off in full each months. There’s no rule that says this number should be low or high.
Wealth is rising, so debt must be rising too.
No, what was dicussed was that there are not only people still with CC debts, but that the CC debts are increasing and that this surprised.Every dollar debt is a dollar wealth for someone else, and every dollar wealth is a dollar debt for someone else. There is no wealth without debt und no debt without wealth.I understand your point, but it’s not what we were discussing. We are talking about debt on ccs that are not paid off in full each months. There’s no rule that says this number should be low or high.
Wealth is rising, so debt must be rising too.
Was walking the dog today as neighbor took delivery of a Fisker Ocean. Looks cool. Up to 340 mile range, plenty of oomph, but not a lot of towing capacity. Starts at $38k.
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/2024-fisker-ocean-101-6509f4984104e.jpeg?crop=1.00xw:0.753xh;0,0.217xh&resize=1048:*)
Looks like BP and Tesla are teaming up to the tune of $100m for Tesla Superchargers at BP locations:
https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html
As this happens more and more (people seeing chargers at regular gas stations) charging anxiety will drop and EV demand will continue to be high.
I just got a 2020 Nissan Leaf SV Plus as a town car. Very inexpensive in the used market for a 200+ mile vehicle. Lots of chademo chargers in my area which was a part of the consideration.
Looks like BP and Tesla are teaming up to the tune of $100m for Tesla Superchargers at BP locations:
https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html (https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html)
As this happens more and more (people seeing chargers at regular gas stations) charging anxiety will drop and EV demand will continue to be high.
I kind of wonder about this. BP service stations may be a separate division than the rest of the oil company so I guess the team up makes sense. However, do the oil companies want to lose all that enormous cash flow that would happen if people swapped to electric cars?
I'm waiting for a push back from the oil companies. Maybe they will release reports that electric cars are somehow unsafe. This would scare people away from potential purchases. Maybe, they will use their influence for regulations to make the manufacture and sale of electric cars more difficult. Maybe, they will buy key industries that supply materials for electric cars and cause a big time supply chain problem. I expect Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) to be somehow developed. I just wonder how they will do it.
Looks like BP and Tesla are teaming up to the tune of $100m for Tesla Superchargers at BP locations:
https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html
As this happens more and more (people seeing chargers at regular gas stations) charging anxiety will drop and EV demand will continue to be high.
Looks like BP and Tesla are teaming up to the tune of $100m for Tesla Superchargers at BP locations:
https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html (https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html)
As this happens more and more (people seeing chargers at regular gas stations) charging anxiety will drop and EV demand will continue to be high.
I kind of wonder about this. BP service stations may be a separate division than the rest of the oil company so I guess the team up makes sense. However, do the oil companies want to lose all that enormous cash flow that would happen if people swapped to electric cars?
I'm waiting for a push back from the oil companies. Maybe they will release reports that electric cars are somehow unsafe. This would scare people away from potential purchases. Maybe, they will use their influence for regulations to make the manufacture and sale of electric cars more difficult. Maybe, they will buy key industries that supply materials for electric cars and cause a big time supply chain problem. I expect Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) to be somehow developed. I just wonder how they will do it.
Oil companies, in particular BP, know all too well that world fossil fuel demand forecasts the next 10-20 years are very robust, even with rapid electric car conversion. And they want to be part of the energy transition, not left behind.
Looks like BP and Tesla are teaming up to the tune of $100m for Tesla Superchargers at BP locations:
https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html (https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html)
As this happens more and more (people seeing chargers at regular gas stations) charging anxiety will drop and EV demand will continue to be high.
I kind of wonder about this. BP service stations may be a separate division than the rest of the oil company so I guess the team up makes sense. However, do the oil companies want to lose all that enormous cash flow that would happen if people swapped to electric cars?
I'm waiting for a push back from the oil companies. Maybe they will release reports that electric cars are somehow unsafe. This would scare people away from potential purchases. Maybe, they will use their influence for regulations to make the manufacture and sale of electric cars more difficult. Maybe, they will buy key industries that supply materials for electric cars and cause a big time supply chain problem. I expect Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) to be somehow developed. I just wonder how they will do it.
Oil companies, in particular BP, know all too well that world fossil fuel demand forecasts the next 10-20 years are very robust, even with rapid electric car conversion. And they want to be part of the energy transition, not left behind.
Yes, but also Oil Productions & Operations accounts for only about 2% of BP's revenue (https://www.trefis.com/data/companies/BP/no-login-required/dqXu6irh/BP-Revenues-How-Does-BP-Make-Money-)
The vast majority of their revenue (77%) is in the Customers & Products category, which includes refining operations and retail fuel sales, but also aviation (unlikely to be electrified anytime soon), convenience stores attached to gas stations, and so on. BP is really an energy distribution company, so it makes complete sense that they would diversify into DCFC as part of the transition to EVs. They'll some profit delivering kWh to drivers, and these drivers will continue spending on drinks and snacks.
Looks like BP and Tesla are teaming up to the tune of $100m for Tesla Superchargers at BP locations:
https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html (https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html)
As this happens more and more (people seeing chargers at regular gas stations) charging anxiety will drop and EV demand will continue to be high.
I kind of wonder about this. BP service stations may be a separate division than the rest of the oil company so I guess the team up makes sense. However, do the oil companies want to lose all that enormous cash flow that would happen if people swapped to electric cars?
I'm waiting for a push back from the oil companies. Maybe they will release reports that electric cars are somehow unsafe. This would scare people away from potential purchases. Maybe, they will use their influence for regulations to make the manufacture and sale of electric cars more difficult. Maybe, they will buy key industries that supply materials for electric cars and cause a big time supply chain problem. I expect Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) to be somehow developed. I just wonder how they will do it.
Oil companies, in particular BP, know all too well that world fossil fuel demand forecasts the next 10-20 years are very robust, even with rapid electric car conversion. And they want to be part of the energy transition, not left behind.
Yes, but also Oil Productions & Operations accounts for only about 2% of BP's revenue
(https://www.trefis.com/data/companies/BP/no-login-required/dqXu6irh/BP-Revenues-How-Does-BP-Make-Money- (https://www.trefis.com/data/companies/BP/no-login-required/dqXu6irh/BP-Revenues-How-Does-BP-Make-Money-))
The vast majority of their revenue (77%) is in the Customers & Products category, which includes refining operations and retail fuel sales, but also aviation (unlikely to be electrified anytime soon), convenience stores attached to gas stations, and so on. BP is really an energy distribution company, so it makes complete sense that they would diversify into DCFC as part of the transition to EVs. They'll some profit delivering kWh to drivers, and these drivers will continue spending on drinks and snacks.
Looks like BP and Tesla are teaming up to the tune of $100m for Tesla Superchargers at BP locations:
https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html (https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html)
As this happens more and more (people seeing chargers at regular gas stations) charging anxiety will drop and EV demand will continue to be high.
I kind of wonder about this. BP service stations may be a separate division than the rest of the oil company so I guess the team up makes sense. However, do the oil companies want to lose all that enormous cash flow that would happen if people swapped to electric cars?
I'm waiting for a push back from the oil companies. Maybe they will release reports that electric cars are somehow unsafe. This would scare people away from potential purchases. Maybe, they will use their influence for regulations to make the manufacture and sale of electric cars more difficult. Maybe, they will buy key industries that supply materials for electric cars and cause a big time supply chain problem. I expect Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) to be somehow developed. I just wonder how they will do it.
Oil companies, in particular BP, know all too well that world fossil fuel demand forecasts the next 10-20 years are very robust, even with rapid electric car conversion. And they want to be part of the energy transition, not left behind.
Yes, but also Oil Productions & Operations accounts for only about 2% of BP's revenue
(https://www.trefis.com/data/companies/BP/no-login-required/dqXu6irh/BP-Revenues-How-Does-BP-Make-Money- (https://www.trefis.com/data/companies/BP/no-login-required/dqXu6irh/BP-Revenues-How-Does-BP-Make-Money-))
The vast majority of their revenue (77%) is in the Customers & Products category, which includes refining operations and retail fuel sales, but also aviation (unlikely to be electrified anytime soon), convenience stores attached to gas stations, and so on. BP is really an energy distribution company, so it makes complete sense that they would diversify into DCFC as part of the transition to EVs. They'll some profit delivering kWh to drivers, and these drivers will continue spending on drinks and snacks.
Yes, they have a lot of gas station revenue, but industry-typical razor thin margins. From their 2022 annual report
Oil production and ops: revenue $33B; profit $20B (60%)
Gas & low carbon: revenue $56B; profit $15B (27%)
Customers & Products: revenue $188B; profit $10B (5%)
Which business do you see growing the bottom line?
Given that retail gas stations make their money on high margin junk food and cigarettes, anything that drives more customers to stop by helps.
More about the Tesla-BP deal here (https://cleantechnica.com/2023/10/29/why-bp-bought-100m-worth-of-tesla-charging-hardware/).
The Tesla hardware will be branded and installed as part of the bp plus network. I assume this means it will be running BP's software.
This has the potential to grow the bottom line as EVs scale. Let's say a bp plus location can get commercial electricity for $0.30/kWh. If they can sell to the consumer for $0.35/kWh that's a 17% markup. No refining, no pipelines, no gas trucks.. very little overhead. There's the depreciation of the charging station, plus some maintenance, and perhaps a small percentage to the franchisee/property. So let's say after all this BP's profit is around 10% per kWh. This is fantastic compared to existing razor thin margins.
I'm pulling numbers out of may ass here, clearly will vary by location and there are a bunch of different factors. As the EV charging network builds out profit margins will get driven down to the thinnest of margins. But I can see why BP would be interested in getting their hands on Tesla hardware.
I don't think this is some grand conspiracy to make EVs less appealing. If BP can build out a large reliable charging network it can be leveraged in many profitable ways. Things like subscriptions and charging locations with indoor lounges, coffee, food, and WiFi.
Big Oil (which is really Big Energy) is going to make money on transportation whether it's powered by gasoline, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen, or electrons. The sooner they adopt a new tech, the sooner they can maximize profit from selling it.
The only things that might scare them is a significant reduction in demand (think COVID shutdowns), or widespread energy independence from individuals/businesses that get their energy from their own sources (on site renewables).
Big Oil (which is really Big Energy) is going to make money on transportation whether it's powered by gasoline, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen, or electrons. The sooner they adopt a new tech, the sooner they can maximize profit from selling it.
The only things that might scare them is a significant reduction in demand (think COVID shutdowns), or widespread energy independence from individuals/businesses that get their energy from their own sources (on site renewables).
So,......it's big energy. It's not individual companies that compete against one another in this Capitalism thing. I always did have a hunch that things were rigged. The price of gas goes up. The price of gas goes down, but the companies always seem to make money. So I guess "Big Energy" will determine which way things go. We will do what they want. They develop new tech and when the old stuff is past it's time. then we can be sold the new stuff.
Maybe, they'll sell me an electric bicycle some day.
Looks like BP and Tesla are teaming up to the tune of $100m for Tesla Superchargers at BP locations:
https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html
As this happens more and more (people seeing chargers at regular gas stations) charging anxiety will drop and EV demand will continue to be high.
I hope the average EV charging gas station becomes a nicer place to spend 30-40 minutes. And not necessarily a Bucees type madhouse. I'd be a fan of Starbucks type charging stations - nice bathrooms, nice chill cafe atmosphere, coffees and food. Less truck stop / travel center / lottery tickets, more coffee shop.
Will it show kWh price or some gallon of gas equivalent? Maybe a sci-fi future where the signs will only be visible with AR goggles, and shows $/mile adjusted for your recent mileage.It will be the Youtube ad sponsored model. You can only see the price after watching 2 spots. Or you pay 12,99 per month per company to see the price immediately!!!
Not legal in the US. Perhaps it’s different in the EU.Will it show kWh price or some gallon of gas equivalent? Maybe a sci-fi future where the signs will only be visible with AR goggles, and shows $/mile adjusted for your recent mileage.It will be the Youtube ad sponsored model. You can only see the price after watching 2 spots. Or you pay 12,99 per month per company to see the price immediately!!!
Putting aside it was a joke (though it would not surprise me) - please state the law that says that gas station are not allowed to put anyting in front of their big accouncement sings.Not legal in the US. Perhaps it’s different in the EU.Will it show kWh price or some gallon of gas equivalent? Maybe a sci-fi future where the signs will only be visible with AR goggles, and shows $/mile adjusted for your recent mileage.It will be the Youtube ad sponsored model. You can only see the price after watching 2 spots. Or you pay 12,99 per month per company to see the price immediately!!!
Looks like BP and Tesla are teaming up to the tune of $100m for Tesla Superchargers at BP locations:
https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/news/press-releases/bp-boosts-ev-charging-network-with-100-million-dollar-order-of-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers.html
As this happens more and more (people seeing chargers at regular gas stations) charging anxiety will drop and EV demand will continue to be high.
I hope the average EV charging gas station becomes a nicer place to spend 30-40 minutes. And not necessarily a Bucees type madhouse. I'd be a fan of Starbucks type charging stations - nice bathrooms, nice chill cafe atmosphere, coffees and food. Less truck stop / travel center / lottery tickets, more coffee shop.
I'd expect in the next couple of years 30-40 minutes for charging will be the extreme or for older models. I stopped at a Supercharger station recently at 33% battery and I was at 75% battery in 15 minutes. I'd imagine I could have gone from 25-80% in about 20-22 minutes. But, it would be nice to have a few food options instead of needing to make two separate stops.
Seems like a great business for a coffee shop franchise to be involved in...
It would need to be faster than a level 2 charger to entice me to stop at a coffee shop. Those are the equivalent (very approximate) of a gas pump that pumps a gallon or two an hour.
My home charger is faster than any level 2 charger I’ve been to (not that many), and it took 3.5 hours to get from 25-80% yesterday.
Agreed. I have no use for a L2 charger unless the car will be sitting idle for 8 hours or more. If I'm charging away from home I want a fast charger - 30-45 minutes max.
Nothing technically difficult about doing such a thing at most urban/suburban businesses. I've been involved with the planning for such things.
Agreed. I have no use for a L2 charger unless the car will be sitting idle for 8 hours or more. If I'm charging away from home I want a fast charger - 30-45 minutes max.
Nothing technically difficult about doing such a thing at most urban/suburban businesses. I've been involved with the planning for such things.
These chargers take quite a few amps at 240 volts. Mr internet says:
"The Level 2 EV charger will usually need 30-50 amps, which would be fine if it is the only appliance plugged in, however other appliances need amps too. Further, the National Electrical Code requires an electrical circuit to be rated for 25% greater amperage than your charger's output."
"Level 3 Charger technical specs:
Rated at 480 volts
Delivers 100+ amps
150 miles of range per hour"
It certainly looks like you need a pretty good supply if you are charging a bank of 10 Teslas in a row. I was at the grocery store Saturday. They have about 10 Tesla chargers. All were empty.
480 X 100 = 48,000 watts or 48 kilowatts
48 kw X 10 = 480 kW. That's half a MW supply needed if all are plugged in. There is some capital cost there.
Agreed. I have no use for a L2 charger unless the car will be sitting idle for 8 hours or more. If I'm charging away from home I want a fast charger - 30-45 minutes max.
Nothing technically difficult about doing such a thing at most urban/suburban businesses. I've been involved with the planning for such things.
These chargers take quite a few amps at 240 volts. Mr internet says:
"The Level 2 EV charger will usually need 30-50 amps, which would be fine if it is the only appliance plugged in, however other appliances need amps too. Further, the National Electrical Code requires an electrical circuit to be rated for 25% greater amperage than your charger's output."
"Level 3 Charger technical specs:
Rated at 480 volts
Delivers 100+ amps
150 miles of range per hour"
It certainly looks like you need a pretty good supply if you are charging a bank of 10 Teslas in a row. I was at the grocery store Saturday. They have about 10 Tesla chargers. All were empty.
480 X 100 = 48,000 watts or 48 kilowatts
48 kw X 10 = 480 kW. That's half a MW supply needed if all are plugged in. There is some capital cost there.
I'm going to guess they don't build these places for the theoretical maximum, which would be super inefficient.
The battery management systems on most vehicles rarely pull the maximum. What's safe for the battery depends on temperature, charge level, etc. And a typical charge curve flattens out as the battery gets closer to capacity. Plus, people may leave a vehicle parked/plugged in a stall a bit beyond charging time, and there's time lost to cars getting in/out and getting plugged in. So in the vast majority of situations the combined total is far below the theoretical maximum. If the worst case scenario happens and 10 cars at 50% all plug in at the same time, then I would expect that the charge stations simply throttle the rates.
Seems like a great business for a coffee shop franchise to be involved in...
Honestly, I'm shocked that you don't see more Starbucks, Dunkin', or other coffee shops making deals with EV Charging networks...
I used the completely Free L2 charger at my local Nature & Science Museum over the weekend- it was awesome!
Agreed. I have no use for a L2 charger unless the car will be sitting idle for 8 hours or more. If I'm charging away from home I want a fast charger - 30-45 minutes max.
Nothing technically difficult about doing such a thing at most urban/suburban businesses. I've been involved with the planning for such things.
These chargers take quite a few amps at 240 volts. Mr internet says:
"The Level 2 EV charger will usually need 30-50 amps, which would be fine if it is the only appliance plugged in, however other appliances need amps too. Further, the National Electrical Code requires an electrical circuit to be rated for 25% greater amperage than your charger's output."
"Level 3 Charger technical specs:
Rated at 480 volts
Delivers 100+ amps
150 miles of range per hour"
It certainly looks like you need a pretty good supply if you are charging a bank of 10 Teslas in a row. I was at the grocery store Saturday. They have about 10 Tesla chargers. All were empty.
480 X 100 = 48,000 watts or 48 kilowatts
48 kw X 10 = 480 kW. That's half a MW supply needed if all are plugged in. There is some capital cost there.
I'm going to guess they don't build these places for the theoretical maximum, which would be super inefficient.
The battery management systems on most vehicles rarely pull the maximum. What's safe for the battery depends on temperature, charge level, etc. And a typical charge curve flattens out as the battery gets closer to capacity. Plus, people may leave a vehicle parked/plugged in a stall a bit beyond charging time, and there's time lost to cars getting in/out and getting plugged in. So in the vast majority of situations the combined total is far below the theoretical maximum. If the worst case scenario happens and 10 cars at 50% all plug in at the same time, then I would expect that the charge stations simply throttle the rates.
I did a very quick check and found this in relation to car charging.
"There is no allowance for diversity for either in the NEC AFAIK."
The "Authority having jurisdiction" may be convinced otherwise. With all this interest in electric cars, someone must know how they actually design these things. How much allowance is there for them not pulling all amps all the time? I've not heard of fires from the chargers just some of the batteries.
Power Management makes it possible for organizations to meet driver demand and charge more EVs without making major infrastructure updates. Instead of installing additional physical electrical capacity, like new circuits, panels or transformers, Power Management software dynamically shares existing power across more charging spots to charge more vehicles.
...
Starbucks and Dunkin barely have tables anymore. They are doing most of their business as drivethoughs now.
...
Starbucks and Dunkin barely have tables anymore. They are doing most of their business as drivethoughs now.
Drives me crazy looking at the Starbucks down the street from me with 8-10 cars in line. Like most of them would live relatively close and could have walked to that or the other independent place just-a-bout next door. Or even just parked and walked in for about as fast of service. I dont understand a lot about car 'culture' and the little bit I do get is rapidly slipping away the less I drive.
US sales, at least, are continuing their trajectory for ever-higher sales on track to hit one million vehicles this year - 6% of total sales. About 1/3 of sales are in Calif. Interest rates are hitting more expensive models hard especially Tesla, with falling market share and drooping stock price.
(https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/04/Q1-2023_EV-Sales-in-CA-and-USA_FINAL.png?w=1024)
I just got a 2020 Nissan Leaf SV Plus as a town car. Very inexpensive in the used market for a 200+ mile vehicle. Lots of chademo chargers in my area which was a part of the consideration.
Not saying anything bad about your Leaf, ultimately that might be the first EV I buy too - next time you use a fast charger, watch the battery temps. If it is like the last time I charged a Leaf I had borrowed, the battery temps peaked out and then the charger was slowed down.
My point if for long battery life, read up on "rapidgate". I can explain if you want.
Good cars, just not good fast charging EVs.
I just got a 2020 Nissan Leaf SV Plus as a town car. Very inexpensive in the used market for a 200+ mile vehicle. Lots of chademo chargers in my area which was a part of the consideration.
Not saying anything bad about your Leaf, ultimately that might be the first EV I buy too - next time you use a fast charger, watch the battery temps. If it is like the last time I charged a Leaf I had borrowed, the battery temps peaked out and then the charger was slowed down.
My point if for long battery life, read up on "rapidgate". I can explain if you want.
Good cars, just not good fast charging EVs.
Thanks, I'm aware. I live in a moderate climate and would only need to fast charge maybe once or twice a year.
The other reason I got it is because it had ProPilot installed and I could add a Comma3 for very enhanced ADAS down the road if I decided to do so.
Couple of interesting articles I came across yesterday:
1. https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/27/23934691/hertz-tesla-uber-ev-plans-damage-repair-price-cuts
2. https://www.theverge.com/23934889/electric-vehicle-ev-transition-sales-delays-politics
In a way, I look at this as growing pains.
Also, realized yesterday that Tesla Model S started selling in mid-2012, but sales hit 100k units in 2015. So in the next couple of years we'll start seeing data on 10 year models. However, Tesla will claim that was old battery tech. I would like to know how much battery life is remaining in these first-gen batteries at the 10 year mark, using real-world data.
The repair cost issue is bad news for fleets, perhaps a null point for individual owners. Took an Uber this summer in Boston, it was a Model 3. Driver explained how cheap it is to get a weekly rental and drive it 10-14 hours a day. So the Hertz report isn't surprising.
Back when Tesla car prices were very high, people complained that they were overpriced. Now that Tesla has systematically and aggressively cut prices, people complain about price changes.
Personally I think that the drive to make their cars lower and lower priced is exactly the right direction things should be going.
people complain about price changes.
Back when Tesla car prices were very high, people complained that they were overpriced. Now that Tesla has systematically and aggressively cut prices, people complain about price changes.
Personally I think that the drive to make their cars lower and lower priced is exactly the right direction things should be going.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this was (in my understanding) always the expectation of EVs, and has been a general trend of autos with advanced features for decades. I remember the whole “early adopters of EVs will pay a premium, as they become mass produced their sticker price will fall [in real terms]”.
Similarly, most advanced features are found first at a steep premium in luxury vehicles, and then (when sufficiently successful or desirable) get gradually offered to every base model car out there for a small fraction of what it cost a decade earlier as an option in a luxury vehicle. I’m thinking about adaptive cruise control, remote start, Bluetooth connectivity… And in previous generations power windows, a/c, stereo systems…
Even the long-running models of today are on average cheaper and have more features than they did a few decades ago. Think of the Honda Accord or WV Jetta or Toyota Camery.
Back when Tesla car prices were very high, people complained that they were overpriced. Now that Tesla has systematically and aggressively cut prices, people complain about price changes.
Personally I think that the drive to make their cars lower and lower priced is exactly the right direction things should be going.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this was (in my understanding) always the expectation of EVs, and has been a general trend of autos with advanced features for decades. I remember the whole “early adopters of EVs will pay a premium, as they become mass produced their sticker price will fall [in real terms]”.
Similarly, most advanced features are found first at a steep premium in luxury vehicles, and then (when sufficiently successful or desirable) get gradually offered to every base model car out there for a small fraction of what it cost a decade earlier as an option in a luxury vehicle. I’m thinking about adaptive cruise control, remote start, Bluetooth connectivity… And in previous generations power windows, a/c, stereo systems…
Even the long-running models of today are on average cheaper and have more features than they did a few decades ago. Think of the Honda Accord or WV Jetta or Toyota Camery.
Yes, exactly. IMO, EV's won't hit mass adoption until they are both cheaper AND better than ICE cars. Right now I'd say EV's are better but are not yet cheaper for the average car buyer. But things are trending in the right direction.
The issue is not that EV's prices are changing. It's that they're doing so often and unpredictably. That makes it difficult to predict any kind of depreciation, which is a large cost of owning a vehicle for many owners and all fleets.
It used to be that price changes really only occurred with changes to the model year. If EV prices are going to fluctuate with commodity prices, or month to month demand that makes the margin for error in TCO calculations much wider. If you were a business owner trying to predict what you might be able to sell your used Lightning for in 3-5 years, what do you do with data like this?
(https://graphics.reuters.com/FORDMOTOR-PRICES/lbvgorljqvq/chart.png)
If you bought a Lightning in Mar 23, not only did you pay a bunch more up front, but you also took a $10k depreciation hit that you weren't expecting a couple of months later when they slashed prices out of the blue.
If you were a business owner trying to predict what you might be able to sell your used Lightning for in 3-5 years, what do you do with data like this?Well, the core problem here is - very easy to see - you buying a F-150 instead of a sensible vehicle, so I would never be in the situation to calculate that.
Back when Tesla car prices were very high, people complained that they were overpriced. Now that Tesla has systematically and aggressively cut prices, people complain about price changes.
Personally I think that the drive to make their cars lower and lower priced is exactly the right direction things should be going.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this was (in my understanding) always the expectation of EVs, and has been a general trend of autos with advanced features for decades. I remember the whole “early adopters of EVs will pay a premium, as they become mass produced their sticker price will fall [in real terms]”.
Similarly, most advanced features are found first at a steep premium in luxury vehicles, and then (when sufficiently successful or desirable) get gradually offered to every base model car out there for a small fraction of what it cost a decade earlier as an option in a luxury vehicle. I’m thinking about adaptive cruise control, remote start, Bluetooth connectivity… And in previous generations power windows, a/c, stereo systems…
Even the long-running models of today are on average cheaper and have more features than they did a few decades ago. Think of the Honda Accord or WV Jetta or Toyota Camery.
Yes, exactly. IMO, EV's won't hit mass adoption until they are both cheaper AND better than ICE cars. Right now I'd say EV's are better but are not yet cheaper for the average car buyer. But things are trending in the right direction.
Are we going to talk about how many of these features that weren't available a decade or two ago don't actually add any value to vehicle owners . . . just add unnecessary complexity and planned obsolescence?
Are we going to talk about how many of these features that weren't available a decade or two ago don't actually add any value to vehicle owners . . . just add unnecessary complexity and planned obsolescence?
Back when Tesla car prices were very high, people complained that they were overpriced. Now that Tesla has systematically and aggressively cut prices, people complain about price changes.
Personally I think that the drive to make their cars lower and lower priced is exactly the right direction things should be going.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this was (in my understanding) always the expectation of EVs, and has been a general trend of autos with advanced features for decades. I remember the whole “early adopters of EVs will pay a premium, as they become mass produced their sticker price will fall [in real terms]”.
Similarly, most advanced features are found first at a steep premium in luxury vehicles, and then (when sufficiently successful or desirable) get gradually offered to every base model car out there for a small fraction of what it cost a decade earlier as an option in a luxury vehicle. I’m thinking about adaptive cruise control, remote start, Bluetooth connectivity… And in previous generations power windows, a/c, stereo systems…
Even the long-running models of today are on average cheaper and have more features than they did a few decades ago. Think of the Honda Accord or WV Jetta or Toyota Camery.
Yes, exactly. IMO, EV's won't hit mass adoption until they are both cheaper AND better than ICE cars. Right now I'd say EV's are better but are not yet cheaper for the average car buyer. But things are trending in the right direction.
Are we going to talk about how many of these features that weren't available a decade or two ago don't actually add any value to vehicle owners . . . just add unnecessary complexity and planned obsolescence?
Everything is going high tech, even refrigerators, garage doors, doorbells, televisions and thermostats (to name a few). I'm not sure why you think cars would be any different? For me, the bigger issue is not that it uses more tech. The bigger issue is whether I can still use the device even when it's 'old' and how long does it last. For an EV that's a question about the motors and the batteries. How long will those last? Because if the motors and batteries last a long time then the EV's still usable.
I treat my phones the same way - keep them until battery degradation makes them unusable. It's not a perfect solution but it keeps the churn to a minimum.
Back when Tesla car prices were very high, people complained that they were overpriced. Now that Tesla has systematically and aggressively cut prices, people complain about price changes.
Personally I think that the drive to make their cars lower and lower priced is exactly the right direction things should be going.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this was (in my understanding) always the expectation of EVs, and has been a general trend of autos with advanced features for decades. I remember the whole “early adopters of EVs will pay a premium, as they become mass produced their sticker price will fall [in real terms]”.
Similarly, most advanced features are found first at a steep premium in luxury vehicles, and then (when sufficiently successful or desirable) get gradually offered to every base model car out there for a small fraction of what it cost a decade earlier as an option in a luxury vehicle. I’m thinking about adaptive cruise control, remote start, Bluetooth connectivity… And in previous generations power windows, a/c, stereo systems…
Even the long-running models of today are on average cheaper and have more features than they did a few decades ago. Think of the Honda Accord or WV Jetta or Toyota Camery.
Yes, exactly. IMO, EV's won't hit mass adoption until they are both cheaper AND better than ICE cars. Right now I'd say EV's are better but are not yet cheaper for the average car buyer. But things are trending in the right direction.
Are we going to talk about how many of these features that weren't available a decade or two ago don't actually add any value to vehicle owners . . . just add unnecessary complexity and planned obsolescence?
Everything is going high tech, even refrigerators, garage doors, doorbells, televisions and thermostats (to name a few). I'm not sure why you think cars would be any different? For me, the bigger issue is not that it uses more tech. The bigger issue is whether I can still use the device even when it's 'old' and how long does it last. For an EV that's a question about the motors and the batteries. How long will those last? Because if the motors and batteries last a long time then the EV's still usable.
I treat my phones the same way - keep them until battery degradation makes them unusable. It's not a perfect solution but it keeps the churn to a minimum.
If the motor and batteries still work but none of the electronics do, is a Tesla usable?
Back when Tesla car prices were very high, people complained that they were overpriced. Now that Tesla has systematically and aggressively cut prices, people complain about price changes.
Personally I think that the drive to make their cars lower and lower priced is exactly the right direction things should be going.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this was (in my understanding) always the expectation of EVs, and has been a general trend of autos with advanced features for decades. I remember the whole “early adopters of EVs will pay a premium, as they become mass produced their sticker price will fall [in real terms]”.
Similarly, most advanced features are found first at a steep premium in luxury vehicles, and then (when sufficiently successful or desirable) get gradually offered to every base model car out there for a small fraction of what it cost a decade earlier as an option in a luxury vehicle. I’m thinking about adaptive cruise control, remote start, Bluetooth connectivity… And in previous generations power windows, a/c, stereo systems…
Even the long-running models of today are on average cheaper and have more features than they did a few decades ago. Think of the Honda Accord or WV Jetta or Toyota Camery.
Yes, exactly. IMO, EV's won't hit mass adoption until they are both cheaper AND better than ICE cars. Right now I'd say EV's are better but are not yet cheaper for the average car buyer. But things are trending in the right direction.
Are we going to talk about how many of these features that weren't available a decade or two ago don't actually add any value to vehicle owners . . . just add unnecessary complexity and planned obsolescence?
Everything is going high tech, even refrigerators, garage doors, doorbells, televisions and thermostats (to name a few). I'm not sure why you think cars would be any different? For me, the bigger issue is not that it uses more tech. The bigger issue is whether I can still use the device even when it's 'old' and how long does it last. For an EV that's a question about the motors and the batteries. How long will those last? Because if the motors and batteries last a long time then the EV's still usable.
I treat my phones the same way - keep them until battery degradation makes them unusable. It's not a perfect solution but it keeps the churn to a minimum.
If the motor and batteries still work but none of the electronics do, is a Tesla usable?
Yes you can drive them without the center console turned on:
https://www.teslaoracle.com/2022/01/11/heres-how-it-feels-like-driving-a-tesla-model-3-y-without-the-center-screen-video/
The main thing would be to get your speed displayed, maybe add an aftermarket heads up display.
Also, there's more than a few 2012 Tesla still on the road and they're still kept up to date with new software. They don't get some features like autosummon or autopilot but otherwise work fine.
Back when Tesla car prices were very high, people complained that they were overpriced. Now that Tesla has systematically and aggressively cut prices, people complain about price changes.
Personally I think that the drive to make their cars lower and lower priced is exactly the right direction things should be going.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this was (in my understanding) always the expectation of EVs, and has been a general trend of autos with advanced features for decades. I remember the whole “early adopters of EVs will pay a premium, as they become mass produced their sticker price will fall [in real terms]”.
Similarly, most advanced features are found first at a steep premium in luxury vehicles, and then (when sufficiently successful or desirable) get gradually offered to every base model car out there for a small fraction of what it cost a decade earlier as an option in a luxury vehicle. I’m thinking about adaptive cruise control, remote start, Bluetooth connectivity… And in previous generations power windows, a/c, stereo systems…
Even the long-running models of today are on average cheaper and have more features than they did a few decades ago. Think of the Honda Accord or WV Jetta or Toyota Camery.
Yes, exactly. IMO, EV's won't hit mass adoption until they are both cheaper AND better than ICE cars. Right now I'd say EV's are better but are not yet cheaper for the average car buyer. But things are trending in the right direction.
Are we going to talk about how many of these features that weren't available a decade or two ago don't actually add any value to vehicle owners . . . just add unnecessary complexity and planned obsolescence?
Everything is going high tech, even refrigerators, garage doors, doorbells, televisions and thermostats (to name a few). I'm not sure why you think cars would be any different? For me, the bigger issue is not that it uses more tech. The bigger issue is whether I can still use the device even when it's 'old' and how long does it last. For an EV that's a question about the motors and the batteries. How long will those last? Because if the motors and batteries last a long time then the EV's still usable.
I treat my phones the same way - keep them until battery degradation makes them unusable. It's not a perfect solution but it keeps the churn to a minimum.
If the motor and batteries still work but none of the electronics do, is a Tesla usable?
Yes you can drive them without the center console turned on:
https://www.teslaoracle.com/2022/01/11/heres-how-it-feels-like-driving-a-tesla-model-3-y-without-the-center-screen-video/
The main thing would be to get your speed displayed, maybe add an aftermarket heads up display.
Also, there's more than a few 2012 Tesla still on the road and they're still kept up to date with new software. They don't get some features like autosummon or autopilot but otherwise work fine.
If you read that article (or listen to the video past 38 seconds), you'll find that all the electronics in the vehicle were turned on in the test. Only the center console screen was disabled and the user connected to his car electronics via a cellphone.
Back when Tesla car prices were very high, people complained that they were overpriced. Now that Tesla has systematically and aggressively cut prices, people complain about price changes.
Personally I think that the drive to make their cars lower and lower priced is exactly the right direction things should be going.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this was (in my understanding) always the expectation of EVs, and has been a general trend of autos with advanced features for decades. I remember the whole “early adopters of EVs will pay a premium, as they become mass produced their sticker price will fall [in real terms]”.
Similarly, most advanced features are found first at a steep premium in luxury vehicles, and then (when sufficiently successful or desirable) get gradually offered to every base model car out there for a small fraction of what it cost a decade earlier as an option in a luxury vehicle. I’m thinking about adaptive cruise control, remote start, Bluetooth connectivity… And in previous generations power windows, a/c, stereo systems…
Even the long-running models of today are on average cheaper and have more features than they did a few decades ago. Think of the Honda Accord or WV Jetta or Toyota Camery.
Yes, exactly. IMO, EV's won't hit mass adoption until they are both cheaper AND better than ICE cars. Right now I'd say EV's are better but are not yet cheaper for the average car buyer. But things are trending in the right direction.
Are we going to talk about how many of these features that weren't available a decade or two ago don't actually add any value to vehicle owners . . . just add unnecessary complexity and planned obsolescence?
Everything is going high tech, even refrigerators, garage doors, doorbells, televisions and thermostats (to name a few). I'm not sure why you think cars would be any different? For me, the bigger issue is not that it uses more tech. The bigger issue is whether I can still use the device even when it's 'old' and how long does it last. For an EV that's a question about the motors and the batteries. How long will those last? Because if the motors and batteries last a long time then the EV's still usable.
I treat my phones the same way - keep them until battery degradation makes them unusable. It's not a perfect solution but it keeps the churn to a minimum.
If the motor and batteries still work but none of the electronics do, is a Tesla usable?
Yes you can drive them without the center console turned on:
https://www.teslaoracle.com/2022/01/11/heres-how-it-feels-like-driving-a-tesla-model-3-y-without-the-center-screen-video/
The main thing would be to get your speed displayed, maybe add an aftermarket heads up display.
Also, there's more than a few 2012 Tesla still on the road and they're still kept up to date with new software. They don't get some features like autosummon or autopilot but otherwise work fine.
If you read that article (or listen to the video past 38 seconds), you'll find that all the electronics in the vehicle were turned on in the test. Only the center console screen was disabled and the user connected to his car electronics via a cellphone.
I've actually driven my Tesla around with the center console turned off, so it is possible. The main issue with doing it long term would be getting a way to display your speed not using the center console. I know some people have put in after-market displays because they wanted the speed shown in-line with the steering wheel. So it should be possible even based on current options.
Also I think another question to ask is whether or not the manufacturer (any manufacturer, not just Tesla) creates planned obsolescence for their vehicles. As far as I was able to find, Tesla has never phased out any of their vehicles due to obsolescence.
Wow that's expensive for the Dolphin. They've just been launched down under starting at the equivalent of about €23500+on roads (A$38890). Not far off Corolla/Mazda3/i30 pricing.If you were a business owner trying to predict what you might be able to sell your used Lightning for in 3-5 years, what do you do with data like this?Well, the core problem here is - very easy to see - you buying a F-150 instead of a sensible vehicle, so I would never be in the situation to calculate that.
Putting that aside, and also that it is your faulty business acumen for buying a clearly overpriced vehicle; trying to calculate what an EV will cost in 3-5 years aftermarket is - at least until 2030 - a stupid idea right from the start. It's a market that is not only changing fast, but also so far has no supply. If your calculation - on whatever you base it - is only off by 20%, that's a pretty good job.
btw. I just BYD started to sell their smallest EV, thw Dolphin, in Germany. For a starting price of 38K€. In China it is sold for less than half of that. Question: What is the used vehicle price in 5 years?
An under-appreciated fact is that modern cars last longer on average than cars a few decades ago,But that is simply engineering. Example: The Golf III(?) was made (with quite the effort) to be a long lasting car. The result is that there are still more than 100K of them on German streets while having the vintage car designation (30 year old).
Wow that's expensive for the Dolphin.Yes, I had to double check that it's the same car and I didn't mess up the name :D
An under-appreciated fact is that modern cars last longer on average than cars a few decades ago,But that is simply engineering. Example: The Golf III(?) was made (with quite the effort) to be a long lasting car. The result is that there are still more than 100K of them on German streets while having the vintage car designation (30 year old).
An under-appreciated fact is that modern cars last longer on average than cars a few decades ago,But that is simply engineering. Example: The Golf III(?) was made (with quite the effort) to be a long lasting car. The result is that there are still more than 100K of them on German streets while having the vintage car designation (30 year old).
Not just the Golf III. Cars across the board. VW has been one of the more repair prone brands in the last few decades in the NA market, but their models are also outlasting those built in the late 20th century.
Got side tracked and forgot to write that last night on the news they were talking about how the price of insurance on everything in FL is going up. Partially the weather but also partially the fact that the average car is similar in complexity and price to a space shuttle. Floods and crashes are expensive for fancy cars and SUVs.
Got side tracked and forgot to write that last night on the news they were talking about how the price of insurance on everything in FL is going up. Partially the weather but also partially the fact that the average car is similar in complexity and price to a space shuttle. Floods and crashes are expensive for fancy cars and SUVs.
Florida has been hit with some absolutely massive insurance losses over the last couple decades, and has a much higher than average risk moving forward according to most assessments. I remember reading somewhere that car insurance underwriters have lost money in Florida every year this century, and are treating it as a loss-leader to get more clients in "bundled insurance" where they actually make money.
Got side tracked and forgot to write that last night on the news they were talking about how the price of insurance on everything in FL is going up. Partially the weather but also partially the fact that the average car is similar in complexity and price to a space shuttle. Floods and crashes are expensive for fancy cars and SUVs.
Florida has been hit with some absolutely massive insurance losses over the last couple decades, and has a much higher than average risk moving forward according to most assessments. I remember reading somewhere that car insurance underwriters have lost money in Florida every year this century, and are treating it as a loss-leader to get more clients in "bundled insurance" where they actually make money.
Are there a lot of accidents there? No snow. It's flat. Hurricane damage?
...
Are there a lot of accidents there? No snow. It's flat. Hurricane damage?
...
Are there a lot of accidents there? No snow. It's flat. Hurricane damage?
Tell me you have not driven in Florida without telling me you have not driven in Florida.
Lots of old people, no drivers ed for young people, and lots of tourists who dont know where they are going.
Dont think I like the "loss leader bundle" idea, seems drivers should pay for the damage they do <shrug>.
It used to be that price changes really only occurred with changes to the model year.
And now for something different: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/toyota-has-built-an-ev-with-a-fake-transmission-and-weve-driven-it (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/toyota-has-built-an-ev-with-a-fake-transmission-and-weve-driven-it)
It used to be that price changes really only occurred with changes to the model year.
Completely incorrect. MSRP might not have changed, but very few vehicles ever sold at MSRP before Tesla came on the scene. MSRP has never been a reasonable benchmark for value.
Dealers changed the price for every person who walks in the door, and for the same person every time they walk through the door. Manufacturer incentives/rebates/whatever to dealers changed all the time as well. Different prices at every salesdroid at every dealer. An opaque, chaotic, muddled mess.
You only think that we have more price changes because we're getting some actual transparency on EV pricing.
And now for something different: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/toyota-has-built-an-ev-with-a-fake-transmission-and-weve-driven-it (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/toyota-has-built-an-ev-with-a-fake-transmission-and-weve-driven-it)That's so stupid only a Japanese could build it as not a joke.
But I would guess at least the stalling part would be forbidden for safety reasons.
[MOD NOTE: Dude, no. Bad enough I gotta police an Middle East Off topic thread, let's not do this]
And now for something different: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/toyota-has-built-an-ev-with-a-fake-transmission-and-weve-driven-it (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/toyota-has-built-an-ev-with-a-fake-transmission-and-weve-driven-it)That's so stupid only a Japanese could build it as not a joke.
But I would guess at least the stalling part would be forbidden for safety reasons.
[MOD NOTE: Dude, no. Bad enough I gotta police an Middle East Off topic thread, let's not do this]
Evidently the Koreans and Americans think transmission sounds is a good idea, so definitely not just the Japanese - https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-ev-fake-engine-sound-hyundai-dodge-toyota-2023-7
And now for something different: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/toyota-has-built-an-ev-with-a-fake-transmission-and-weve-driven-it (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/toyota-has-built-an-ev-with-a-fake-transmission-and-weve-driven-it)That's so stupid only a Japanese could build it as not a joke.
But I would guess at least the stalling part would be forbidden for safety reasons.
[MOD NOTE: Dude, no. Bad enough I gotta police an Middle East Off topic thread, let's not do this]
Evidently the Koreans and Americans think transmission sounds is a good idea, so definitely not just the Japanese - https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-ev-fake-engine-sound-hyundai-dodge-toyota-2023-7 (https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-ev-fake-engine-sound-hyundai-dodge-toyota-2023-7)
Hah? You Americans don't even drive manuals!? Even if if you had engine sounds, what's the point for an automatic???
btw @FrugalToque I am pretty sure you misunderstood something there. I was not dissing Japanese. I am deeply fond of them doing any- and everything to extremes. My favorite YT video of the last month is this one about an incredibly extreme apartment for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4oQDnHlrR0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4oQDnHlrR0)
You go from trolling Japanese to trolling Yanks?I go from praising Japanese to absolute confusion. What do you have from engine sounds you can't influence or react to?
I go from praising Japanese to absolute confusion.
And now for something different: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/toyota-has-built-an-ev-with-a-fake-transmission-and-weve-driven-it (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/10/toyota-has-built-an-ev-with-a-fake-transmission-and-weve-driven-it)That's so stupid only a Japanese could build it as not a joke.
But I would guess at least the stalling part would be forbidden for safety reasons.
[MOD NOTE: Dude, no. Bad enough I gotta police an Middle East Off topic thread, let's not do this]
Evidently the Koreans and Americans think transmission sounds is a good idea, so definitely not just the Japanese - https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-ev-fake-engine-sound-hyundai-dodge-toyota-2023-7
Hah? You Americans don't even drive manuals!? Even if if you had engine sounds, what's the point for an automatic???
Are we going to talk about how many of these features that weren't available a decade or two ago don't actually add any value to vehicle owners . . . just add unnecessary complexity and planned obsolescence?
Okay, let's look at the sentence, maybe my English is not good enough.
I go from praising Japanese to absolute confusion.
This is not hard to understand. It is never ok to say only one culture is "stupid enough" to do something. That is not praise by any measure.
There is no misunderstanding.
Please stop the cultural bashing.
Okay, let's look at the sentence, maybe my English is not good enough.
I go from praising Japanese to absolute confusion.
This is not hard to understand. It is never ok to say only one culture is "stupid enough" to do something. That is not praise by any measure.
There is no misunderstanding.
Please stop the cultural bashing.
"That's so stupid only a Japanese could build it as not a joke."
I am not saying a Japanese is stupid for building. I said that X is stupid. And that (I like it) that Japanese build everything.
Like a "stupid" life-sized Gundam. Or a "stupid" 6 seat Michelin-star restaurant in a parking garage. Or a "stupid" Nakagin Capsule Tower, that is unfortunately be destroyed
Are we going to talk about how many of these features that weren't available a decade or two ago don't actually add any value to vehicle owners . . . just add unnecessary complexity and planned obsolescence?
If so we should also talk about what insurance prices tell us. The cost to insure our 2009 Fit (with traction control!) is about the same as the EV (TC... and radar cruise, automatic emergency braking, blind spot warnings, cross traffic alert, heated mirrors, backup/360 camera, lane departure warning, whatever bits of self-driving it can manage...), for a similar number of miles, despite the EV being worth many times what the Fit is worth.
That couldn't be true if some of those features didn't save the insurer money in claims. Or you have to assume the insurer is just flat out stupid.
Evil and greedy? Maybe. Stupid? Nah, the math doesn't work out to support that.
Now, I've never needed my bicycle to come with cross traffic alert, but that's a different discussion.
Are we going to talk about how many of these features that weren't available a decade or two ago don't actually add any value to vehicle owners . . . just add unnecessary complexity and planned obsolescence?
If so we should also talk about what insurance prices tell us. The cost to insure our 2009 Fit (with traction control!) is about the same as the EV (TC... and radar cruise, automatic emergency braking, blind spot warnings, cross traffic alert, heated mirrors, backup/360 camera, lane departure warning, whatever bits of self-driving it can manage...), for a similar number of miles, despite the EV being worth many times what the Fit is worth.
That couldn't be true if some of those features didn't save the insurer money in claims. Or you have to assume the insurer is just flat out stupid.
Evil and greedy? Maybe. Stupid? Nah, the math doesn't work out to support that.
Now, I've never needed my bicycle to come with cross traffic alert, but that's a different discussion.
Oh, absolutely. If you are a shit driver then lane departure, backup cameras and whatever other ways a vehicle can take control away from you - they're all going to make your driving safer and reduce accidents*. There seem to be far more shit drivers than good ones, so what you're saying regarding insurance prices makes perfect sense.
But that doesn't mean that the massive amount of unnecessary complexity in your newer vehicle won't lead to a much earlier obsolescence than should come about. Insurance doesn't typically cover shit in a car just breaking, or obsolete software/parts.
* And I'd argue that they're largely unnecessary if you're a safe driver. In the 27 years I've been driving (without any of these features) I haven't been at fault for a single accident, and I have been regularly driving along one of (if not the) most dangerous roads in North America for close to two decades. Actually, the closest I've come to crashing in recent memory was when driving my mother's car with lane assist in the winter. There was blowing snow across the right half of the lane I was in and the lane assist decided that I was driving unsafely - yanked the wheel in my hand left to point our vehicle into oncoming traffic.
But that doesn't mean that the massive amount of unnecessary complexity in your newer vehicle won't lead to a much earlier obsolescence than should come about. Insurance doesn't typically cover shit in a car just breaking, or obsolete software/parts.
* And I'd argue that they're largely unnecessary if you're a safe driver. In the 27 years I've been driving (without any of these features) I haven't been at fault for a single accident, and I have been regularly driving along one of (if not the) most dangerous roads in North America for close to two decades. Actually, the closest I've come to crashing in recent memory was when driving my mother's car with lane assist in the winter. There was blowing snow across the right half of the lane I was in and the lane assist decided that I was driving unsafely - yanked the wheel in my hand left to point our vehicle into oncoming traffic.
But that doesn't mean that the massive amount of unnecessary complexity in your newer vehicle won't lead to a much earlier obsolescence than should come about. Insurance doesn't typically cover shit in a car just breaking, or obsolete software/parts.
It's against the interest of automakers for that to occur. I think it's more likely electronics robustness will increase and software efficiency and utilization will increase (because of in car app sales). Car ownership averages 8 years. If routine obsolescence occurs, that's damaging to resale value and point of sale value. Vehicle assets cost too much for something like that not to destroy auto brands. Reliability is a key driver in the market.
* And I'd argue that they're largely unnecessary if you're a safe driver. In the 27 years I've been driving (without any of these features) I haven't been at fault for a single accident, and I have been regularly driving along one of (if not the) most dangerous roads in North America for close to two decades. Actually, the closest I've come to crashing in recent memory was when driving my mother's car with lane assist in the winter. There was blowing snow across the right half of the lane I was in and the lane assist decided that I was driving unsafely - yanked the wheel in my hand left to point our vehicle into oncoming traffic.
Here's the thing about rare events though - most people don't get into an accident most years, yet collectively with millions of drivers in a region accidents happen daily and literal lives are lost. With rare events its very hard to separate "lucky from good" drivers, which is the challenge all insurers face when extending coverage to the majority of people who have zero at-fault accidents on their record in the last few years. Are they better than the average, or have they just been lucky. Certainly many have just been lucky.
The data is pretty clear that on net these features save lives and reduce accidents, even though they can create additional accidents similar to what you've experienced.
But that doesn't mean that the massive amount of unnecessary complexity in your newer vehicle won't lead to a much earlier obsolescence than should come about. Insurance doesn't typically cover shit in a car just breaking, or obsolete software/parts.
It's against the interest of automakers for that to occur. I think it's more likely electronics robustness will increase and software efficiency and utilization will increase (because of in car app sales). Car ownership averages 8 years. If routine obsolescence occurs, that's damaging to resale value and point of sale value. Vehicle assets cost too much for something like that not to destroy auto brands. Reliability is a key driver in the market.
8 years isn't even half the life of a vehicle though. I'd expect to get more than 20 years of service from an early 2000s corolla for example.
But that doesn't mean that the massive amount of unnecessary complexity in your newer vehicle won't lead to a much earlier obsolescence than should come about. Insurance doesn't typically cover shit in a car just breaking, or obsolete software/parts.
It's against the interest of automakers for that to occur. I think it's more likely electronics robustness will increase and software efficiency and utilization will increase (because of in car app sales). Car ownership averages 8 years. If routine obsolescence occurs, that's damaging to resale value and point of sale value. Vehicle assets cost too much for something like that not to destroy auto brands. Reliability is a key driver in the market.
8 years isn't even half the life of a vehicle though. I'd expect to get more than 20 years of service from an early 2000s corolla for example.
That's true for Year drivers not Mileage drivers. People who put 30,000 miles on a car aren't making it 20 years.
Are we going to talk about how many of these features that weren't available a decade or two ago don't actually add any value to vehicle owners . . . just add unnecessary complexity and planned obsolescence?
If so we should also talk about what insurance prices tell us. The cost to insure our 2009 Fit (with traction control!) is about the same as the EV (TC... and radar cruise, automatic emergency braking, blind spot warnings, cross traffic alert, heated mirrors, backup/360 camera, lane departure warning, whatever bits of self-driving it can manage...), for a similar number of miles, despite the EV being worth many times what the Fit is worth.
That couldn't be true if some of those features didn't save the insurer money in claims. Or you have to assume the insurer is just flat out stupid.
Evil and greedy? Maybe. Stupid? Nah, the math doesn't work out to support that.
Now, I've never needed my bicycle to come with cross traffic alert, but that's a different discussion.
Oh, absolutely. If you are a shit driver then lane departure, backup cameras and whatever other ways a vehicle can take control away from you - they're all going to make your driving safer and reduce accidents*. There seem to be far more shit drivers than good ones, so what you're saying regarding insurance prices makes perfect sense.
But that doesn't mean that the massive amount of unnecessary complexity in your newer vehicle won't lead to a much earlier obsolescence than should come about. Insurance doesn't typically cover shit in a car just breaking, or obsolete software/parts.
* And I'd argue that they're largely unnecessary if you're a safe driver. In the 27 years I've been driving (without any of these features) I haven't been at fault for a single accident, and I have been regularly driving along one of (if not the) most dangerous roads in North America for close to two decades. Actually, the closest I've come to crashing in recent memory was when driving my mother's car with lane assist in the winter. There was blowing snow across the right half of the lane I was in and the lane assist decided that I was driving unsafely - yanked the wheel in my hand left to point our vehicle into oncoming traffic.
We now own a Kia Niro EV, and the LKA is much better (plus you have to turn it on, vs it being always on). A nudge here and there, nothing major. The blind spot warning is also a very good feature, although it beeps when there are two turn lanes and you're in the far one!
Adaptive cruise control, which keeps your distance from leading cars, would probably help with fatigue on longer drives (which I've yet to do).
But that doesn't mean that the massive amount of unnecessary complexity in your newer vehicle won't lead to a much earlier obsolescence than should come about. Insurance doesn't typically cover shit in a car just breaking, or obsolete software/parts.
It's against the interest of automakers for that to occur. I think it's more likely electronics robustness will increase and software efficiency and utilization will increase (because of in car app sales). Car ownership averages 8 years. If routine obsolescence occurs, that's damaging to resale value and point of sale value. Vehicle assets cost too much for something like that not to destroy auto brands. Reliability is a key driver in the market.
8 years isn't even half the life of a vehicle though. I'd expect to get more than 20 years of service from an early 2000s corolla for example.
That's true for Year drivers not Mileage drivers. People who put 30,000 miles on a car aren't making it 20 years.
People who drive more than twice the yearly average are driving too much and should consider alternatives (and we as a society should provide alternatives). Although that's probably another conversation. . .
Like I said, they're unnecessary if you're a safe driver. There are an awful lot of drivers playing on their phone, playing with their touchscreen in the car, drunk, incompetent, or distracted.
Blind spot warnings and backup cameras were a lot less useful when vehicles were designed so that you could easily see out the back and rear of them. My mom's corolla has a back up camera . . . and without it it's almost impossible to see well enough to reverse into a spot because of the small rear and back side windows. This is a significant safety downgrade from the older corolla.As we've covered in previous threads, the decreasing visibility in modern cars is largely attributed to the much more stringent safety standards they must now meet for impacts. It's created a sort of design paradox, where the passengers are much more likely to survive an accident without serious injury, but the structural requirements lead to designs which have greater blind spots and are therefore more likely to cause accidents (absent all the new crash avoidance systems).
But I was thinking - if trends continue and we end up with 100% electric vehicles on the road (say in 15 or 20 years) and the grid continues and stops using coal/oil/gas, at that point is driving around even bad for the environment?
QuoteBut I was thinking - if trends continue and we end up with 100% electric vehicles on the road (say in 15 or 20 years) and the grid continues and stops using coal/oil/gas, at that point is driving around even bad for the environment?
Of course it's bad. Is that bare, green soil you are driving on? Where the windmill stands on? Have you seen the hole where the metals are mined and the lakes of poison? The child slaves slaving for the cobalt?
QuoteBut I was thinking - if trends continue and we end up with 100% electric vehicles on the road (say in 15 or 20 years) and the grid continues and stops using coal/oil/gas, at that point is driving around even bad for the environment?
Of course it's bad. Is that bare, green soil you are driving on? Where the windmill stands on? Have you seen the hole where the metals are mined and the lakes of poison? The child slaves slaving for the cobalt?
So any use of any electricity is bad? Anything that uses batteries we should get rid of?
QuoteBut I was thinking - if trends continue and we end up with 100% electric vehicles on the road (say in 15 or 20 years) and the grid continues and stops using coal/oil/gas, at that point is driving around even bad for the environment?
Of course it's bad. Is that bare, green soil you are driving on? Where the windmill stands on? Have you seen the hole where the metals are mined and the lakes of poison? The child slaves slaving for the cobalt?
So any use of any electricity is bad? Anything that uses batteries we should get rid of?
Consumption is bad for the planet. Making everything electric could be an improvement over the status quo, but actual change is going to require consuming less, not simply cleaning up our consumption. That means lifestyle change, which many are resistant to.
QuoteBut I was thinking - if trends continue and we end up with 100% electric vehicles on the road (say in 15 or 20 years) and the grid continues and stops using coal/oil/gas, at that point is driving around even bad for the environment?
Of course it's bad. Is that bare, green soil you are driving on? Where the windmill stands on? Have you seen the hole where the metals are mined and the lakes of poison? The child slaves slaving for the cobalt?
So any use of any electricity is bad? Anything that uses batteries we should get rid of?
Consumption is bad for the planet. Making everything electric could be an improvement over the status quo, but actual change is going to require consuming less, not simply cleaning up our consumption. That means lifestyle change, which many are resistant to.
QuoteBut I was thinking - if trends continue and we end up with 100% electric vehicles on the road (say in 15 or 20 years) and the grid continues and stops using coal/oil/gas, at that point is driving around even bad for the environment?
Of course it's bad. Is that bare, green soil you are driving on? Where the windmill stands on? Have you seen the hole where the metals are mined and the lakes of poison? The child slaves slaving for the cobalt?
So any use of any electricity is bad? Anything that uses batteries we should get rid of?
Consumption is bad for the planet. Making everything electric could be an improvement over the status quo, but actual change is going to require consuming less, not simply cleaning up our consumption. That means lifestyle change, which many are resistant to.
It looks like batteries are already 90% recyclable. Things are still scaling up so we need to mine in the short term to set up the new infrastructure. But, if we convert to 100% renewables and batteries, at a certain point we don't need to build out any more infrastructure because the existing infrastructure covers all of our electricity needs. And we won't need to mine any more batteries because battery material can be recycled at close to a 100% rate.
Trying to poke holes in my own theory, the main 'threat' I'd see to this would be if the world population kept growing. If that happened then we'd need to constantly build out new infrastructure to keep up with all the new humans. Taking a deep dive over at Our World in Data, it's pretty clear that population growth is already in the process of reversing:
https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth
QuoteBut I was thinking - if trends continue and we end up with 100% electric vehicles on the road (say in 15 or 20 years) and the grid continues and stops using coal/oil/gas, at that point is driving around even bad for the environment?
Of course it's bad. Is that bare, green soil you are driving on? Where the windmill stands on? Have you seen the hole where the metals are mined and the lakes of poison? The child slaves slaving for the cobalt?
So any use of any electricity is bad? Anything that uses batteries we should get rid of?
Consumption is bad for the planet. Making everything electric could be an improvement over the status quo, but actual change is going to require consuming less, not simply cleaning up our consumption. That means lifestyle change, which many are resistant to.
It looks like batteries are already 90% recyclable. Things are still scaling up so we need to mine in the short term to set up the new infrastructure. But, if we convert to 100% renewables and batteries, at a certain point we don't need to build out any more infrastructure because the existing infrastructure covers all of our electricity needs. And we won't need to mine any more batteries because battery material can be recycled at close to a 100% rate.
Trying to poke holes in my own theory, the main 'threat' I'd see to this would be if the world population kept growing. If that happened then we'd need to constantly build out new infrastructure to keep up with all the new humans. Taking a deep dive over at Our World in Data, it's pretty clear that population growth is already in the process of reversing:
https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth
Even if a single nation's population or even the entire world's population was stable, that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be pockets throughout of significant growth and others that are rusting away.QuoteBut I was thinking - if trends continue and we end up with 100% electric vehicles on the road (say in 15 or 20 years) and the grid continues and stops using coal/oil/gas, at that point is driving around even bad for the environment?
Of course it's bad. Is that bare, green soil you are driving on? Where the windmill stands on? Have you seen the hole where the metals are mined and the lakes of poison? The child slaves slaving for the cobalt?
So any use of any electricity is bad? Anything that uses batteries we should get rid of?
Consumption is bad for the planet. Making everything electric could be an improvement over the status quo, but actual change is going to require consuming less, not simply cleaning up our consumption. That means lifestyle change, which many are resistant to.
It looks like batteries are already 90% recyclable. Things are still scaling up so we need to mine in the short term to set up the new infrastructure. But, if we convert to 100% renewables and batteries, at a certain point we don't need to build out any more infrastructure because the existing infrastructure covers all of our electricity needs. And we won't need to mine any more batteries because battery material can be recycled at close to a 100% rate.
Trying to poke holes in my own theory, the main 'threat' I'd see to this would be if the world population kept growing. If that happened then we'd need to constantly build out new infrastructure to keep up with all the new humans. Taking a deep dive over at Our World in Data, it's pretty clear that population growth is already in the process of reversing:
https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth
Which data are you using? Looking at the provided link, world population has shown steady growth (on an almost perfectly straight line) with only a slight acceleration in the 60s and not really any change since then.
QuoteBut I was thinking - if trends continue and we end up with 100% electric vehicles on the road (say in 15 or 20 years) and the grid continues and stops using coal/oil/gas, at that point is driving around even bad for the environment?
Of course it's bad. Is that bare, green soil you are driving on? Where the windmill stands on? Have you seen the hole where the metals are mined and the lakes of poison? The child slaves slaving for the cobalt?
Which data are you using? Looking at the provided link, world population has shown steady growth (on an almost perfectly straight line) with only a slight acceleration in the 60s and not really any change since then.
There is no free energy. Anything that moves will have wear and tear that requires maintenance. Anything that creates energy needs a fuel source and a process that's less than 100% efficient. Giant wind turbines have defined lifetimes and they use massive bearings that require lubrication from petroleum products. They're not made once and then left alone. Solar panels get damaged by hail or experience efficiency drops over time. Inverters don't last more than a few years in many cases before they need replacement.
EVs still require replacement of tires, brake fluid, battery coolant, rubber suspension components, struts, wheel bearings, etc at roughly the same intervals as an ICE. All use petroleum products. They'll still get into accidents and require new body panels, lights, glass, airbags and safety sensor suites. The more you drive, the more likely you are to encounter these costs.
I also think it's human nature to consume more of something when it's cheap or is seen to have little impact. The math for buying an EV doesn't usually work out if you don't drive very much. The math for solar can be harder to justify if you don't consume much electricity. Anything that improves efficiency only accrues benefit as more is consumption increases. So as "cleaner" energy gets less expensive and more common, we're also likely to see increased demand/consumption for that energy.
Which data are you using? Looking at the provided link, world population has shown steady growth (on an almost perfectly straight line) with only a slight acceleration in the 60s and not really any change since then.
You have to look at the projection data. You can see that based on current trends, we'll continue growing for a while but will hit the peak and start to reverse population by 2100. Most of the population growth between then and now will be driven by Africa and Asia. In the rest of the world the population is starting to peak right now and will head into decline well before 2100. Look here:
https://ourworldindata.org/region-population-2100
...
Again, if nothing is ever burned and put into the atmosphere at any point, what is the harm?
[I'm assuming that we can actually decarbonized everything, which is maybe not possible but I'm laying that aside for the purpose of this thought experiment].
Which data are you using? Looking at the provided link, world population has shown steady growth (on an almost perfectly straight line) with only a slight acceleration in the 60s and not really any change since then.
You have to look at the projection data. You can see that based on current trends, we'll continue growing for a while but will hit the peak and start to reverse population by 2100. Most of the population growth between then and now will be driven by Africa and Asia. In the rest of the world the population is starting to peak right now and will head into decline well before 2100. Look here:
https://ourworldindata.org/region-population-2100
Holy shit! They're projecting more than a 20% increase in world population growth from where we are now? And the decline will only be 0.008% fifty years from that???
So to summarize . . . there's no slowing of growth at all right now. The future (according to projections will have massively more people living in it) and probably not much decline in population. This will coincide with some pretty catastrophic climate related changes and a loss of much of the cheap energy we've been using to drive much of our population growth.
That's a very bleak picture you're painting.
My question is if they entire mining and shipping supply chain has been converted to electric and we don't burn any oil (or any gas) extracting, moving and manufacturing things, is it still bad to mine oil? And it's not just industrial lubricants. Plastics need oil too.
Again, if nothing is ever burned and put into the atmosphere at any point, what is the harm?
[I'm assuming that we can actually decarbonized everything, which is maybe not possible but I'm laying that aside for the purpose of this thought experiment].
Which data are you using? Looking at the provided link, world population has shown steady growth (on an almost perfectly straight line) with only a slight acceleration in the 60s and not really any change since then.
You have to look at the projection data. You can see that based on current trends, we'll continue growing for a while but will hit the peak and start to reverse population by 2100. Most of the population growth between then and now will be driven by Africa and Asia. In the rest of the world the population is starting to peak right now and will head into decline well before 2100. Look here:
https://ourworldindata.org/region-population-2100
Holy shit! They're projecting more than a 20% increase in world population growth from where we are now? And the decline will only be 0.008% fifty years from that???
So to summarize . . . there's no slowing of growth at all right now. The future (according to projections will have massively more people living in it) and probably not much decline in population. This will coincide with some pretty catastrophic climate related changes and a loss of much of the cheap energy we've been using to drive much of our population growth.
That's a very bleak picture you're painting.
That's funny we interpret the data so differently. You're shocked it's growing in the short/medium term and I'm shocked that it stops growing and tapers off in the medium/long term. Before I looked at the data and was just imagining what population was doing, my forecasts were way, way worse than this.
My question is if they entire mining and shipping supply chain has been converted to electric and we don't burn any oil (or any gas) extracting, moving and manufacturing things, is it still bad to mine oil? And it's not just industrial lubricants. Plastics need oil too.
Again, if nothing is ever burned and put into the atmosphere at any point, what is the harm?
[I'm assuming that we can actually decarbonized everything, which is maybe not possible but I'm laying that aside for the purpose of this thought experiment].
The problem is that you have to continue to go to greater and greater lengths to get that oil/gas. And that impacts costs and complexity.
You'll still have ships that sink, trains that derail, pipelines that fracture, deep water wells that contaminate water for years, fracking that destabilizes the ground that we build things on, etc.
So let me ask the group here. Suppose that the data above is correct, and cutting back is not going to solve anything, what are our other options?
So let me ask the group here. Suppose that the data above is correct, and cutting back is not going to solve anything, what are our other options?
- Do nothing. Allow climate change to become so out of control that it naturally limits human population.
- Targeted genocide. Humans have certainly done it for less.
Are there other options?
Well, we could get our shit together and act like there wasn't a planet B, C and D we can beam to whenever we want.I don't know, that's why I'm asking.So let me ask the group here. Suppose that the data above is correct, and cutting back is not going to solve anything, what are our other options?
- Do nothing. Allow climate change to become so out of control that it naturally limits human population.
- Targeted genocide. Humans have certainly done it for less.
Are there other options?
Well, we could get our shit together and act like there wasn't a planet B, C and D we can beam to whenever we want.I don't know, that's why I'm asking.So let me ask the group here. Suppose that the data above is correct, and cutting back is not going to solve anything, what are our other options?
- Do nothing. Allow climate change to become so out of control that it naturally limits human population.
- Targeted genocide. Humans have certainly done it for less.
Are there other options?
Well, we could get our shit together and act like there wasn't a planet B, C and D we can beam to whenever we want.I don't know, that's why I'm asking.So let me ask the group here. Suppose that the data above is correct, and cutting back is not going to solve anything, what are our other options?
- Do nothing. Allow climate change to become so out of control that it naturally limits human population.
- Targeted genocide. Humans have certainly done it for less.
Are there other options?
OK, what does that mean? Again, assuming that the data posted above is correct and that cutting back doesn't actually solve the problem.
Well, we could get our shit together and act like there wasn't a planet B, C and D we can beam to whenever we want.I don't know, that's why I'm asking.So let me ask the group here. Suppose that the data above is correct, and cutting back is not going to solve anything, what are our other options?
- Do nothing. Allow climate change to become so out of control that it naturally limits human population.
- Targeted genocide. Humans have certainly done it for less.
Are there other options?
OK, what does that mean? Again, assuming that the data posted above is correct and that cutting back doesn't actually solve the problem.
One answer is geo-engineering on a scale not yet attempted. It has promise, but could also go horribly off the rails if not done correctly.
Well, we could get our shit together and act like there wasn't a planet B, C and D we can beam to whenever we want.I don't know, that's why I'm asking.So let me ask the group here. Suppose that the data above is correct, and cutting back is not going to solve anything, what are our other options?
- Do nothing. Allow climate change to become so out of control that it naturally limits human population.
- Targeted genocide. Humans have certainly done it for less.
Are there other options?
OK, what does that mean? Again, assuming that the data posted above is correct and that cutting back doesn't actually solve the problem.
One answer is geo-engineering on a scale not yet attempted. It has promise, but could also go horribly off the rails if not done correctly.
...
Again, if nothing is ever burned and put into the atmosphere at any point, what is the harm?
[I'm assuming that we can actually decarbonized everything, which is maybe not possible but I'm laying that aside for the purpose of this thought experiment].
For the gallon of dino-juice you take out of the ground not all of it can be used for lubricants or plastics. Is more complicated than I want to google right now but some parts of what are extracted may not be suitable for anything but burning and we cant get the other parts on there own. Expect working on substitutions to be a big deal and well outside my wheel house.
Well, we could get our shit together and act like there wasn't a planet B, C and D we can beam to whenever we want.I don't know, that's why I'm asking.So let me ask the group here. Suppose that the data above is correct, and cutting back is not going to solve anything, what are our other options?
- Do nothing. Allow climate change to become so out of control that it naturally limits human population.
- Targeted genocide. Humans have certainly done it for less.
Are there other options?
OK, what does that mean? Again, assuming that the data posted above is correct and that cutting back doesn't actually solve the problem.
One answer is geo-engineering on a scale not yet attempted. It has promise, but could also go horribly off the rails if not done correctly.
That sounds interesting, what is that?
* And I'd argue that they're largely unnecessary if you're a safe driver. In the 27 years I've been driving (without any of these features) I haven't been at fault for a single accident, and I have been regularly driving along one of (if not the) most dangerous roads in North America for close to two decades. Actually, the closest I've come to crashing in recent memory was when driving my mother's car with lane assist in the winter. There was blowing snow across the right half of the lane I was in and the lane assist decided that I was driving unsafely - yanked the wheel in my hand left to point our vehicle into oncoming traffic.
Here's the thing about rare events though - most people don't get into an accident most years, yet collectively with millions of drivers in a region accidents happen daily and literal lives are lost. With rare events its very hard to separate "lucky from good" drivers, which is the challenge all insurers face when extending coverage to the majority of people who have zero at-fault accidents on their record in the last few years. Are they better than the average, or have they just been lucky. Certainly many have just been lucky.
The data is pretty clear that on net these features save lives and reduce accidents, even though they can create additional accidents similar to what you've experienced.
Well, we could get our shit together and act like there wasn't a planet B, C and D we can beam to whenever we want.I don't know, that's why I'm asking.So let me ask the group here. Suppose that the data above is correct, and cutting back is not going to solve anything, what are our other options?
- Do nothing. Allow climate change to become so out of control that it naturally limits human population.
- Targeted genocide. Humans have certainly done it for less.
Are there other options?
OK, what does that mean? Again, assuming that the data posted above is correct and that cutting back doesn't actually solve the problem.
One answer is geo-engineering on a scale not yet attempted. It has promise, but could also go horribly off the rails if not done correctly.
That sounds interesting, what is that?
It’s a very broad category which includes any large-scale project intended to alter the environment of a region or even the entire planet. Past fro-engineering projects are focused on things like diverting rivers to drain wetlands and create more farmland.
There’s some very plausible ideas on how we could use geo engineering to intentionally alter the climate, but there are numerous ethical concerns and huge uncertainty on what unintended consequences might emerge.
Just a few of many such concepts:
Reducing solar irradiance by 1) pumping reflective particles into the stratosphere, coating large swaths of land/ocean with a highly reflective coating (eg making all roofs and roads light-colored) or 3) blocking some of the sunlight with satellites in orbit with several square km of solar shields; capturing carbon on a massive scale and then sequestering it through burial or injection or something sinking into the deep sea.
It’sa morally dubious Area, but an answer to “what else is there”
Well, we could get our shit together and act like there wasn't a planet B, C and D we can beam to whenever we want.I don't know, that's why I'm asking.So let me ask the group here. Suppose that the data above is correct, and cutting back is not going to solve anything, what are our other options?
- Do nothing. Allow climate change to become so out of control that it naturally limits human population.
- Targeted genocide. Humans have certainly done it for less.
Are there other options?
OK, what does that mean? Again, assuming that the data posted above is correct and that cutting back doesn't actually solve the problem.
One answer is geo-engineering on a scale not yet attempted. It has promise, but could also go horribly off the rails if not done correctly.
That sounds interesting, what is that?
It’s a very broad category which includes any large-scale project intended to alter the environment of a region or even the entire planet. Past fro-engineering projects are focused on things like diverting rivers to drain wetlands and create more farmland.
There’s some very plausible ideas on how we could use geo engineering to intentionally alter the climate, but there are numerous ethical concerns and huge uncertainty on what unintended consequences might emerge.
Just a few of many such concepts:
Reducing solar irradiance by 1) pumping reflective particles into the stratosphere, coating large swaths of land/ocean with a highly reflective coating (eg making all roofs and roads light-colored) or 3) blocking some of the sunlight with satellites in orbit with several square km of solar shields; capturing carbon on a massive scale and then sequestering it through burial or injection or something sinking into the deep sea.
It’sa morally dubious Area, but an answer to “what else is there”
I guess the first step is to stop burning shit and putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. I think everyone pretty much agrees on that. But I've not heard much discussed about how to fix the stuff we've already messed up.
I guess the first step is to stop burning shit and putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. I think everyone pretty much agrees on that. But I've not heard much discussed about how to fix the stuff we've already messed up.
Geoengineering as a solution always seemed to approach magical thinking. There are few pie in the sky theories that seem plausible. But we have no idea what the impacts of large scale geoengineering could be and no real way of testing aside from putting our existence on the roulette wheel and giving it a spin.
It's like solving the problem of one invasive species by releasing another invasive species to eat them. What could go wrong?
I guess the first step is to stop burning shit and putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. I think everyone pretty much agrees on that. But I've not heard much discussed about how to fix the stuff we've already messed up.
Geoengineering as a solution always seemed to approach magical thinking. There are few pie in the sky theories that seem plausible. But we have no idea what the impacts of large scale geoengineering could be and no real way of testing aside from putting our existence on the roulette wheel and giving it a spin.
It's like solving the problem of one invasive species by releasing another invasive species to eat them. What could go wrong?
We need to make more long term choices, buy less stuff, toss less in the landfills. Find happiness less in buying another new trinket.
However I still don't understand how the economy would ever function this way. And some people are very attached to consumerism. A new "toy" every week to play with.
However I still don't understand how the economy would ever function this way.What do you mean with "the economy"?
However I still don't understand howthe economyrich peoples yacht money would ever function this way. And some people are very attached to consumerism. A new "toy" every week to play with.
However I still don't understand how the economy would ever function this way.What do you mean with "the economy"?
The economy is the people working. And they work so they can buy stuff (or the other way around, it's a circle after all).
So if we would all buy only half as much, we would also all only work half as much. And that would be it.
Well, that's the theory.
We need to make more long term choices, buy less stuff, toss less in the landfills. Find happiness less in buying another new trinket.
However I still don't understand how the economy would ever function this way. And some people are very attached to consumerism. A new "toy" every week to play with.
Instead of focusing on trinkets produced, the economy would rely far more heavily on service (ie labor). We already see some of this transition in developed economies (though the consumerism is still rampant and the driving force). An economy can spend a billion dollars and a million labor hours extracting fossil fuels from the ground, or it can spend a similar amount restoring degraded habitat and doing deep energy retrofits of buildings. The economic output is similar though the results are drastically different.
“Between incentives that effectively lower an EV’s price before it’s even purchased and concerns about battery replacement costs, used electric vehicles have always suffered higher depreciation than equivalent gasoline cars,” said Brauer. “This pattern will continue until electric vehicles don’t require heavy incentives to sell and consumers gain confidence in their long-term ownership costs.”
We need to make more long term choices, buy less stuff, toss less in the landfills. Find happiness less in buying another new trinket.
However I still don't understand how the economy would ever function this way. And some people are very attached to consumerism. A new "toy" every week to play with.
Instead of focusing on trinkets produced, the economy would rely far more heavily on service (ie labor). We already see some of this transition in developed economies (though the consumerism is still rampant and the driving force). An economy can spend a billion dollars and a million labor hours extracting fossil fuels from the ground, or it can spend a similar amount restoring degraded habitat and doing deep energy retrofits of buildings. The economic output is similar though the results are drastically different.
Was watching a segment on DW-TV that talked about outlawing vintage cars. Their expert pointed out that the vintage car occasionally would be cleaner than a BEV for ~46 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCLq31D_i6A
Not disagreeing with you on anything you said but - slow down the burn and churn of modern life i.e. slow down wearing out things where possible. I happily drive vintage vehicles that own.
Quote“Between incentives that effectively lower an EV’s price before it’s even purchased and concerns about battery replacement costs, used electric vehicles have always suffered higher depreciation than equivalent gasoline cars,” said Brauer. “This pattern will continue until electric vehicles don’t require heavy incentives to sell and consumers gain confidence in their long-term ownership costs.”
Regarding the latter point: its clear that there are battery failure modes other than gradual degradation such as in this example: https://insideevs.com/news/694943/uber-driver-tesla-model-3-battery/
The used car market will eventually price in this risk.
Quote“Between incentives that effectively lower an EV’s price before it’s even purchased and concerns about battery replacement costs, used electric vehicles have always suffered higher depreciation than equivalent gasoline cars,” said Brauer. “This pattern will continue until electric vehicles don’t require heavy incentives to sell and consumers gain confidence in their long-term ownership costs.”
Regarding the latter point: its clear that there are battery failure modes other than gradual degradation such as in this example: https://insideevs.com/news/694943/uber-driver-tesla-model-3-battery/
The used car market will eventually price in this risk.
For commercial fleets, even though EVs can help reduce fuel costs, the downside of battery/motor/component failures is a significant factor to be considered. Fleet managers ain't gonna happy with this.
...
After reading this article, I started lurking on a number of Tesla owners forums and I do see a fair number of postings like this:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/my-battery-failed-after-only-3k-miles.314448/
It's great that the battery was fixed without fuss under warranty but it would be good to know how common this is. Eventually, this will get priced in to the resale value of EVs but in the meanwhile, I wonder if we will find ourselves in a "market for lemons" (George Ackerloff - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons)
Not sure we need to know how common it is, after all the general public does not know how common it is for ICE cars. Fleet buyers probably have an idea what percent of new cars need warranty work early on but that is not something I would consider or seek out if buying new. But for ICE is (I assume) is priced into sale price and I cant see how big manufactures are not looking at this data to find a profitable spot between manufacture costs, testing and post sale repair costs etc. But then since EV battery problems are new and knovel they 'make the news', where ICE problems are just sort of old hat, dont need to mention data collection reporting bias to 2sk22 :-) But then on the other other hand the new tech does not need to be as good as existing tech it needs to be better/cheaper in order to be adopted.
meh - going to go ride my bike to meet some friends, only electronics on it are the after market lights.
Not sure we need to know how common it is, after all the general public does not know how common it is for ICE cars. Fleet buyers probably have an idea what percent of new cars need warranty work early on but that is not something I would consider or seek out if buying new. But for ICE is (I assume) is priced into sale price and I cant see how big manufactures are not looking at this data to find a profitable spot between manufacture costs, testing and post sale repair costs etc. But then since EV battery problems are new and knovel they 'make the news', where ICE problems are just sort of old hat, dont need to mention data collection reporting bias to 2sk22 :-) But then on the other other hand the new tech does not need to be as good as existing tech it needs to be better/cheaper in order to be adopted.
meh - going to go ride my bike to meet some friends, only electronics on it are the after market lights.
Yes - in the case of ICE vehicles, the used car market sends clear price signals - a 9 year old Toyota is valued much higher than a nine year old Jeep (or even a BMW for that matter).
As you say, I am very cautious about drawing any conclusion with just anecdotal data :-) CR is about our only somewhat non-biased source of data but there is not enough data at this point. Eventually, say in about five years, we will have a much better knowledge of the probability distribution of battery failures. And yes, I am fully aware of the bathtub curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve
Not sure we need to know how common it is, after all the general public does not know how common it is for ICE cars. Fleet buyers probably have an idea what percent of new cars need warranty work early on but that is not something I would consider or seek out if buying new. But for ICE is (I assume) is priced into sale price and I cant see how big manufactures are not looking at this data to find a profitable spot between manufacture costs, testing and post sale repair costs etc. But then since EV battery problems are new and knovel they 'make the news', where ICE problems are just sort of old hat, dont need to mention data collection reporting bias to 2sk22 :-) But then on the other other hand the new tech does not need to be as good as existing tech it needs to be better/cheaper in order to be adopted.
meh - going to go ride my bike to meet some friends, only electronics on it are the after market lights.
Yes - in the case of ICE vehicles, the used car market sends clear price signals - a 9 year old Toyota is valued much higher than a nine year old Jeep (or even a BMW for that matter).
As you say, I am very cautious about drawing any conclusion with just anecdotal data :-) CR is about our only somewhat non-biased source of data but there is not enough data at this point. Eventually, say in about five years, we will have a much better knowledge of the probability distribution of battery failures. And yes, I am fully aware of the bathtub curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve
You keep saying “the market will eventually price these things in. I’m deeply skeptical.
From my view “the market” has never been terribly efficient in pricing the used car market, especially when it comes to things like reliability. The societal prestige of “new cars” and the perpetual lease cycle means that the current inventory of new cars plays an outsized role in the used car market. Because most people take out five-figure loans with terms that often exceed the length of ownership dealer financing also drives the equation. And consumers are only tribal when it comes to cars, frequently sticking to one brand for life, regardless of the reliability standards.
We need to make more long term choices, buy less stuff, toss less in the landfills. Find happiness less in buying another new trinket.
However I still don't understand how the economy would ever function this way. And some people are very attached to consumerism. A new "toy" every week to play with.
Instead of focusing on trinkets produced, the economy would rely far more heavily on service (ie labor). We already see some of this transition in developed economies (though the consumerism is still rampant and the driving force). An economy can spend a billion dollars and a million labor hours extracting fossil fuels from the ground, or it can spend a similar amount restoring degraded habitat and doing deep energy retrofits of buildings. The economic output is similar though the results are drastically different.
Was watching a segment on DW-TV that talked about outlawing vintage cars. Their expert pointed out that the vintage car occasionally would be cleaner than a BEV for ~46 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCLq31D_i6A
Not disagreeing with you on anything you said but - slow down the burn and churn of modern life i.e. slow down wearing out things where possible. I happily drive vintage vehicles that own.
This guy has converted several classic cars to electric motors, usually using recycled Tesla batteries and motors. It looks pretty damn cool:
https://www.youtube.com/@ElectricClassicCars
...
Does the "market" make mistakes? I kind of wonder if the electric cars they are attempting to sell are not a real practical choice for consumers. I wonder if they are not the best introduction to electric cars. It just seems like the equivalent of the old Econo-boxes would be the type of electric car that would sell. It would be a small vehicle. It wouldn't need a huge range. It would be a second car used to get groceries and the commute to work. It would be inexpensive to buy, inexpensive to operate and easy to repair. Even the software could be open source. Maybe it's already out there. The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt seem to approach this idea. The "market" is pushing these electric pickup truck replacements. It just seems kind of dumb. Thanks for reading this. Now get back to the smart comments.
Well that's a twist.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/2025-ram-1500-ramcharger-smashes-ev-range-with-690-miles-v6-range-extender
Ram EV following in the footsteps of the Chevrolet Volt and BMW i3 (R.I.P.) (and a few others).
690 mile range is certainly a headline. Prices yet to be announced...
...
Does the "market" make mistakes? I kind of wonder if the electric cars they are attempting to sell are not a real practical choice for consumers. I wonder if they are not the best introduction to electric cars. It just seems like the equivalent of the old Econo-boxes would be the type of electric car that would sell. It would be a small vehicle. It wouldn't need a huge range. It would be a second car used to get groceries and the commute to work. It would be inexpensive to buy, inexpensive to operate and easy to repair. Even the software could be open source. Maybe it's already out there. The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt seem to approach this idea. The "market" is pushing these electric pickup truck replacements. It just seems kind of dumb. Thanks for reading this. Now get back to the smart comments.
This (and a little bit of an attempt to adhere to any principals of mustachianism whilst buying a new car, which I know is an oxymoron) is what drove me to buy a Chevy Bolt EUV this year. It's just a shame that for 2024 and at least a handful of years after that, the only 'small'/low-cost EV on the market will be the Leaf. And I did test drive as many of the bigger/'better' EV's on the market as I could before making my decision (VW ID.4, Polestar 2, Volvo XC40 Recharge/C40 and Tesla Model 3/Y in addition to the Bolt/EUV and the Leaf). I kept coming back to the fact that the Bolt had at least 80% of the features, or performed a given feature >80% as well as the competitors, at a price that was >$10k less than the closest competitor*. Add in the fed/state/local incentives I was able to get, the fact that it was a small(er) car, and still has >240 mi of range, and it seemed like a no brainer to me...
*I purchased my Bolt EUV prior to the Tesla price lowering craziness. I still think it wouldn't have changed my mind, but it is important to note that.
The sad thing is that mustachianism is affecting other choices in my life. I have looked at these sleek carbon fiber bicycles, but then say, "Nah, my 30+ year old steel bike is still fine." This frugality is a bit of a disease, a sick perverted lifestyle where I am looked down on by the purveyors of conspicuous consumption and mindless excess.
The sad thing is that mustachianism is affecting other choices in my life. I have looked at these sleek carbon fiber bicycles, but then say, "Nah, my 30+ year old steel bike is still fine." This frugality is a bit of a disease, a sick perverted lifestyle where I am looked down on by the purveyors of conspicuous consumption and mindless excess.
It feels pretty great when you blow past a guy on a sleek carbon fiber bicycle while riding your 10+ year old steel frame bike. The engine is way more important than the bike. :P
Well that's a twist.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/2025-ram-1500-ramcharger-smashes-ev-range-with-690-miles-v6-range-extender
Ram EV following in the footsteps of the Chevrolet Volt and BMW i3 (R.I.P.) (and a few others).
690 mile range is certainly a headline. Prices yet to be announced...
Would pretty much be the first mass-sold series hybrid, right? I like it, but I'll believe it when I see more than one driving down the road.
Does the "market" make mistakes? I kind of wonder if the electric cars they are attempting to sell are not a real practical choice for consumers. I wonder if they are not the best introduction to electric cars. It just seems like the equivalent of the old Econo-boxes would be the type of electric car that would sell. It would be a small vehicle. It wouldn't need a huge range. It would be a second car used to get groceries and the commute to work. It would be inexpensive to buy, inexpensive to operate and easy to repair. Even the software could be open source. Maybe it's already out there. The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt seem to approach this idea. The "market" is pushing these electric pickup truck replacements. It just seems kind of dumb. Thanks for reading this. Now get back to the smart comments.
Does the "market" make mistakes? I kind of wonder if the electric cars they are attempting to sell are not a real practical choice for consumers. I wonder if they are not the best introduction to electric cars. It just seems like the equivalent of the old Econo-boxes would be the type of electric car that would sell. It would be a small vehicle. It wouldn't need a huge range. It would be a second car used to get groceries and the commute to work. It would be inexpensive to buy, inexpensive to operate and easy to repair. Even the software could be open source. Maybe it's already out there. The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt seem to approach this idea. The "market" is pushing these electric pickup truck replacements. It just seems kind of dumb. Thanks for reading this. Now get back to the smart comments.
I just think for this you'd need to get really cheap (like less than $10k) or it's not worth it, especially as a second car. Where do you park it? In many states you pay personal property taxes on it, in my state I have to pay $200/yr to have an EV, etc. I think in this instance you'd be better off not getting a second car and just keeping your ICE or getting an e-bike. The amount of additional gas you'd need to burn to make having an additional car worth it would be a ton to offset a $15-$20k investment. I did the math for my mom and showed her that she'd save about $3-400/yr by purchasing a Bolt (and that was just factoring in gas, it might completely offset when you factor in personal property taxes) as a second car and using that as her daily driver rather than always driving her Rav4. Obviously if you put on massive amounts of miles that could be more in savings.
Does the "market" make mistakes? I kind of wonder if the electric cars they are attempting to sell are not a real practical choice for consumers. I wonder if they are not the best introduction to electric cars. It just seems like the equivalent of the old Econo-boxes would be the type of electric car that would sell. It would be a small vehicle. It wouldn't need a huge range. It would be a second car used to get groceries and the commute to work. It would be inexpensive to buy, inexpensive to operate and easy to repair. Even the software could be open source. Maybe it's already out there. The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt seem to approach this idea. The "market" is pushing these electric pickup truck replacements. It just seems kind of dumb. Thanks for reading this. Now get back to the smart comments.
I just think for this you'd need to get really cheap (like less than $10k) or it's not worth it, especially as a second car. Where do you park it? In many states you pay personal property taxes on it, in my state I have to pay $200/yr to have an EV, etc. I think in this instance you'd be better off not getting a second car and just keeping your ICE or getting an e-bike. The amount of additional gas you'd need to burn to make having an additional car worth it would be a ton to offset a $15-$20k investment. I did the math for my mom and showed her that she'd save about $3-400/yr by purchasing a Bolt (and that was just factoring in gas, it might completely offset when you factor in personal property taxes) as a second car and using that as her daily driver rather than always driving her Rav4. Obviously if you put on massive amounts of miles that could be more in savings.
I guess it depends on your personal situation. It just seems like many families have two vehicles. It's often a car and a truck. Certainly, if the existing car has a lot of life left in it, then there's no point in replacing it. However, when the time comes to replace that car, it could make sense to get an electric model. As far as parking, if you own a home with a garage, there is a strong possibility it will be a two car garage. I guess it depends on your personal situation.
Tire wear will be a little more on an EV vs a comparable ICE due to the extra weight, of course.If tire wear is a factor for you, you drive too much anyway. So much in fact, that a face punch is not enough, you should plant your face in a street light!
And the difference in weight between ICE and EV might not really be that tangible.
Our ancient 1st gen CRV is 3300 lbs.
A Leaf is 3600 lbs. The Chevy Bolt cousins are 3500 and 3600 lbs.
It's not just gas costs, though, of course. No oil changes, no transmission to fix, no air filters, oil filters, timing belts or chains, No CV joints, etc, etc. Brake pads/rotors will probably last a few hundred thousand miles due to regen braking doing most of the work unless you drive really aggressively. So really other than tires you're probably going to do zero maintenance. Not so for an ICE car.
Tire wear will be a little more on an EV vs a comparable ICE due to the extra weight, of course.
For me personally, there's enough free charging scattered around (and it's 10-15 cents per kWh for residential power depending on the time of day) that we're probably only paying 2 cents per mile in electricity on our Bolt in the end. We've unfortunately been driving a lot to shuttle kids to far-flung activities so I'd guess we're at 10,000 miles a year. So $200. If we drove a 35mpg ICE compact car instead we'd have burned 300ish gallons of gas which would be $1200 or so where we live. So $1000 a year saved on gas. Figure a couple of oil changes not DIY'd (I'm not even considering the wasted time sitting around Jiffy Lube) and one minor repair and you can probably bump that up to $1500, which is fairly reasonable given that we paid $15k for the car when all was said and done.
-W
Tire wear will be a little more on an EV vs a comparable ICE due to the extra weight, of course.If tire wear is a factor for you, you drive too much anyway. So much in fact, that a face punch is not enough, you should plant your face in a street light!
I've seen people saying that the tires can sometimes go at 15k miles.My last set of tires went out at about 12K miles. But not because they were driven down, it was because of age. The tire guy said that if it weren't for the 7 years, the tires looked like nearly new.
A person that lives in the suburbs or rural area that has kids that go to school and engage in extracurriculurs like sports, etc. 12k miles may be extremely reasonable.I admit, the US makes it quite hard, but that's still a choice. If you don't do the choice, I will still facepunch you.
Oh, the facepunches are certainly deserved. I didn't own a car at all until we had kids. We still do a lot of public transit and bike commuting but the bottom line is that if your kids are super passionate about soccer and you're driving 100 miles every weekend for games, it is what it is. We didn't have kids to save money and we're not going to deny them things that they love and are healthy for them. Sure, we could go do calisthenics together in the yard instead, I guess. But that sounds like being cheap rather than frugal to me.
-W
Maybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.
QuoteMaybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.
btw. The last time I did an airplane vacation was when I was less than half as now. There are plenty of nice places not on the other side of the ocean (or continent in the case of the USA)
QuoteMaybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.
btw. The last time I did an airplane vacation was when I was less than half as now. There are plenty of nice places not on the other side of the ocean (or continent in the case of the USA)
QuoteMaybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.
btw. The last time I did an airplane vacation was when I was less than half as now. There are plenty of nice places not on the other side of the ocean (or continent in the case of the USA)
QuoteMaybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.
btw. The last time I did an airplane vacation was when I was less than half as now. There are plenty of nice places not on the other side of the ocean (or continent in the case of the USA)
But I prefer to see the world e.g. from a train window. A horizon is just something so far away that you can't recognize anything and experience whatever is there.QuoteMaybe that's the lens LennStar is coming from.No, my lens is: Why do you fucking live where you need a fucking car? I am not saying you should not own one. But if you have to use it several times a day, you live in the wrong place.
btw. The last time I did an airplane vacation was when I was less than half as now. There are plenty of nice places not on the other side of the ocean (or continent in the case of the USA)
You might broaden your horizons if you get on an airplane sometime.
So I have a theoretical question - assume that planes can be powered by batteries and electric engines and also that the grid has transitioned to fully renewables. At that point is it OK to fly?
So I have a theoretical question - assume that planes can be powered by batteries and electric engines and also that the grid has transitioned to fully renewables. At that point is it OK to fly?
If the net environmental costs of flying for you are equivalent or lower to the net environmental costs of not flying . . . then sure. Absolutely. Otherwise it's important to strongly weigh need and fly in moderation if at all.
So I have a theoretical question - assume that planes can be powered by batteries and electric engines and also that the grid has transitioned to fully renewables. At that point is it OK to fly?
If the net environmental costs of flying for you are equivalent or lower to the net environmental costs of not flying . . . then sure. Absolutely. Otherwise it's important to strongly weigh need and fly in moderation if at all.
What would be the environmental costs, under this scenario?
So I have a theoretical question - assume that planes can be powered by batteries and electric engines and also that the grid has transitioned to fully renewables. At that point is it OK to fly?
If the net environmental costs of flying for you are equivalent or lower to the net environmental costs of not flying . . . then sure. Absolutely. Otherwise it's important to strongly weigh need and fly in moderation if at all.
What would be the environmental costs, under this scenario?
No matter what you do there will be people complaining. They will complain about the energy used in the aluminum manufacture, the mining of the bauxite, the rubber for the tires, the copper and nickel used for the electric motors, the plastic used for the seats and trim of the airplane. Then there is the land taken for the airport, the material used for airport lighting, the energy used for the lights. You may not always be charging the batteries with sunshine. These people can NEVER be satisfied.
I tell you what though. In the woods near where I live, I see plenty of deer tracks, turkey tracks, dog tracks, bike tracks, raccoon tracks and other animals. But not once have I seen a carbon footprint. Just something to consider.
I tell you what though. In the woods near where I live, I see plenty of deer tracks, turkey tracks, dog tracks, bike tracks, raccoon tracks and other animals. But not once have I seen a carbon footprint. Just something to consider.
I have. It put its foot down on Phoenix this year and left over 50 days of 110+ temperatures. The nights, in the low to mid 90s, weren't much better.
I tell you what though. In the woods near where I live, I see plenty of deer tracks, turkey tracks, dog tracks, bike tracks, raccoon tracks and other animals. But not once have I seen a carbon footprint. Just something to consider.
I have. It put its foot down on Phoenix this year and left over 50 days of 110+ temperatures. The nights, in the low to mid 90s, weren't much better.
You ain't seen nothin' yet . . . we're racing towards far, far worse outcomes and jetting around the world at a greater pace because we want to see all the sights that the problem caused by jetting around the world will destroy.
I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations. It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.
I try to minimize mine, but I won’t be swearing off of flying for family vacations. We got solar last winter and replaced our well worn 2005 toyota matrix (267k miles and in need of several thousand in repairs in the coming months) with a hybrid that gets better mileage. We eat very little meat. Like, I never buy any at the grocery store, but I’ll have some if it’s served up at a work dinner. We live in a walkable/billable small town.
I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations. It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.
I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.
I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations. It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.
I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.
I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America. Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary. My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).
I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations. It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.
I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.
Yup, I’m fully aware that the biggest impact I have is flying. It’s just not something I’m willing to compromise on right now, but I do try to limit it. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do what we are willing to reduce our impact, but the big wins will be at systemic levels.
I try to minimize mine, but I won’t be swearing off of flying for family vacations. We got solar last winter and replaced our well worn 2005 toyota matrix (267k miles and in need of several thousand in repairs in the coming months) with a hybrid that gets better mileage. We eat very little meat. Like, I never buy any at the grocery store, but I’ll have some if it’s served up at a work dinner. We live in a walkable/bikable small town.
Unfortunately, one cross country round trip plane flight pretty much negates a full year of not driving a car at all (obviously this depends a bit on the exact car/flight, etc, etc). Planes are pretty bad. So a more efficient car and less meat and such are great, but they're small potatoes compared to flying around, when it comes to your personal carbon footprint.
-W
I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations. It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.
I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.
I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America. Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary. My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).
My experiences differ here to some degree. Ever since high school my preferred method for getting around has been on a bike or walking, and I was always cognizant of being one of the 'fringe' people in the various cities/towns I have lived in throughout the US and Canada. Often it took considerable effort to find suitable, safe cycling routes every time I moved.
It was traveling and working in Europe that brought a head-smacking "a-ha!" moment to me about how modern cities could and should be designed to promote pedestrian transportation and mass transit. Previously I had often daydreamed while riding, thinking "oh, if they could just add a bike-lane to this stretch of road it would solve so many problems with bike traffic!" Working for a few weeks in Copenhagen made me realize that I was still stuck in this N.A mentality that roads are for cars, and cars rule city planning, and "other uses" must be carved out from that blueprint. i had always heard about bike-centric modern cities but until I experienced one first hand I still didn't get it, despite using a bike myself almost daily.
It also threw into stark contrast a lot of the false assumptions people made whenever I sat on town council meetings about why we couldn't have better cycling infrastructure (examples: "people won't bike when it's cold" or "the city was designed for cars, there's no way it can be converted" or "cycling won't work here because its too dense/hilly/hot/cold".
Sometimes the best way of seeing the flaws in your own world is to travel to a new one and realize how things can be different and still work very well (or better).
Granted - the likelihood of that happening is much less when you are on a resort or cruise ship experience where your bona-fide experiences are limited. Which is why I prefer to experience other countries by working there for a period of several weeks to several months.
"Who pays for these roads? Did your bicycle pay for these roads? I and my fellow drivers have paid for these roads through gas taxes. It is only through our benevolence that we allow you to share this road with us."So, how is this in the US?
Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades. So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.
Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades. So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.
This is partially correct. The federal 'gas tax' goes into the Highway Trust Fund. Those funds are used for the construction and maintenance of federally funded roads (namely the interstate system). They do NOT support the secondary streets and roads that are used by cyclists (in almost all cases cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from using these roads). As AlanStache pointed out, the federal 'gas tax' which supposedly funds the HTF has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation (which has risen 93% since then, while the fleet-wide MPG has improved from 19.6 mpg to 27.5).
Consequentially, according to the CBO over $270 Billion has been transferred from from the general fund to the trust fund from 2008 through 2021. Despite this, our federal highway system has a sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance which the BBB only begins to address.
tl;dr - the federal 'gas tax' does not support the neighborhood streets, and the revenue is woefully insufficient to fund our current federal highway system, requiring the majority of the funding to come from the General Fund (i.e. federal tax revenue).
State taxes are 28.6 cents per gallon. Mr, Internet told me that the principal funding for County road commission is the license fees and the gas tax.Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades. So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.
This is partially correct. The federal 'gas tax' goes into the Highway Trust Fund. Those funds are used for the construction and maintenance of federally funded roads (namely the interstate system). They do NOT support the secondary streets and roads that are used by cyclists (in almost all cases cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from using these roads). As AlanStache pointed out, the federal 'gas tax' which supposedly funds the HTF has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation (which has risen 93% since then, while the fleet-wide MPG has improved from 19.6 mpg to 27.5).
Consequentially, according to the CBO over $270 Billion has been transferred from from the general fund to the trust fund from 2008 through 2021. Despite this, our federal highway system has a sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance which the BBB only begins to address.
tl;dr - the federal 'gas tax' does not support the neighborhood streets, and the revenue is woefully insufficient to fund our current federal highway system, requiring the majority of the funding to come from the General Fund (i.e. federal tax revenue).
Every time I dig into the matter, I find more ways that we subsidize automobile usage.
State taxes are 28.6 cents per gallon. Mr, Internet told me that the principal funding for County road commission is the license fees and the gas tax.Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades. So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.
This is partially correct. The federal 'gas tax' goes into the Highway Trust Fund. Those funds are used for the construction and maintenance of federally funded roads (namely the interstate system). They do NOT support the secondary streets and roads that are used by cyclists (in almost all cases cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from using these roads). As AlanStache pointed out, the federal 'gas tax' which supposedly funds the HTF has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation (which has risen 93% since then, while the fleet-wide MPG has improved from 19.6 mpg to 27.5).
Consequentially, according to the CBO over $270 Billion has been transferred from from the general fund to the trust fund from 2008 through 2021. Despite this, our federal highway system has a sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance which the BBB only begins to address.
tl;dr - the federal 'gas tax' does not support the neighborhood streets, and the revenue is woefully insufficient to fund our current federal highway system, requiring the majority of the funding to come from the General Fund (i.e. federal tax revenue).
Every time I dig into the matter, I find more ways that we subsidize automobile usage.
It also told me:
On average, state motor fuel tax accounts for about 40% of revenue for the State Transportation Fund. The federal government also charges a fuel tax of $0.18 per gallon on gasoline and $0.24 per gallon on diesel. In March 2019
A bit more elaboration.
State road construction is funded by a patchwork of federal, state, and local taxpayer dollars. Funds are raised through the federal fuel tax, state fuel tax, license and registration fees.
I guess now I can tell the next big mean looking truck driver that tells me about taxes and why he owns the road, "Yes sir." Then I will pedal my bike to safety.
You see - Sometimes facts don't matter.
[/quote]I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations. It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.
I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.
I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America. Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary. My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).
I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations. It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.
I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.
I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America. Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary. My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).
That's why I brought it up- I have traveled to Europe, with the same inclinations and tenancies and access to the internet as you (I bike to work, etc). Granted, my last trip was before I dove far into StrongTowns, NJB, etc, but still the lifestyle contrast was almost hard to cope with mentally. I stayed with a friend in a five story building from the 19th century, and he bought his amazing German breakfast bread from the first floor... in the morning... like it was just no big deal. I was thinking "why isn't anyone talking about this?"- this was akin to staying in a BnB on vacation, but it was his everyday life in a standard German city. If I had been staying in a hotel I would have chalked it up to just a vacation thing, but this was just his normal apartment lifestyle.
My suspicion is that until it is experienced it is difficult to convey- I'd wager you would have your own revelations on such a trip. In a more extreme analogy: I can convincingly describe a psilocybin mushroom trip from all that I've read and heard of it, even to those who partake, but without actually experiencing it I cannot say that I know what I would get from eating the mushrooms.
and he bought his amazing German breakfast bread from the first floor... in the morning... like it was just no big deal. I was thinking "why isn't anyone talking about this?"LOL it's not like this is normal for every German. I for example have to walk 100m to the nearest bakery. Which of course is also not normal, there is exactly one street bakery left in my small town, but there are 2 "baker shops" in the discounter + supermarket here.
You gotta be more careful with the food you eat on vacation if it's comparable to a magic mushroom trip. :PYou never eat bread from a good, traditional artisan baker, with a nice sausage from a small 3rd generation butcher, did you?
and he bought his amazing German breakfast bread from the first floor... in the morning... like it was just no big deal. I was thinking "why isn't anyone talking about this?"LOL it's not like this is normal for every German. I for example have to walk 100m to the nearest bakery. Which of course is also not normal, there is exactly one street bakery left in my small town, but there are 2 "baker shops" in the discounter + supermarket here.
Here in Denver, gentrification has resulted in a lot more mixed use neighborhoods. Still not as walkable as some cities in Europe, but a lot better than it was 10 years ago.
...
Will this propel all-electric truck adoption to new heights?
...
Any bets on the launch versions and pricing?
I don't see the point of hauling around all that stainless steel sheet, I'm not planning to get shot at.
I don't see the point of hauling around all that stainless steel sheet, I'm not planning to get shot at.
In an accident, having all that sheet metal and rigid frame on your side should transfer the impact of the accident unequally towards other drivers/pedestrians/cyclists, shouldn't it? Couple that with poor visibility, and it makes me wonder if overall road safety will take a hit.
My instinct is that the Cybertruck project will be a commercial failure but I know better than to put any money where my mouth is, since people seem willing to forgive any amount of overpromising/underdelivering from Tesla.
It does seem a bit like the 90s Cannondale motorcycle project, though. Seems like just making a "normal" electric truck (make it look somewhat weird if you must) would have been a better way to go. I don't see the point of hauling around all that stainless steel sheet, I'm not planning to get shot at.
-W
I don't see the point of hauling around all that stainless steel sheet, I'm not planning to get shot at.
In an accident, having all that sheet metal and rigid frame on your side should transfer the impact of the accident unequally towards other drivers/pedestrians/cyclists, shouldn't it? Couple that with poor visibility, and it makes me wonder if overall road safety will take a hit.
Tesla already makes the safest cars in the world, so it'll be interesting to see where the Cybertruck rates, after all the testing.
I don't see the point of hauling around all that stainless steel sheet, I'm not planning to get shot at.
In an accident, having all that sheet metal and rigid frame on your side should transfer the impact of the accident unequally towards other drivers/pedestrians/cyclists, shouldn't it? Couple that with poor visibility, and it makes me wonder if overall road safety will take a hit.
Tesla already makes the safest cars in the world, so it'll be interesting to see where the Cybertruck rates, after all the testing.
I'd be pretty surprised if they crash test the Cybertruck. Only "Light Duty" trucks are required to be tested. And with current rules and regs the max GVWR weight limit (truck plus cargo) to be considered a "Light Duty" truck is 8500lbs. I'd be really surprised if the Cybertruck is light enough to be required to test. And I'm not sure that they'd gain anything by doing it either.
I'd be pretty surprised if they crash test the Cybertruck. Only "Light Duty" trucks are required to be tested. And with current rules and regs the max GVWR weight limit (truck plus cargo) to be considered a "Light Duty" truck is 8500lbs. A Rivian is like 8535 GVWR, so I'd be really surprised if the Cybertruck is light enough to be required to test. And I'm not sure that they'd gain anything by doing it either.
G = Class G – Greater than 3629 kg. to 4082 kg. (8,001-9,000 lbs.)
H = Class H – Greater than 4082 kg. to 4536 kg. (9,001-10,000 lbs.)
A bit over 4 years since this thread began, and the Cybertruck is about to be unleashed upon an unsuspecting America.
Will this propel all-electric truck adoption to new heights?
https://electrek.co/2023/11/20/tesla-bringing-cybertrucks-showrooms-ahead-launch/
Any bets on the launch versions and pricing?
Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOswow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0
Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOswow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0
Compared to the trailer, it only broke a leg of someone sitting in the back.
That test is fun and all, but all it really shows is that if you put a block shape hardened steel weight equal to the max payload capacity and don't tie it down at all it will crush through the end of the bed and into the cab.
In the real world, what would be the equivalent?
Appliances? An engine? A load of cinder blocks? None of them are going to behave the same way.
That being said, as I do drive a truck and often haul items both in and on top if the truck, I do take safety seriously.
The reality is that even a small item in the back of a truck has the potential to cause serious damage to a human.
I don't care about the safety of people who choose to drive trucks anywhere near as much as I care about the other road users that the large vehicles are inflicted upon. More mass tends to equal more injuries. Couple that with reduced visibility, and extremely fast acceleration and it makes me very worried.
Maybe they drive the front wheels in 2 wheel drive these days or maybe there's some sort of all wheel drive, but I kinda doubt it.
The metal in the bed is thinner than ever, and in some cases, not even metal.That test is fun and all, but all it really shows is that if you put a block shape hardened steel weight equal to the max payload capacity and don't tie it down at all it will crush through the end of the bed and into the cab.
In the real world, what would be the equivalent?
Appliances? An engine? A load of cinder blocks? None of them are going to behave the same way.
That being said, as I do drive a truck and often haul items both in and on top if the truck, I do take safety seriously.
The reality is that even a small item in the back of a truck has the potential to cause serious damage to a human.
Of course, I grew up in the south (Texas) and pretty much everyone I knew had some kind of pickup truck. Looking at the manufacturers, if you are going to design a vehicle to haul heavy things, you really need to re-inforce the hell out of the rear of the cabin. I'd always assumed that they were re-inforced till I saw that crash video about a month ago. Shocked is a good word to describe how I felt.
Does the "market" make mistakes? I kind of wonder if the electric cars they are attempting to sell are not a real practical choice for consumers. I wonder if they are not the best introduction to electric cars. It just seems like the equivalent of the old Econo-boxes would be the type of electric car that would sell. It would be a small vehicle. It wouldn't need a huge range. It would be a second car used to get groceries and the commute to work. It would be inexpensive to buy, inexpensive to operate and easy to repair. Even the software could be open source. Maybe it's already out there. The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt seem to approach this idea. The "market" is pushing these electric pickup truck replacements. It just seems kind of dumb. Thanks for reading this. Now get back to the smart comments.
I just think for this you'd need to get really cheap (like less than $10k) or it's not worth it, especially as a second car. Where do you park it? In many states you pay personal property taxes on it, in my state I have to pay $200/yr to have an EV, etc. I think in this instance you'd be better off not getting a second car and just keeping your ICE or getting an e-bike. The amount of additional gas you'd need to burn to make having an additional car worth it would be a ton to offset a $15-$20k investment. I did the math for my mom and showed her that she'd save about $3-400/yr by purchasing a Bolt (and that was just factoring in gas, it might completely offset when you factor in personal property taxes) as a second car and using that as her daily driver rather than always driving her Rav4. Obviously if you put on massive amounts of miles that could be more in savings.
I guess it depends on your personal situation. It just seems like many families have two vehicles. It's often a car and a truck. Certainly, if the existing car has a lot of life left in it, then there's no point in replacing it. However, when the time comes to replace that car, it could make sense to get an electric model. As far as parking, if you own a home with a garage, there is a strong possibility it will be a two car garage. I guess it depends on your personal situation.
Ok, you meant that a couple should have a cheap EV and something else. I thought you meant a person should have or a couple should have 3. That's what I meant by where would you put it. If we had a 3rd car one would have to park behind another on the driveway and out of the garage. I just had to replace my truck and I got an EV, but I don't think it often times makes sense to just buy an EV, the cost savings would take years to catch up. I was in a position where mine was totaled by someone else and I had to get a new car.
It's damn near impossible to be a one car HH with two active kids and two adults that work out of the house. Even going 2 weeks caused some major inconveniences. Two kids having soccer practice at the same time, same day on completely opposite sides of town.
Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOswow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0
Compared to the trailer, it only broke a leg of someone sitting in the back.
It's actually disturbing to watch. Even though it's just dummies in the truck.
Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOswow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0
Compared to the trailer, it only broke a leg of someone sitting in the back.
It's actually disturbing to watch. Even though it's just dummies in the truck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-UUQAcZs
BUT - the truck was overloaded and crashed at a very high rate of speed. VW Vanagon vs other vehicle is far better than that test. Saw an early 70s van that was crashed at 30-40 mph vs a stationary tractor trailer recently online. He walked away.
Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOswow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0
Compared to the trailer, it only broke a leg of someone sitting in the back.
It's actually disturbing to watch. Even though it's just dummies in the truck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-UUQAcZs
BUT - the truck was overloaded and crashed at a very high rate of speed. VW Vanagon vs other vehicle is far better than that test. Saw an early 70s van that was crashed at 30-40 mph vs a stationary tractor trailer recently online. He walked away.
Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOswow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0
Compared to the trailer, it only broke a leg of someone sitting in the back.
It's actually disturbing to watch. Even though it's just dummies in the truck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-UUQAcZs
BUT - the truck was overloaded and crashed at a very high rate of speed. VW Vanagon vs other vehicle is far better than that test. Saw an early 70s van that was crashed at 30-40 mph vs a stationary tractor trailer recently online. He walked away.
The Ford F150 is rated to be able to haul 3300 pounds in the bed. It's pretty clear that if you actually use it as they designed it (hauling up to 3300 pounds), you are 1 serious accident away from being murdered by your truck.
This is outrageous. If you use it within it's design parameters, it will kill everyone in the truck during a front medium-high speed accident. I'm just astonished these things are allowed on the road.
And then all the ads about their stuff being "Ford Tough" it's all downright dangerous lies.
The only saving grace seems to be that most people don't actually haul anything in their trucks. As waltworks pointed out earlier.
Est. $49,890*
Rear-Wheel Drive
Available in 2025
250 MI. Range (EST.)
6.5 sec. 0-60 mph
Est. $68,890*
All-Wheel Drive
Delivery in 2024
340 mi. range (EST.)
4.1 sec. 0-60 mph
112 mph top speed
600 horsepower
7,435 LB-FT torque
11,000 lbs. towing Capacity
Est. $96,390*
Cyberbeast
Delivery in 2024
320 Mi. Range (Est.)
2.6 sec. 0-60 mph†
130 mph top speed
845 horsepower
10,296 LB-FT torque
11,000 lbs. towing Capacity
†With rollout subtracted.
*Prices assume IRA Federal Tax Credits up to $7,500 for Rear-Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive and est. gas savings of $3,600 over 3 years.
What stupidity of a vehicle. But I can see why Musk loves it.
Accelerating a big, heavy vehicle like that from 0-60 in 2.6 seconds seems like a recipe for dead cyclists and pedestrians. Especially considering the kind of person that would appeal to.
Accelerating a big, heavy vehicle like that from 0-60 in 2.6 seconds seems like a recipe for dead cyclists and pedestrians. Especially considering the kind of person that would appeal to.
Strongly agree - instant acceleration is not a good thing. I think all vehicles should have their maximum acceleration limited.
The cyber truck looks too much like a niche "lifestyle vehicle" to me, not a "real" work truck. I'd be interested in the utilitarian nature of an electric truck, something like the Canoo seems more practical
https://youtube.com/shorts/8L6BicLJThA?si=UWJQ_hWPwTEOnYO8.
Accelerating a big, heavy vehicle like that from 0-60 in 2.6 seconds seems like a recipe for dead cyclists and pedestrians. Especially considering the kind of person that would appeal to.
Strongly agree - instant acceleration is not a good thing. I think all vehicles should have their maximum acceleration limited.
Everyone just thought Tesla is inexperienced and ramping up production lines, and EVs are "simpler" than ICE powered vehicles, but GM and Ford struggle to ramp up production...
Everyone just thought Tesla is inexperienced and ramping up production lines, and EVs are "simpler" than ICE powered vehicles, but GM and Ford struggle to ramp up production...
Ford has said that their cutbacks are due to slowing demand rather than being unable to ramp production. There's data indicating an oversupply of Mach Es and Lightnings sitting in dealer inventory currently, so there's probably some truth to that.
On the plus side, some dealers that have been sitting on vehicles for awhile may be more likely to negotiate prices than they have been thus far.
While Ford is telling us it's solely about demand, that's not exactly aligned with reality.
Demand for a $40-50k Ford Lightning is much higher than demand for an $80-100k Ford Lightning. Ford may be able to produce 1600-3200 vehicles per week, but they lose money on the $50k models, so they are not incentivized to do so. Tesla faced similar challenges and reception when they only sold $60k+ Model 3 sedans before they improved production and reduced costs. The once fabled $35k Model 3 did eventually appear briefly, and even now is around $39k for a base RWD trim level. But they had enough demand for their higher trim levels, and they were committed to ramping up production. Ford can't get their head out of their ass, so instead of selling in higher quantities, they're kicking the can down the road and hoping they can improve production / costs before selling in higher volumes at a more palatable price point. I mean, I'm no business major / CEO, so maybe this makes sense for Ford rather than taking losses on early EV models. But I'd prefer to see them producing as many as possible and making sure they match trim level production to demand.
Why would I want to purchase a luxury-priced EV from a company that hasn't proven itself capable of producing a capable entry-level EV?
I'm still surprised so few Japanese car manufacturers are offering EVs considering that there are several large Japanese battery manufacturers. I had expected that they would have taken the lead on EVs.
A little appreciated piece of news came out recently.
https://www.motor1.com/news/672455/stellantis-stops-stocking-gas-cars/ (https://www.motor1.com/news/672455/stellantis-stops-stocking-gas-cars/)
Stellantis is restricting ICE inventory being shipped to states that have opted in to CARB standards. They also recently stopped producing the fuel inefficient Charger and Challenger due to the new fuel efficiency standards.
Higher emissions standards are finally making a difference. Making a transition to electrified transport requires changes on both the demand side AND on the supply side. It looks like the supply side changes are actually happening too.
Beyond EV vs ICE, the fuel efficiency of new ICE vehicles sold today makes a HUGE difference in emissions while ICE vehicles still make up 80%+ of US sales. Simply stopping producing some of the 15mpg models makes a difference. Having more models being hybrid or PHEV makes a difference.
A little appreciated piece of news came out recently.
https://www.motor1.com/news/672455/stellantis-stops-stocking-gas-cars/ (https://www.motor1.com/news/672455/stellantis-stops-stocking-gas-cars/)
Stellantis is restricting ICE inventory being shipped to states that have opted in to CARB standards. They also recently stopped producing the fuel inefficient Charger and Challenger due to the new fuel efficiency standards.
Higher emissions standards are finally making a difference. Making a transition to electrified transport requires changes on both the demand side AND on the supply side. It looks like the supply side changes are actually happening too.
Beyond EV vs ICE, the fuel efficiency of new ICE vehicles sold today makes a HUGE difference in emissions while ICE vehicles still make up 80%+ of US sales. Simply stopping producing some of the 15mpg models makes a difference. Having more models being hybrid or PHEV makes a difference.
I have heard anecdotally, that it's currently more difficult to get a plug in vehicle in the non-CARB states as a result of this shift in allocation. You can still order a gas vehicle in the CARB states if you're willing to pay and wait. And you can still order a PHEV Jeep in a non-CARB state if you want to, but dealers are very unlikely to have any in their general stock that wasn't special ordered.
So it's moving some things around for compliance reasons, but may not actually be changing the bigger picture in a meaningful way.
Pure EV sales have just hit 1 million units in a year in the US for the first time ever.
Pure EV sales have just hit 1 million units in a year in the US for the first time ever.
Is there like a tipping point where the economy of scale thing will really kick in? Maybe, it will get to a point where the quantity of electric cars manufactured puts the cost far lower than ICE cars. Intuitively, I think internal combustion is more complex than electric cars. Opinions will, of course, differ.
Another issue that's holding me back from purchasing an EV is I can't help but worry that there'll be a battery technology breakthrough, right after I bought the old tech car. EVs feel like a really big tech purchase, and we've all experienced buyer's regret as the newer models come out.The question there is that if a battery technology becomes widely available that doubles energy density, whether the range in cars doubles with the same physical size battery or they use a battery half the size for the same range.
We're used to replacing our phones & laptops as the batteries crap out & the manufacturers stop updating the software. We don't like it, but $1000 isn't too big of a deal. People need to be able to trust that their EVs won't be worthless after they've finally paid them off.
Another issue that's holding me back from purchasing an EV is I can't help but worry that there'll be a battery technology breakthrough, right after I bought the old tech car. EVs feel like a really big tech purchase, and we've all experienced buyer's regret as the newer models come out.But your car is still a working car, even if others can do double the distance without charging, so what? It was enough when you bought, it's still enough whatever others can do.
We're used to replacing our phones & laptops as the batteries crap out & the manufacturers stop updating the software. We don't like it, but $1000 isn't too big of a deal. People need to be able to trust that their EVs won't be worthless after they've finally paid them off.
...we've all experienced buyer's regret as the newer models come out.
We're used to replacing our phones & laptops as the batteries crap out & the manufacturers stop updating the software. We don't like it, but $1000 isn't too big of a deal.
...we've all experienced buyer's regret as the newer models come out.
We're used to replacing our phones & laptops as the batteries crap out & the manufacturers stop updating the software. We don't like it, but $1000 isn't too big of a deal.
I can't relate to this, never had buyer's regret about new models coming out. We've typically always bought older/used/refurbished models of most phones, cars etc, and shockingly enough, our lives have not been adversely affected.
Yeah, but you don't buy Apple....we've all experienced buyer's regret as the newer models come out.
We're used to replacing our phones & laptops as the batteries crap out & the manufacturers stop updating the software. We don't like it, but $1000 isn't too big of a deal.
I can't relate to this, never had buyer's regret about new models coming out. We've typically always bought older/used/refurbished models of most phones, cars etc, and shockingly enough, our lives have not been adversely affected.
Me neither. I've never owned a laptop or cellphone. And 1000$ is a pretty big deal, I'd be pissed if an item I paid a grand stopped working.
Another issue that's holding me back from purchasing an EV is I can't help but worry that there'll be a battery technology breakthrough, right after I bought the old tech car. EVs feel like a really big tech purchase, and we've all experienced buyer's regret as the newer models come out.
We're used to replacing our phones & laptops as the batteries crap out & the manufacturers stop updating the software. We don't like it, but $1000 isn't too big of a deal. People need to be able to trust that their EVs won't be worthless after they've finally paid them off.
Yeah, but you don't buy Apple....we've all experienced buyer's regret as the newer models come out.
We're used to replacing our phones & laptops as the batteries crap out & the manufacturers stop updating the software. We don't like it, but $1000 isn't too big of a deal.
I can't relate to this, never had buyer's regret about new models coming out. We've typically always bought older/used/refurbished models of most phones, cars etc, and shockingly enough, our lives have not been adversely affected.
Me neither. I've never owned a laptop or cellphone. And 1000$ is a pretty big deal, I'd be pissed if an item I paid a grand stopped working.
For me, once the range got over 300 miles, I realized I was never going to drive 300 miles without stopping anyway. If I'm going 70mph on the highway, that's 4 hours straight if I don't stop.
It's also really cheap to drive. I just hit 3000 miles and total cost to charge it was $98. In my old car it would have been about $500 to go the same distance.
Another issue that's holding me back from purchasing an EV is I can't help but worry that there'll be a battery technology breakthrough, right after I bought the old tech car. EVs feel like a really big tech purchase, and we've all experienced buyer's regret as the newer models come out.
We're used to replacing our phones & laptops as the batteries crap out & the manufacturers stop updating the software. We don't like it, but $1000 isn't too big of a deal. People need to be able to trust that their EVs won't be worthless after they've finally paid them off.
My version is I buy a BEV like a Leaf and 15-20 years into the future we finally wear out the battery (short in town trips, L2 charging) and i can't source a replacement battery... Or can't source a replacement cell and the rest of the battery is still okay.
Nothing worse than discarding technology that was suddenly obsolete because a standard changed or the factory stopped supporting it at a reasonable cost. My last smart phone suffered that. Great device but it maxed out at 3G. Into the drawer of tech dinosaurs it went. Discarding a car otherwise still getting the job done for the lack of a part would be depressing from a MMM stand point.
Understand that our daily driver is 24 years old now. Still meeting our needs as well as the day we bought it new.
For me, once the range got over 300 miles, I realized I was never going to drive 300 miles without stopping anyway. If I'm going 70mph on the highway, that's 4 hours straight if I don't stop.
It's also really cheap to drive. I just hit 3000 miles and total cost to charge it was $98. In my old car it would have been about $500 to go the same distance.
That is the range threshold I had in mind. What car do you have?
Another issue that's holding me back from purchasing an EV is I can't help but worry that there'll be a battery technology breakthrough, right after I bought the old tech car. EVs feel like a really big tech purchase, and we've all experienced buyer's regret as the newer models come out.
We're used to replacing our phones & laptops as the batteries crap out & the manufacturers stop updating the software. We don't like it, but $1000 isn't too big of a deal. People need to be able to trust that their EVs won't be worthless after they've finally paid them off.
My version is I buy a BEV like a Leaf and 15-20 years into the future we finally wear out the battery (short in town trips, L2 charging) and i can't source a replacement battery... Or can't source a replacement cell and the rest of the battery is still okay.
Nothing worse than discarding technology that was suddenly obsolete because a standard changed or the factory stopped supporting it at a reasonable cost. My last smart phone suffered that. Great device but it maxed out at 3G. Into the drawer of tech dinosaurs it went. Discarding a car otherwise still getting the job done for the lack of a part would be depressing from a MMM stand point.
Understand that our daily driver is 24 years old now. Still meeting our needs as well as the day we bought it new.
I don't see how this is really any different than sourcing parts for an old combustion engine vehicle. Manufacturers are still building transmissions and engines for 20+ year old vehicles so why wouldn't they do the same for battery packs? It's also been shown that replacing bad cells on a battery pack is doable without needing to swap the whole pack which means that "refurbished" battery packs will also be a thing.
As for the Leaf example in particular, the oldest ones are coming up on 13 years old already and have very good support for battery replacements (and even the ability to upgrade capacity). I don't see that support going away in the next 2-7 years. The 1st generation Leaf had roughly a quarter million sales worldwide so I'd expect even better support for more popular models.
We're RE'd and have a few vehicles. DW's & my car seem to be redundant. It would make good sense to replace the pair with one EV. With a 300+ mile range, it would be fine for trips. It would primarily be "her car" for daily errands. Replacing the two cars also helps justify a higher price point model. I like the idea. :)
It solves many issues that I didn't realize (or didn't want to admit) we have. It puts her in a nicer, newer, more comfortable, and safer car. Reduces our fuel and maintenance expenses. Frees up garage space.
Is earned income required for the tax credit?
Understand that our daily driver is 24 years old now. Still meeting our needs as well as the day we bought it new.While I appreciate the frugality, there have been a LOT of safety improvements in 24 years. So much so that they've had to recalibrate the star rating many times (5 star safety in 1999 is probably 1 star safety in 2023)
EV sales in the U.S. might hit 8% of vehicle sales this year, as well as 1 million total sales. While Tesla's share is slowly dropping to about 50%, they are still about 10x ahead of the number two (likely GM, though Ford is hanging in there).Unfortunately GM stopped production of their high volume model(s) with the Bolt/EUV - and won't start making it again for 2 years, late 2025. Ford is making major production cuts too.
I believe you just need a tax liability to offset, doesn't matter from what. In the future this could become a point of sale discount. Though quite a few EVs no longer qualify for the federal tax credit...Point of sale discount (transfer tax credit to dealership) should start on January 1. But yes, lots of EVs losing the incentive. For example, most Model 3.
Understand that our daily driver is 24 years old now. Still meeting our needs as well as the day we bought it new.While I appreciate the frugality, there have been a LOT of safety improvements in 24 years. So much so that they've had to recalibrate the star rating many times (5 star safety in 1999 is probably 1 star safety in 2023)
Understand that our daily driver is 24 years old now. Still meeting our needs as well as the day we bought it new.While I appreciate the frugality, there have been a LOT of safety improvements in 24 years. So much so that they've had to recalibrate the star rating many times (5 star safety in 1999 is probably 1 star safety in 2023)
Somewhere between 94 and 98% of car crashes are due to driver error. Now sure, you can't control the actions of others on the road . . . but I'd take the driver who always focuses on what he's doing, reduces speed in poor conditions, and never touches a cellphone or dash display in his 24 year old car over the average driver with all the latest safety gadgets every time.
Somewhere between 94 and 98% of car crashes are due to driver error. Now sure, you can't control the actions of others on the road . . . but I'd take the driver who always focuses on what he's doing, reduces speed in poor conditions, and never touches a cellphone or dash display in his 24 year old car over the average driver with all the latest safety gadgets every time.You present a false choice. It's not "either be a safe driver or have a safer car" - you can choose both.
Somewhere between 94 and 98% of car crashes are due to driver error. Now sure, you can't control the actions of others on the road . . . but I'd take the driver who always focuses on what he's doing, reduces speed in poor conditions, and never touches a cellphone or dash display in his 24 year old car over the average driver with all the latest safety gadgets every time.You present a false choice. It's not "either be a safe driver or have a safer car" - you can choose both.
Somewhere between 94 and 98% of car crashes are due to driver error. Now sure, you can't control the actions of others on the road . . . but I'd take the driver who always focuses on what he's doing, reduces speed in poor conditions, and never touches a cellphone or dash display in his 24 year old car over the average driver with all the latest safety gadgets every time.You present a false choice. It's not "either be a safe driver or have a safer car" - you can choose both.
Can you?
...
I think that modern cars are safer on the whole, but 'safeness' can be overstated.
You present a false choice. It's not "either be a safe driver or have a safer car" - you can choose both.
Can you?
Most modern cars have big touch screens in their center console that require the driver to stop paying attention to the road to use. Phone pairing ensures that you'll have additional distractions while driving. There is a lack of tactile controls that can be operated without removing your eyes from the road. Safety features like wider pillars reduce visibility for drivers, handicapping your ability to see what's around you and thus drive safely. Smaller and more difficult to see out of rear windows make even simple tasks like backing a vehicle up much more difficult to do.
I think that modern cars are safer on the whole, but 'safeness' can be overstated.
No, it's the difference between active and passive safety and inside and outside safety.Somewhere between 94 and 98% of car crashes are due to driver error. Now sure, you can't control the actions of others on the road . . . but I'd take the driver who always focuses on what he's doing, reduces speed in poor conditions, and never touches a cellphone or dash display in his 24 year old car over the average driver with all the latest safety gadgets every time.You present a false choice. It's not "either be a safe driver or have a safer car" - you can choose both.
Can you?
...
I think that modern cars are safer on the whole, but 'safeness' can be overstated.
You seem to be arguing against yourself.
You present a false choice. It's not "either be a safe driver or have a safer car" - you can choose both.
Can you?
Most modern cars have big touch screens in their center console that require the driver to stop paying attention to the road to use. Phone pairing ensures that you'll have additional distractions while driving. There is a lack of tactile controls that can be operated without removing your eyes from the road. Safety features like wider pillars reduce visibility for drivers, handicapping your ability to see what's around you and thus drive safely. Smaller and more difficult to see out of rear windows make even simple tasks like backing a vehicle up much more difficult to do.
I think that modern cars are safer on the whole, but 'safeness' can be overstated.
If you're a safer driver, choose a safer modern car.
For example, our 2023 CX-5 doesn't have a touch screen. All necessary controls including HVAC are tactile. No issues with forward, side or rear visibility. Sounds like you can still choose to drive a modern car while choosing to be an attentive, safe driver. (You can also choose to not pair your phone.)
Ours does...You present a false choice. It's not "either be a safe driver or have a safer car" - you can choose both.
Can you?
Most modern cars have big touch screens in their center console that require the driver to stop paying attention to the road to use. Phone pairing ensures that you'll have additional distractions while driving. There is a lack of tactile controls that can be operated without removing your eyes from the road. Safety features like wider pillars reduce visibility for drivers, handicapping your ability to see what's around you and thus drive safely. Smaller and more difficult to see out of rear windows make even simple tasks like backing a vehicle up much more difficult to do.
I think that modern cars are safer on the whole, but 'safeness' can be overstated.
If you're a safer driver, choose a safer modern car.
For example, our 2023 CX-5 doesn't have a touch screen. All necessary controls including HVAC are tactile. No issues with forward, side or rear visibility. Sounds like you can still choose to drive a modern car while choosing to be an attentive, safe driver. (You can also choose to not pair your phone.)
Do any EVs offer these features? All the models I've looked at seemed to have gone all in on the problems I was listing.
Either because they bad drivers or the cars are unsafe, Tesla drivers have a lot more accidents than drivers of other cars. Buyer beware.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html
Either because they bad drivers or the cars are unsafe, Tesla drivers have a lot more accidents than drivers of other cars. Buyer beware.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html)
They're rated as some of the safest cars on the road too, right? Gets back to my point about the driver's actions vs car 'safety'.
Either because they bad drivers or the cars are unsafe, Tesla drivers have a lot more accidents than drivers of other cars. Buyer beware.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html)
They're rated as some of the safest cars on the road too, right? Gets back to my point about the driver's actions vs car 'safety'.
I believe the Tesla accidents are partly (mostly?) due to autopilot issues. So while the cars are crashworthy, they are crashing too much due to autopilot error. I guess the autopilot's need more instruction on safe driving.
Either because they bad drivers or the cars are unsafe, Tesla drivers have a lot more accidents than drivers of other cars. Buyer beware.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html)
They're rated as some of the safest cars on the road too, right? Gets back to my point about the driver's actions vs car 'safety'.
I believe the Tesla accidents are partly (mostly?) due to autopilot issues. So while the cars are crashworthy, they are crashing too much due to autopilot error. I guess the autopilot's need more instruction on safe driving.
It seems like I see the same Teslas whenever I take a good walk. Maybe Tesla drivers simply put more hours on the road than others. I also think they may do more town driving and this may give a better propensity for accidents.
Either because they bad drivers or the cars are unsafe, Tesla drivers have a lot more accidents than drivers of other cars. Buyer beware.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html
https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data to determine which car brands have the worst drivers.
Either because they bad drivers or the cars are unsafe, Tesla drivers have a lot more accidents than drivers of other cars. Buyer beware.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html)
I'd take that with a mountain of salt.Quote from: sourcehttps://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data to determine which car brands have the worst drivers.
There's a lot more background info here: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/18lnr3v/tesla_has_the_highest_accident_rate_of_any_auto/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/18lnr3v/tesla_has_the_highest_accident_rate_of_any_auto/)
Either because they bad drivers or the cars are unsafe, Tesla drivers have a lot more accidents than drivers of other cars. Buyer beware.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html)
I'd take that with a mountain of salt.Quote from: sourcehttps://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data to determine which car brands have the worst drivers.
There's a lot more background info here: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/18lnr3v/tesla_has_the_highest_accident_rate_of_any_auto/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/18lnr3v/tesla_has_the_highest_accident_rate_of_any_auto/)
You wouldn't take the Tesla Fanboy reddit group's comment with a grain of salt? They attacked a Forbes article and author, but the research was done by an insurer who is simply reporting how often drivers crash. NHSTB has also found autopilot lacking and Tesla has agreed to a recall. Consumer Reports says it's not enough.
People with a Tesla have the money to report the accident and get it fixed. Whereas someone with that Hyundai Elantra driving down the highway with their bumper smacking the ground definitely don't report it.
Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair. Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher.
Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident. Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair. I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity.
Tesla offers insurance and your rates are determined by your driving behavior. Speaking only for myself, the real time feedback on my driving actually has made me a safer driver as I am mostly a very safe driver, but I had some bad habits that were hard to break. Mostly following too close with in-town driving. The feedback, plus my insurance rates going up as a result gave me a kick in the pants to clean up that one bad habit.
Either because they bad drivers or the cars are unsafe, Tesla drivers have a lot more accidents than drivers of other cars. Buyer beware.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html)
I'd take that with a mountain of salt.Quote from: sourcehttps://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data to determine which car brands have the worst drivers.
There's a lot more background info here: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/18lnr3v/tesla_has_the_highest_accident_rate_of_any_auto/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/18lnr3v/tesla_has_the_highest_accident_rate_of_any_auto/)
You wouldn't take the Tesla Fanboy reddit group's comment with a grain of salt? They attacked a Forbes article and author, but the research was done by an insurer who is simply reporting how often drivers crash. NHSTB has also found autopilot lacking and Tesla has agreed to a recall. Consumer Reports says it's not enough.
Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair. Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher.
Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident. Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair. I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity.
Tesla offers insurance and your rates are determined by your driving behavior. Speaking only for myself, the real time feedback on my driving actually has made me a safer driver as I am mostly a very safe driver, but I had some bad habits that were hard to break. Mostly following too close with in-town driving. The feedback, plus my insurance rates going up as a result gave me a kick in the pants to clean up that one bad habit.
Thanks for changing. I hate tailgaters.
Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair. Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher.
Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident. Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair. I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity.
Tesla offers insurance and your rates are determined by your driving behavior. Speaking only for myself, the real time feedback on my driving actually has made me a safer driver as I am mostly a very safe driver, but I had some bad habits that were hard to break. Mostly following too close with in-town driving. The feedback, plus my insurance rates going up as a result gave me a kick in the pants to clean up that one bad habit.
Thanks for changing. I hate tailgaters.
Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair. Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher.
Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident. Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair. I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity.
Tesla offers insurance and your rates are determined by your driving behavior. Speaking only for myself, the real time feedback on my driving actually has made me a safer driver as I am mostly a very safe driver, but I had some bad habits that were hard to break. Mostly following too close with in-town driving. The feedback, plus my insurance rates going up as a result gave me a kick in the pants to clean up that one bad habit.
Thanks for changing. I hate tailgaters.
You're welcome, and apologies if I ever tailgated you.
I never drove 'right on people's ass', but mostly followed about 1.5 to 2 car lengths behind. Just like pretty much everybody else here in Denver (and in Houston and Austin, where I lived before). It seemed fine but I now realize it's much safer to keep distance to at least 3 cars lengths at low speeds. It means a lot more people cut in front of me, mostly because very few other drivers around here leave any room at all, especially during traffic.
The biggest thing I've learned is to simply give more time to get where I'm going. Then I never feel like I'm in a hurry. That was actually a big change.
Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair. Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher.
Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident. Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair. I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity.
Tesla offers insurance and your rates are determined by your driving behavior. Speaking only for myself, the real time feedback on my driving actually has made me a safer driver as I am mostly a very safe driver, but I had some bad habits that were hard to break. Mostly following too close with in-town driving. The feedback, plus my insurance rates going up as a result gave me a kick in the pants to clean up that one bad habit.
Thanks for changing. I hate tailgaters.
You're welcome, and apologies if I ever tailgated you.
I never drove 'right on people's ass', but mostly followed about 1.5 to 2 car lengths behind. Just like pretty much everybody else here in Denver (and in Houston and Austin, where I lived before). It seemed fine but I now realize it's much safer to keep distance to at least 3 cars lengths at low speeds. It means a lot more people cut in front of me, mostly because very few other drivers around here leave any room at all, especially during traffic.
The biggest thing I've learned is to simply give more time to get where I'm going. Then I never feel like I'm in a hurry. That was actually a big change.
Follow distance should not be measured as a fixed physical distance (like car lengths) but instead as a time interval so that the distance scales as your speed increases. You should be around 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of you (and any more than 4 seconds is usually excessive). At 70 mph you're going 103 feet/second so 3 car lengths would be less than half a second of follow distance (basically right on dat ass). Please give yourself more than 3 car lengths at highway speeds.
Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair. Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher.
Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident. Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair. I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity.
Tesla offers insurance and your rates are determined by your driving behavior. Speaking only for myself, the real time feedback on my driving actually has made me a safer driver as I am mostly a very safe driver, but I had some bad habits that were hard to break. Mostly following too close with in-town driving. The feedback, plus my insurance rates going up as a result gave me a kick in the pants to clean up that one bad habit.
Thanks for changing. I hate tailgaters.
You're welcome, and apologies if I ever tailgated you.
I never drove 'right on people's ass', but mostly followed about 1.5 to 2 car lengths behind. Just like pretty much everybody else here in Denver (and in Houston and Austin, where I lived before). It seemed fine but I now realize it's much safer to keep distance to at least 3 cars lengths at low speeds. It means a lot more people cut in front of me, mostly because very few other drivers around here leave any room at all, especially during traffic.
The biggest thing I've learned is to simply give more time to get where I'm going. Then I never feel like I'm in a hurry. That was actually a big change.
Follow distance should not be measured as a fixed physical distance (like car lengths) but instead as a time interval so that the distance scales as your speed increases. You should be around 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of you (and any more than 4 seconds is usually excessive). At 70 mph you're going 103 feet/second so 3 car lengths would be less than half a second of follow distance (basically right on dat ass). Please give yourself more than 3 car lengths at highway speeds.
Yup. Also, remember your physics - stopping distances increases with the square of the speed. Its not linear. When your speed increases by 20% (say, from 55mph to 66mph) then your stopping distance increases by 44%.
Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair. Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher.
Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident. Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair. I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity.
Tesla offers insurance and your rates are determined by your driving behavior. Speaking only for myself, the real time feedback on my driving actually has made me a safer driver as I am mostly a very safe driver, but I had some bad habits that were hard to break. Mostly following too close with in-town driving. The feedback, plus my insurance rates going up as a result gave me a kick in the pants to clean up that one bad habit.
Thanks for changing. I hate tailgaters.
You're welcome, and apologies if I ever tailgated you.
I never drove 'right on people's ass', but mostly followed about 1.5 to 2 car lengths behind. Just like pretty much everybody else here in Denver (and in Houston and Austin, where I lived before). It seemed fine but I now realize it's much safer to keep distance to at least 3 cars lengths at low speeds. It means a lot more people cut in front of me, mostly because very few other drivers around here leave any room at all, especially during traffic.
The biggest thing I've learned is to simply give more time to get where I'm going. Then I never feel like I'm in a hurry. That was actually a big change.
Follow distance should not be measured as a fixed physical distance (like car lengths) but instead as a time interval so that the distance scales as your speed increases. You should be around 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of you (and any more than 4 seconds is usually excessive). At 70 mph you're going 103 feet/second so 3 car lengths would be less than half a second of follow distance (basically right on dat ass). Please give yourself more than 3 car lengths at highway speeds.
Broad availability of chargers is critical for the Biden administration’s goal of getting electric vehicles to make up half of new car sales by 2030. Americans routinely cite “range anxiety” as one of the biggest impediments to buying an E.V. About 80 percent of respondents cited concerns about a lack of charging stations as a reason not to purchase an electric vehicle, according to an April survey from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
The Biden administration is trying to entice consumers to buy electric vehicles both by offering tax credits of up to $7,500 and promising to build out a national backbone of high-speed chargers. That network is meant to give drivers the assurance that they could reach a reliable charger every 50 miles along major roads and highways.
Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair. Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher.
Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident. Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair. I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity.
Tesla offers insurance and your rates are determined by your driving behavior. Speaking only for myself, the real time feedback on my driving actually has made me a safer driver as I am mostly a very safe driver, but I had some bad habits that were hard to break. Mostly following too close with in-town driving. The feedback, plus my insurance rates going up as a result gave me a kick in the pants to clean up that one bad habit.
Thanks for changing. I hate tailgaters.
You're welcome, and apologies if I ever tailgated you.
I never drove 'right on people's ass', but mostly followed about 1.5 to 2 car lengths behind. Just like pretty much everybody else here in Denver (and in Houston and Austin, where I lived before). It seemed fine but I now realize it's much safer to keep distance to at least 3 cars lengths at low speeds. It means a lot more people cut in front of me, mostly because very few other drivers around here leave any room at all, especially during traffic.
The biggest thing I've learned is to simply give more time to get where I'm going. Then I never feel like I'm in a hurry. That was actually a big change.
Follow distance should not be measured as a fixed physical distance (like car lengths) but instead as a time interval so that the distance scales as your speed increases. You should be around 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of you (and any more than 4 seconds is usually excessive). At 70 mph you're going 103 feet/second so 3 car lengths would be less than half a second of follow distance (basically right on dat ass). Please give yourself more than 3 car lengths at highway speeds.
Yup. Also, remember your physics - stopping distances increases with the square of the speed. Its not linear. When your speed increases by 20% (say, from 55mph to 66mph) then your stopping distance increases by 44%.
Also, if you notice that people are constantly tailgating you . . . stop and check if you're driving twenty below the limit in the passing lane. :P
Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair. Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher.Doesn't the insurance of the one responsible pays for damage in the US? That is how it's done here.
Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident. Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair. I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity.
Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair. Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher.Doesn't the insurance of the one responsible pays for damage in the US? That is how it's done here.
Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident. Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair. I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity.
If it is doen that way, than costs are indeed an indicator for behavior. Because they scale with the fault.
Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair. Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher.Doesn't the insurance of the one responsible pays for damage in the US? That is how it's done here.
Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident. Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair. I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity.
If it is doen that way, than costs are indeed an indicator for behavior. Because they scale with the fault.
It depends on the state but that's usually the case. A few states are "no fault" states where you can ram a car and both drivers pay for the costs.
Follow distance should not be measured as a fixed physical distance (like car lengths) but instead as a time interval so that the distance scales as your speed increases. You should be around 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of you (and any more than 4 seconds is usually excessive). At 70 mph you're going 103 feet/second so 3 car lengths would be less than half a second of follow distance (basically right on dat ass). Please give yourself more than 3 car lengths at highway speeds.
Follow distance should not be measured as a fixed physical distance (like car lengths) but instead as a time interval so that the distance scales as your speed increases. You should be around 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of you (and any more than 4 seconds is usually excessive). At 70 mph you're going 103 feet/second so 3 car lengths would be less than half a second of follow distance (basically right on dat ass). Please give yourself more than 3 car lengths at highway speeds.
My parents had a driver training school when I was a kid, so I had it drilled into me for years to keep 3 seconds minimum behind the vehicle in front of me. TBH I don't even do it consciously, and I get downright uncomfortable if the distance is less. It does mean I get a steady stream of impatient people who pass me and then settle in behind the car in front, as if it's going to make any difference on arrival time.
When I am paying closer attention I might adjust for the vehicle in front of me. A motorcycle I'll usually give 4-5 seconds, because they can stop a lot faster than me. A tractor-trailer I can follow a bit closer, because their stopping distance is longer than mine.
I absolutely hate having some moron, usually in a ginormous truck, with his grill taking up my entire rear view mirror. I know in my bones that if I have to brake for any reason that doofus is going to roll right over me and possibly get me killed.
Either because they bad drivers or the cars are unsafe, Tesla drivers have a lot more accidents than drivers of other cars. Buyer beware.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html
Understand that our daily driver is 24 years old now. Still meeting our needs as well as the day we bought it new.While I appreciate the frugality, there have been a LOT of safety improvements in 24 years. So much so that they've had to recalibrate the star rating many times (5 star safety in 1999 is probably 1 star safety in 2023)
I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.
I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.
I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.
It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.
I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside? Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.
No
I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.
It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.
I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside? Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.
No
I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian. I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.
I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed. I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online. It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.
Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's. I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA. I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging. It's much better than constant fast-food.
On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown. Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes. The rural charging situation was actually the easy part. Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.
I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.
It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.
I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside? Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.
No
I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian. I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.
I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed. I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online. It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.
Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's. I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA. I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging. It's much better than constant fast-food.
On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown. Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes. The rural charging situation was actually the easy part. Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.
Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers. Is this more than just a different shaped plug?
Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck. There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine. Am I ashamed? Nope. You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.
I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.
It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.
I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside? Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.
No
I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian. I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.
I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed. I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online. It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.
Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's. I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA. I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging. It's much better than constant fast-food.
On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown. Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes. The rural charging situation was actually the easy part. Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.
Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers. Is this more than just a different shaped plug?
Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck. There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine. Am I ashamed? Nope. You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.
If you are truly frugal and don't drive more than the bare minimum (use your bike and public transportation), you could well be doing more for the planet with the new ICE car. BEVs start life with a massive environmental deficit which can only be compensated by driving the daylights out of them vs an ICE.
Yeah, @GilesMM assertions rely on outdated assumptions about the embodied energy of battery packs and the “dirtiness” of the grid used both to produce the batteries and to recharge them.I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.
It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.
I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside? Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.
No
I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian. I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.
I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed. I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online. It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.
Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's. I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA. I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging. It's much better than constant fast-food.
On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown. Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes. The rural charging situation was actually the easy part. Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.
Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers. Is this more than just a different shaped plug?
Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck. There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine. Am I ashamed? Nope. You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.
If you are truly frugal and don't drive more than the bare minimum (use your bike and public transportation), you could well be doing more for the planet with the new ICE car. BEVs start life with a massive environmental deficit which can only be compensated by driving the daylights out of them vs an ICE.
Not really true anymore:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/image/upload/3e8e53c3e8d99a057c62f6122103d626.pnga)
I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.
It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.
I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside? Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.
No
I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian. I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.
I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed. I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online. It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.
Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's. I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA. I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging. It's much better than constant fast-food.
On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown. Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes. The rural charging situation was actually the easy part. Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.
Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers. Is this more than just a different shaped plug?
Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck. There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine. Am I ashamed? Nope. You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.
If you are truly frugal and don't drive more than the bare minimum (use your bike and public transportation), you could well be doing more for the planet with the new ICE car. BEVs start life with a massive environmental deficit which can only be compensated by driving the daylights out of them vs an ICE.
Not really true anymore:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/image/upload/3e8e53c3e8d99a057c62f6122103d626.pnga)
I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.
It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.
I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside? Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.
No
I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian. I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.
I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed. I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online. It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.
Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's. I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA. I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging. It's much better than constant fast-food.
On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown. Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes. The rural charging situation was actually the easy part. Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.
Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers. Is this more than just a different shaped plug?
Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck. There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine. Am I ashamed? Nope. You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.
I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.
It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.
I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside? Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.
No
I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian. I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.
I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed. I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online. It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.
Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's. I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA. I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging. It's much better than constant fast-food.
On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown. Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes. The rural charging situation was actually the easy part. Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.
Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers. Is this more than just a different shaped plug?
Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck. There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine. Am I ashamed? Nope. You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.
If you are truly frugal and don't drive more than the bare minimum (use your bike and public transportation), you could well be doing more for the planet with the new ICE car. BEVs start life with a massive environmental deficit which can only be compensated by driving the daylights out of them vs an ICE.
Not really true anymore:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/image/upload/3e8e53c3e8d99a057c62f6122103d626.pnga)
Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.
Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf)
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.
Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf)
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
It is a very nice analysis. The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.
Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.
Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf)
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
It is a very nice analysis. The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last by the oil and gas industry propaganda machine that want people to keep driving pickups and spend $100,000 on gas
Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.
Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf)
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
It is a very nice analysis. The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.
Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.
Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf)
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
It is a very nice analysis. The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.
Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.
Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf)
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
It is a very nice analysis. The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.
Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy. I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now. Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV.
It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings. I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.
Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.
Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf)
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
It is a very nice analysis. The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.
Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy. I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now. Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV.
It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings. I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.
Have they built out enough that every energy user in Colorado can choose 100% renewables?
Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.
Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf)
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
It is a very nice analysis. The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.
Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy. I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now. Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV.
It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings. I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.
Have they built out enough that every energy user in Colorado can choose 100% renewables?
Not yet. But we are moving rapidly in that direction. Based on what I read, I would estimate that anyone with an EV could go 100% renewables, easy.
It's cool to see the system dynamically changing for the better.
* Everywhere in the United States, driving the average EV results in lower emissions than the average new gasoline vehicle.
* Over 90 percent of people in the United States live in regions where driving the average EV produces lower emissions than the most efficient gasoline vehicle on the market today (59 miles per gallon).
Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.
Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf)
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
It is a very nice analysis. The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.
Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy. I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now. Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV.
It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings. I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.
Have they built out enough that every energy user in Colorado can choose 100% renewables?
Not yet. But we are moving rapidly in that direction. Based on what I read, I would estimate that anyone with an EV could go 100% renewables, easy.
It's cool to see the system dynamically changing for the better.
I'm also in Colorado and watching this in real time. Colorado is right around 30% renewables at the end of 2021. It's increased in the last few years, but I don't have solid numbers. This is pretty impressive given Colorado's history as a coal state.
But here's the thing. XCEL just submitted their resource plan for renewables. An expensive transmission project was just turned down, which means we'll only get to 77% renewables by 2030, instead of the ~85% they were proposing. They're still looking at 100% emission free electricity by 2040, but haven't worked out the details. In addition, these renewables are being used to phase out particularly dirty coal plants, so the emissions reductions will be greater than the renewables percentage implies.
So any EV purchased today in Colorado will have something like a 2/3 lower operating emissions 10 years from now than it does today.
Here's one of my favorite visualization tools if you want to see how clean your electricity is. It's based on where power is produced and not where it is consumed, but it is still useful to view your state's emissions intensity (output emissions rate) and the total emissions at the plant level.
https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer (https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer)
Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.
Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf)
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
It is a very nice analysis. The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.
Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy. I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now. Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV.
It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings. I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.
Have they built out enough that every energy user in Colorado can choose 100% renewables?
Not yet. But we are moving rapidly in that direction. Based on what I read, I would estimate that anyone with an EV could go 100% renewables, easy.
It's cool to see the system dynamically changing for the better.
I'm also in Colorado and watching this in real time. Colorado is right around 30% renewables at the end of 2021. It's increased in the last few years, but I don't have solid numbers. This is pretty impressive given Colorado's history as a coal state.
But here's the thing. XCEL just submitted their resource plan for renewables. An expensive transmission project was just turned down, which means we'll only get to 77% renewables by 2030, instead of the ~85% they were proposing. They're still looking at 100% emission free electricity by 2040, but haven't worked out the details. In addition, these renewables are being used to phase out particularly dirty coal plants, so the emissions reductions will be greater than the renewables percentage implies.
So any EV purchased today in Colorado will have something like a 2/3 lower operating emissions 10 years from now than it does today.
Here's one of my favorite visualization tools if you want to see how clean your electricity is. It's based on where power is produced and not where it is consumed, but it is still useful to view your state's emissions intensity (output emissions rate) and the total emissions at the plant level.
https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer (https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer)
Interesting map - So Michigan, Eastern Wisconsin and Iowa look to be the worst states. Who would have predicted those? I guess all the nukes in Chicago lighten its emissions. The map kind of combines density of population with available energy types. All that hydro and wind power in the West really lowers emissions.
Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.
Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf)
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
It is a very nice analysis. The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.
Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy. I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now. Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV.
It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings. I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.
Have they built out enough that every energy user in Colorado can choose 100% renewables?
Not yet. But we are moving rapidly in that direction. Based on what I read, I would estimate that anyone with an EV could go 100% renewables, easy.
It's cool to see the system dynamically changing for the better.
I'm also in Colorado and watching this in real time. Colorado is right around 30% renewables at the end of 2021. It's increased in the last few years, but I don't have solid numbers. This is pretty impressive given Colorado's history as a coal state.
But here's the thing. XCEL just submitted their resource plan for renewables. An expensive transmission project was just turned down, which means we'll only get to 77% renewables by 2030, instead of the ~85% they were proposing. They're still looking at 100% emission free electricity by 2040, but haven't worked out the details. In addition, these renewables are being used to phase out particularly dirty coal plants, so the emissions reductions will be greater than the renewables percentage implies.
So any EV purchased today in Colorado will have something like a 2/3 lower operating emissions 10 years from now than it does today.
Here's one of my favorite visualization tools if you want to see how clean your electricity is. It's based on where power is produced and not where it is consumed, but it is still useful to view your state's emissions intensity (output emissions rate) and the total emissions at the plant level.
https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer (https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer)
Interesting map - So Michigan, Eastern Wisconsin and Iowa look to be the worst states. Who would have predicted those? I guess all the nukes in Chicago lighten its emissions. The map kind of combines density of population with available energy types. All that hydro and wind power in the West really lowers emissions.
These are great points that I didn't think of, thank you both. Yeah, it's true what you say, the grid today is already cleaner to run an EV than an ICE car and is getting better and better over time. So if you're looking to buy a car, the best time to get an EV is right now.
And EV's are literally 5x times cheaper to run than gas cars. I figured on the MMM forum, something that was a) cheaper to run and b) better for the environment would be a no brainer.
Edit to add - I just looked up on Xcel's website what percentage renewable power generation we're at right now. 42%. !!!!!!! Holy crap that's awesome. We live in amazing times. https://co.my.xcelenergy.com/s/energy-portfolio/power-generation/certified-renewable-percentage
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
There’s a massive problem with NIMBYism, with funding (new plants are multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects), with the duration to build a new plant from scratch (no plant in 50 years as been build in under a decade from groundbreaking to decommissioning anywhere in the western hemisphere, and many have been scuttled mid-project after billions in sunk costs).
There’s only a handful of companies which can actually undertake such projects. There’s no national repository for spent fuel, and current regulations require reactor sites to budget both the ultimate decomissioning and fuel storage (out to 99 years) in their annual budget.
all older (Gen II/III) and most newer designs require a large source of water, meaning they need to be on a coast, predictable river or large (sometimes man made) lake.
And of course there are both the security and safety concerns. National security threats means the plants must be built like super-max prisons in reverse. Safety means designing in the biggest threats of 100year events plus a huge margin.
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
There’s a massive problem with NIMBYism, with funding (new plants are multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects), with the duration to build a new plant from scratch (no plant in 50 years as been build in under a decade from groundbreaking to decommissioning anywhere in the western hemisphere, and many have been scuttled mid-project after billions in sunk costs).
There’s only a handful of companies which can actually undertake such projects. There’s no national repository for spent fuel, and current regulations require reactor sites to budget both the ultimate decomissioning and fuel storage (out to 99 years) in their annual budget.
all older (Gen II/III) and most newer designs require a large source of water, meaning they need to be on a coast, predictable river or large (sometimes man made) lake.
And of course there are both the security and safety concerns. National security threats means the plants must be built like super-max prisons in reverse. Safety means designing in the biggest threats of 100year events plus a huge margin.
Do you think moving away from solar was a good decision? I mean, the things you mention all sound like massively significant hurdles/issues.
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
There’s a massive problem with NIMBYism, with funding (new plants are multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects), with the duration to build a new plant from scratch (no plant in 50 years as been build in under a decade from groundbreaking to decommissioning anywhere in the western hemisphere, and many have been scuttled mid-project after billions in sunk costs).
There’s only a handful of companies which can actually undertake such projects. There’s no national repository for spent fuel, and current regulations require reactor sites to budget both the ultimate decomissioning and fuel storage (out to 99 years) in their annual budget.
all older (Gen II/III) and most newer designs require a large source of water, meaning they need to be on a coast, predictable river or large (sometimes man made) lake.
And of course there are both the security and safety concerns. National security threats means the plants must be built like super-max prisons in reverse. Safety means designing in the biggest threats of 100year events plus a huge margin.
Do you think moving away from solar was a good decision? I mean, the things you mention all sound like massively significant hurdles/issues.
What makes you think we are in any way “moving away from solar”?
The amount of solar-generated electricity continues to increase at a rather substantial rate. We are just now seeing larger scale wind projects take off those two things are not contradictory
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
There’s a massive problem with NIMBYism, with funding (new plants are multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects), with the duration to build a new plant from scratch (no plant in 50 years as been build in under a decade from groundbreaking to decommissioning anywhere in the western hemisphere, and many have been scuttled mid-project after billions in sunk costs).
There’s only a handful of companies which can actually undertake such projects. There’s no national repository for spent fuel, and current regulations require reactor sites to budget both the ultimate decomissioning and fuel storage (out to 99 years) in their annual budget.
all older (Gen II/III) and most newer designs require a large source of water, meaning they need to be on a coast, predictable river or large (sometimes man made) lake.
And of course there are both the security and safety concerns. National security threats means the plants must be built like super-max prisons in reverse. Safety means designing in the biggest threats of 100year events plus a huge margin.
Do you think moving away from solar was a good decision? I mean, the things you mention all sound like massively significant hurdles/issues.
What makes you think we are in any way “moving away from solar”?
The amount of solar-generated electricity continues to increase at a rather substantial rate. We are just now seeing larger scale wind projects take off those two things are not contradictory
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
There’s a massive problem with NIMBYism, with funding (new plants are multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects), with the duration to build a new plant from scratch (no plant in 50 years as been build in under a decade from groundbreaking to decommissioning anywhere in the western hemisphere, and many have been scuttled mid-project after billions in sunk costs).
There’s only a handful of companies which can actually undertake such projects. There’s no national repository for spent fuel, and current regulations require reactor sites to budget both the ultimate decomissioning and fuel storage (out to 99 years) in their annual budget.
all older (Gen II/III) and most newer designs require a large source of water, meaning they need to be on a coast, predictable river or large (sometimes man made) lake.
And of course there are both the security and safety concerns. National security threats means the plants must be built like super-max prisons in reverse. Safety means designing in the biggest threats of 100year events plus a huge margin.
Do you think moving away from solar was a good decision? I mean, the things you mention all sound like massively significant hurdles/issues.
What makes you think we are in any way “moving away from solar”?
The amount of solar-generated electricity continues to increase at a rather substantial rate. We are just now seeing larger scale wind projects take off those two things are not contradictory
Sorry, typo. I meant nuclear.
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?
While you are Googling, search for "Fukushima", then "Chernobyl".
While you are Googling, search for "Fukushima", then "Chernobyl".Are you saying we should be wringing our hands over the zero people that died directly as a result of the Fukushima disaster? Not to downplay the negative effects that did come out of that (loss of land, people having to leave behind their homes), the deaths per energy produced from nuclear power are lower than any other form of electricity generation. The difference is that a whole bunch of people died at once due to the Chernobyl incident, whereas a person falling off of a wind turbine every once in a while doesn't really make the news.
The green people use the word renewable rather than emission free so you don't always know.
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?
Are you saying we should be wringing our hands over the zero people that died directly as a result of the Fukushima disaster? Not to downplay the negative effects that did come out of that (loss of land, people having to leave behind their homes), the deaths per energy produced from nuclear power are lower than any other form of electricity generation.It is true that e.g. coal constantly kills (as do cars), while nuclear tends to be one big event thing. That is why I - "anti-nuclear" - would have been okay with letting the German ones run a few years longer if it meant shutting down coal earlier.
While you are Googling, search for "Fukushima", then "Chernobyl".Are you saying we should be wringing our hands over the zero people that died directly as a result of the Fukushima disaster? Not to downplay the negative effects that did come out of that (loss of land, people having to leave behind their homes), the deaths per energy produced from nuclear power are lower than any other form of electricity generation. The difference is that a whole bunch of people died at once due to the Chernobyl incident, whereas a person falling off of a wind turbine every once in a while doesn't really make the news.
While you are Googling, search for "Fukushima", then "Chernobyl".Are you saying we should be wringing our hands over the zero people that died directly as a result of the Fukushima disaster? Not to downplay the negative effects that did come out of that (loss of land, people having to leave behind their homes), the deaths per energy produced from nuclear power are lower than any other form of electricity generation. The difference is that a whole bunch of people died at once due to the Chernobyl incident, whereas a person falling off of a wind turbine every once in a while doesn't really make the news.
Where did I say any of those things???
The green people use the word renewable rather than emission free so you don't always know.
No, it's not the "green people" mixing things up, it's you mixing things together.
Nuclear power is not renewable. Which is one reason why "everything go nuclear" is so stupid. If all electricity todaywould be generated by nuclear we would be out of fuel in a single generation.
While you are Googling, search for "Fukushima", then "Chernobyl".Are you saying we should be wringing our hands over the zero people that died directly as a result of the Fukushima disaster? Not to downplay the negative effects that did come out of that (loss of land, people having to leave behind their homes), the deaths per energy produced from nuclear power are lower than any other form of electricity generation. The difference is that a whole bunch of people died at once due to the Chernobyl incident, whereas a person falling off of a wind turbine every once in a while doesn't really make the news.
Where did I say any of those things???
You mentioned Chernobyl and Fukushima (see above). Honestly, it’s hard to tell whether you are just trolling this thread or simply not seeing the massive biases and erroneous information you are bringing to this discussion. In the specific cases of Chernobyl and Fukushima (and the dangers of nuclear plants in general) it’s notable that scores of lethal and costly disasters with fossil fuels were not mentioned.
Further, Fukushima occurred in 2011, Chernobyl in ‘86; we basically stopped building new plants in the early 1980s ( a very few existing plants had newer reactors installed alongside existing reactors). In other words - the timeline simply doesn’t fit
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
There’s a massive problem with NIMBYism, with funding (new plants are multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects), with the duration to build a new plant from scratch (no plant in 50 years as been build in under a decade from groundbreaking to decommissioning anywhere in the western hemisphere, and many have been scuttled mid-project after billions in sunk costs).
There’s only a handful of companies which can actually undertake such projects. There’s no national repository for spent fuel, and current regulations require reactor sites to budget both the ultimate decomissioning and fuel storage (out to 99 years) in their annual budget.
all older (Gen II/III) and most newer designs require a large source of water, meaning they need to be on a coast, predictable river or large (sometimes man made) lake.
And of course there are both the security and safety concerns. National security threats means the plants must be built like super-max prisons in reverse. Safety means designing in the biggest threats of 100year events plus a huge margin.
Do you think moving away from solar was a good decision? I mean, the things you mention all sound like massively significant hurdles/issues.
What makes you think we are in any way “moving away from solar”?
The amount of solar-generated electricity continues to increase at a rather substantial rate. We are just now seeing larger scale wind projects take off those two things are not contradictory
At COP28, bureaucrats pledged to triple nuclear power by 2050.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key (https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key)
Solar still doesn't make sense everywhere. For example, I want my furnace to work at night. However, it seems like every week there is a new "Gee Whiz" article promising great improvements in batteries of some sort. It could be great if they could get it to work for Summer air conditioning. However, I only ran my air conditioner about 4 hours last Summer.
I think this geothermal energy using frakking technology may be the dark horse that emerges for your electric car charging dreams,
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
There’s a massive problem with NIMBYism, with funding (new plants are multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects), with the duration to build a new plant from scratch (no plant in 50 years as been build in under a decade from groundbreaking to decommissioning anywhere in the western hemisphere, and many have been scuttled mid-project after billions in sunk costs).
There’s only a handful of companies which can actually undertake such projects. There’s no national repository for spent fuel, and current regulations require reactor sites to budget both the ultimate decomissioning and fuel storage (out to 99 years) in their annual budget.
all older (Gen II/III) and most newer designs require a large source of water, meaning they need to be on a coast, predictable river or large (sometimes man made) lake.
And of course there are both the security and safety concerns. National security threats means the plants must be built like super-max prisons in reverse. Safety means designing in the biggest threats of 100year events plus a huge margin.
Do you think moving away from solar was a good decision? I mean, the things you mention all sound like massively significant hurdles/issues.
What makes you think we are in any way “moving away from solar”?
The amount of solar-generated electricity continues to increase at a rather substantial rate. We are just now seeing larger scale wind projects take off those two things are not contradictory
At COP28, bureaucrats pledged to triple nuclear power by 2050.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key (https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key)
Solar still doesn't make sense everywhere. For example, I want my furnace to work at night. However, it seems like every week there is a new "Gee Whiz" article promising great improvements in batteries of some sort. It could be great if they could get it to work for Summer air conditioning. However, I only ran my air conditioner about 4 hours last Summer.
I think this geothermal energy using frakking technology may be the dark horse that emerges for your electric car charging dreams,
What's really promising to change things is grid-scale batteries. They're commonly associated and paired with newer renewable installations to provide consistent output. But equally interesting is their ability to disrupt the business of a lot of really expensive peaker power plants or older inefficient plants. More efficient plants could now theoretically run at much higher capacity all of the time, and batteries could supply the fluctuation in demand between low/high demand times.
Tesla got a lot of press for their installations, which are essentially the same batteries that go in cars on a larger scale.
What's going to change things is the advent of Iron Flow (or similar) batteries. They have much lower energy density than EV batteries, but happen to be much cheaper, and don't have the same requirements of rare and expensive metals.
There's a few companies out there. I'm familiar with ESS Inc. This technology is at the scale where initial pilot projects are being completed now. It should scale up fairly rapidly if the pilot projects are successful.
Other battery technologies focused on higher density are out there, and they are real. The articles just fail to distinguish between what stage the technology is at. There's lab stage, pilot stage, low volume commercial and high volume commercial. There's at least 10-20 years between lab stage and high volume commercial. Many articles focus on things in the lab stage.
Some of the most promising solid state companies are in the stage of low-volume commercial, and are starting to build the infrastructure for high-volume commercial. Look up Sila, Quantumscape, Amperius, and SolidPower if you want to understand what we're likely to see in the back half of this decade and early next decade.
I misunderstood what you were trying to say then. I thought your response was to the statement "The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy." If instead you were trying to say that it is not more widely adopted because of people's perception of danger due to these incidents, then I can agree with that. Although I disagree with the statement that these perceptions are valid, in the scale that they are held by many people and compared to other electricity sources. Many people push to ban nuclear (see: Germany) after a worst case scenario occurred, yet very few people want to bad hydroelectric plants despite the worst case scenario having killed many more people in the past.While you are Googling, search for "Fukushima", then "Chernobyl".Are you saying we should be wringing our hands over the zero people that died directly as a result of the Fukushima disaster? Not to downplay the negative effects that did come out of that (loss of land, people having to leave behind their homes), the deaths per energy produced from nuclear power are lower than any other form of electricity generation. The difference is that a whole bunch of people died at once due to the Chernobyl incident, whereas a person falling off of a wind turbine every once in a while doesn't really make the news.
Where did I say any of those things???
You mentioned Chernobyl and Fukushima (see above). Honestly, it’s hard to tell whether you are just trolling this thread or simply not seeing the massive biases and erroneous information you are bringing to this discussion. In the specific cases of Chernobyl and Fukushima (and the dangers of nuclear plants in general) it’s notable that scores of lethal and costly disasters with fossil fuels were not mentioned.
Further, Fukushima occurred in 2011, Chernobyl in ‘86; we basically stopped building new plants in the early 1980s ( a very few existing plants had newer reactors installed alongside existing reactors). In other words - the timeline simply doesn’t fit
I was responding to someone who said they were googling for reasons that nuclear was out of favor. Concern over accidents are the main reason (along with spent fuel storage and cost). That is not biased or erroneous. It is factual. The slowdown on reactor building in the US was a direct response to outrage from citizens over the safe operation and safe disposal - lawsuits were filed and plant costs soared. You can google "Three Mile Island" if you want a pre-1980 disaster. The Russian and Japanese disasters further showed those concerns to be valid.
I misunderstood what you were trying to say then. I thought your response was to the statement "The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy." If instead you were trying to say that it is not more widely adopted because of people's perception of danger due to these incidents, then I can agree with that. Although I disagree with the statement that these perceptions are valid, in the scale that they are held by many people and compared to other electricity sources. Many people push to ban nuclear (see: Germany) after a worst case scenario occurred, yet very few people want to bad hydroelectric plants despite the worst case scenario having killed many more people in the past.While you are Googling, search for "Fukushima", then "Chernobyl".Are you saying we should be wringing our hands over the zero people that died directly as a result of the Fukushima disaster? Not to downplay the negative effects that did come out of that (loss of land, people having to leave behind their homes), the deaths per energy produced from nuclear power are lower than any other form of electricity generation. The difference is that a whole bunch of people died at once due to the Chernobyl incident, whereas a person falling off of a wind turbine every once in a while doesn't really make the news.
Where did I say any of those things???
You mentioned Chernobyl and Fukushima (see above). Honestly, it’s hard to tell whether you are just trolling this thread or simply not seeing the massive biases and erroneous information you are bringing to this discussion. In the specific cases of Chernobyl and Fukushima (and the dangers of nuclear plants in general) it’s notable that scores of lethal and costly disasters with fossil fuels were not mentioned.
Further, Fukushima occurred in 2011, Chernobyl in ‘86; we basically stopped building new plants in the early 1980s ( a very few existing plants had newer reactors installed alongside existing reactors). In other words - the timeline simply doesn’t fit
I was responding to someone who said they were googling for reasons that nuclear was out of favor. Concern over accidents are the main reason (along with spent fuel storage and cost). That is not biased or erroneous. It is factual. The slowdown on reactor building in the US was a direct response to outrage from citizens over the safe operation and safe disposal - lawsuits were filed and plant costs soared. You can google "Three Mile Island" if you want a pre-1980 disaster. The Russian and Japanese disasters further showed those concerns to be valid.
Edit: I think a bigger contributor to people's fear of nuclear power than actual problems at nuclear power plants was nuclear weapons and the association between the two. Even thermo-nuclear generators used on spacecraft cause backlash because they have the word "nuclear" in them. See the "no nukes in space" protests.
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
There’s a massive problem with NIMBYism, with funding (new plants are multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects), with the duration to build a new plant from scratch (no plant in 50 years as been build in under a decade from groundbreaking to decommissioning anywhere in the western hemisphere, and many have been scuttled mid-project after billions in sunk costs).
There’s only a handful of companies which can actually undertake such projects. There’s no national repository for spent fuel, and current regulations require reactor sites to budget both the ultimate decomissioning and fuel storage (out to 99 years) in their annual budget.
all older (Gen II/III) and most newer designs require a large source of water, meaning they need to be on a coast, predictable river or large (sometimes man made) lake.
And of course there are both the security and safety concerns. National security threats means the plants must be built like super-max prisons in reverse. Safety means designing in the biggest threats of 100year events plus a huge margin.
Do you think moving away from solar was a good decision? I mean, the things you mention all sound like massively significant hurdles/issues.
What makes you think we are in any way “moving away from solar”?
The amount of solar-generated electricity continues to increase at a rather substantial rate. We are just now seeing larger scale wind projects take off those two things are not contradictory
At COP28, bureaucrats pledged to triple nuclear power by 2050.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key (https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key)
Solar still doesn't make sense everywhere. For example, I want my furnace to work at night. However, it seems like every week there is a new "Gee Whiz" article promising great improvements in batteries of some sort. It could be great if they could get it to work for Summer air conditioning. However, I only ran my air conditioner about 4 hours last Summer.
I think this geothermal energy using frakking technology may be the dark horse that emerges for your electric car charging dreams,
What's really promising to change things is grid-scale batteries. They're commonly associated and paired with newer renewable installations to provide consistent output. But equally interesting is their ability to disrupt the business of a lot of really expensive peaker power plants or older inefficient plants. More efficient plants could now theoretically run at much higher capacity all of the time, and batteries could supply the fluctuation in demand between low/high demand times.
Tesla got a lot of press for their installations, which are essentially the same batteries that go in cars on a larger scale.
What's going to change things is the advent of Iron Flow (or similar) batteries. They have much lower energy density than EV batteries, but happen to be much cheaper, and don't have the same requirements of rare and expensive metals.
There's a few companies out there. I'm familiar with ESS Inc. This technology is at the scale where initial pilot projects are being completed now. It should scale up fairly rapidly if the pilot projects are successful.
Other battery technologies focused on higher density are out there, and they are real. The articles just fail to distinguish between what stage the technology is at. There's lab stage, pilot stage, low volume commercial and high volume commercial. There's at least 10-20 years between lab stage and high volume commercial. Many articles focus on things in the lab stage.
Some of the most promising solid state companies are in the stage of low-volume commercial, and are starting to build the infrastructure for high-volume commercial. Look up Sila, Quantumscape, Amperius, and SolidPower if you want to understand what we're likely to see in the back half of this decade and early next decade.
It takes an enormous amount of batteries to supply utility size power. It's not just a laptop or a bicycle light. They may only get a few hours of "peaking" power out of some of these batteries. That's OK. Many years ago I worked fro one of the companies that now make up Xcel Energy. They had a peak need for electrical energy every day about 5:00 PM. Then the peak decayed in a few hours. To meet that peak, they used to fire up old less efficient coal plants and they had some plants that actually used aircraft jet engines to turn generators. Neither were too clean or efficient. The new batteries could eliminate the need for peaking plants. The new batteries would eliminate all of the emissions from those none existent peaking plants. Those batteries would eliminate all the maintenance and repair of those peaking plants.
Of course if the proper electronics were installed, perhaps electric cars that are on chargers at peaking times could also perform this task.
Back to nuclear, but just on the edge. I was reading about the molten salt reactors. I was surprised to find out that a plant using molten salt had been built fairly recently. However, it wasn't nuclear but solar. Solar reflectors heated molten salt to store heat at high temperatures and act as a sort of thermal battery. The specific heat must be high enough to enable this. This allowed prolonged operation after sunset.
https://www.yara.com/industrial-nitrogen/solar-power-molten-salt/ (https://www.yara.com/industrial-nitrogen/solar-power-molten-salt/)
One would think that if molten salt could be used for solar plants, why not nukes? However reactor metal has to deal with the effects of radiation on the metal such as neutron embrittlement.
Back to electric cars and maybe some about hybrids
However, that doesn't stop molten salts from being a thermal battery storing heat which can later be tapped to run a turbine generator.
The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy. What are we moving away from it, anyone know? Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
There’s a massive problem with NIMBYism, with funding (new plants are multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects), with the duration to build a new plant from scratch (no plant in 50 years as been build in under a decade from groundbreaking to decommissioning anywhere in the western hemisphere, and many have been scuttled mid-project after billions in sunk costs).
There’s only a handful of companies which can actually undertake such projects. There’s no national repository for spent fuel, and current regulations require reactor sites to budget both the ultimate decomissioning and fuel storage (out to 99 years) in their annual budget.
all older (Gen II/III) and most newer designs require a large source of water, meaning they need to be on a coast, predictable river or large (sometimes man made) lake.
And of course there are both the security and safety concerns. National security threats means the plants must be built like super-max prisons in reverse. Safety means designing in the biggest threats of 100year events plus a huge margin.
Do you think moving away from solar was a good decision? I mean, the things you mention all sound like massively significant hurdles/issues.
What makes you think we are in any way “moving away from solar”?
The amount of solar-generated electricity continues to increase at a rather substantial rate. We are just now seeing larger scale wind projects take off those two things are not contradictory
At COP28, bureaucrats pledged to triple nuclear power by 2050.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key (https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key)
Solar still doesn't make sense everywhere. For example, I want my furnace to work at night. However, it seems like every week there is a new "Gee Whiz" article promising great improvements in batteries of some sort. It could be great if they could get it to work for Summer air conditioning. However, I only ran my air conditioner about 4 hours last Summer.
I think this geothermal energy using frakking technology may be the dark horse that emerges for your electric car charging dreams,
What's really promising to change things is grid-scale batteries. They're commonly associated and paired with newer renewable installations to provide consistent output. But equally interesting is their ability to disrupt the business of a lot of really expensive peaker power plants or older inefficient plants. More efficient plants could now theoretically run at much higher capacity all of the time, and batteries could supply the fluctuation in demand between low/high demand times.
Tesla got a lot of press for their installations, which are essentially the same batteries that go in cars on a larger scale.
What's going to change things is the advent of Iron Flow (or similar) batteries. They have much lower energy density than EV batteries, but happen to be much cheaper, and don't have the same requirements of rare and expensive metals.
There's a few companies out there. I'm familiar with ESS Inc. This technology is at the scale where initial pilot projects are being completed now. It should scale up fairly rapidly if the pilot projects are successful.
Other battery technologies focused on higher density are out there, and they are real. The articles just fail to distinguish between what stage the technology is at. There's lab stage, pilot stage, low volume commercial and high volume commercial. There's at least 10-20 years between lab stage and high volume commercial. Many articles focus on things in the lab stage.
Some of the most promising solid state companies are in the stage of low-volume commercial, and are starting to build the infrastructure for high-volume commercial. Look up Sila, Quantumscape, Amperius, and SolidPower if you want to understand what we're likely to see in the back half of this decade and early next decade.
It takes an enormous amount of batteries to supply utility size power. It's not just a laptop or a bicycle light. They may only get a few hours of "peaking" power out of some of these batteries. That's OK. Many years ago I worked fro one of the companies that now make up Xcel Energy. They had a peak need for electrical energy every day about 5:00 PM. Then the peak decayed in a few hours. To meet that peak, they used to fire up old less efficient coal plants and they had some plants that actually used aircraft jet engines to turn generators. Neither were too clean or efficient. The new batteries could eliminate the need for peaking plants. The new batteries would eliminate all of the emissions from those none existent peaking plants. Those batteries would eliminate all the maintenance and repair of those peaking plants.
Of course if the proper electronics were installed, perhaps electric cars that are on chargers at peaking times could also perform this task.
Back to nuclear, but just on the edge. I was reading about the molten salt reactors. I was surprised to find out that a plant using molten salt had been built fairly recently. However, it wasn't nuclear but solar. Solar reflectors heated molten salt to store heat at high temperatures and act as a sort of thermal battery. The specific heat must be high enough to enable this. This allowed prolonged operation after sunset.
https://www.yara.com/industrial-nitrogen/solar-power-molten-salt/ (https://www.yara.com/industrial-nitrogen/solar-power-molten-salt/)
One would think that if molten salt could be used for solar plants, why not nukes? However reactor metal has to deal with the effects of radiation on the metal such as neutron embrittlement.
Back to electric cars and maybe some about hybrids
However, that doesn't stop molten salts from being a thermal battery storing heat which can later be tapped to run a turbine generator.
The semi-newly proposed nuclear reactor in Wyoming does use molten salt. I'm skeptical that it will be cost effective, but hope to be proven wrong.
You can see some of XCEL's plan's at the link below. TLDR, they proposed adding 3,400MW of wind, 1,100MW of solar, 1,400MW of solar with storage, 600MW of standalone storage and 600MW of natural gas capacity. This proposal was trimmed of some of the wind capacity after this article was published, with projections now sitting at 77% renewable generation by 2030 instead of 83%.
These aren't small batteries we're talking about. I'm not in the utility industry, but there seems to be a shift going on where batteries are shifting from being a several-hour phenomenon to an overnight or even multi-day thing.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/12/07/xcel-clean-energy-puc-cuts/ (https://coloradosun.com/2023/12/07/xcel-clean-energy-puc-cuts/)
But they're a symptom of the larger problem: America's EV plan was flawed from the start. Instead of seeing EVs as one piece of a plan for more sustainable transportation, America has focused on using EVs as a one-to-one replacement for gas guzzlers. But this one-size-fits-all solution fails to address our broader transportation problems, meaning emissions targets are likely to be missed and other transportation problems will continue to go unaddressed.
The reasons for the size inflation range from profit margins to distorted government fuel standards, but the proliferation of bigger vehicles created a doom loop of consumer preference: Drivers saw the vehicles around them getting bigger, so they wanted bigger cars to make themselves feel safer. Automakers argued that this was proof that people wanted only big cars, so they cut small models and made existing vehicles bigger, which made people with smaller cars feel less safe — you get the picture. Meanwhile, road deaths and injuries soared, while the larger, less efficient vehicles wiped out environmental benefits from higher emissions standards.
Since Americans have been promised a one-to-one substitute for their gas cars, this seems like a failure; an EV should be able to do everything a gas car can. This idea persists even though in 2023 the average US driver traveled only about 40 miles a day, and in 2022 about 93% of US trips were less than 30 miles.
The polling firm Strategic Vision found that EV buyers have a median household income of $186,000.
EVs can be an important part of the fight against the climate crisis, but America's EV plan needs to lean into what these cars do well: short daily trips that can be taken in small, affordable cars. People who frequently take long trips can take advantage of hybrid cars. And better public transit and faster intercity trains could make a huge difference for people and the planet.
What happened to EVs? (https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-ev-sales-prices-problem-transportation-2024-1)
The sudden slowdown in electric car sales is a symptom of a much uglier problem.
I think it's possible to say that EVs hold tons of potential, and will continue to see sales growth, while also acknowledging that the rate of growth has slowed, or hasn't been as insatiable as many proponents in government or the auto industry have forecast. Identifying some headwinds for EV adoption isn't necessarily shitting on EVs. They're still expensive, and higher interest rates have kneecapped affordability. Many of the wealthy, early adopters already own them so now they have to compete on affordability and practicality metrics if they're to become mainstream. EVs that are less expensive or more capable will likely come to market, but it's going to take a few more years for tech to mature and manufacturing costs to decrease.
What happened to EVs? (https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-ev-sales-prices-problem-transportation-2024-1)
The sudden slowdown in electric car sales is a symptom of a much uglier problem.
Excellent article which nicely captures why I feel meh about the current state of the EV market. I remain hopeful about the future however.
One thing to add - I heard an interesting opinion on the Odd Lots podcast recently about the US strategy for EVs. The analyst said that the early emphasis of the IRA is on increasing domestic production of EV components. And for strategic reasons, these are located in states that would normally be the strongest opponents of EVs. By locating EV factories there, the representatives from those states are less likely to enact measures against EVs.
Meh. Everyone seems to be ignoring what's probably the biggest factor. People were really excited about EV's a few years back when gas was ~$4.50/gallon and Russia's invasion of Ukraine reminded everyone about where energy dollars were going (even if the US wasn't a big Russia buyer). People are a lot less interested now that gas prices are ~$2.50/gallon and there's less constant reminder about energy shocks.
Interest rates don't help either. For most people who view car prices in monthly payments, it's a lot harder to justify the gas savings.
Bringing the price of EV's down is great, and it needs to happen. But it only makes a difference if the price of the competition (ICE car + gas costs) stays the same or goes up.
Meh. Everyone seems to be ignoring what's probably the biggest factor. People were really excited about EV's a few years back when gas was ~$4.50/gallon and Russia's invasion of Ukraine reminded everyone about where energy dollars were going (even if the US wasn't a big Russia buyer). People are a lot less interested now that gas prices are ~$2.50/gallon and there's less constant reminder about energy shocks.
Interest rates don't help either. For most people who view car prices in monthly payments, it's a lot harder to justify the gas savings.
Bringing the price of EV's down is great, and it needs to happen. But it only makes a difference if the price of the competition (ICE car + gas costs) stays the same or goes up.
Gas prices are a good point. As of 2Q2023, most ICE cars were about 20-30% cheaper to operate per mile than their electric counterparts (if you believe the study linked below). And gas prices were higher than they are today so the economics diverge further. States like Texas with high electricity rates and cheap gas will be a hard sell (plus Texans and their huge trucks...).
https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/many-gas-powered-cars-cheaper-to-fuel-than-electric-in-2023/
Now we are at ~9% of all new car sold...
U.S. consumers purchasing new light-duty cars or trucks are increasingly considering electric vehicles, which are on pace to make up 9% of sales this year according to data from EV Hub, a tracker run by Atlas Public Policy. EVs, including plug-in hybrids, accounted for 7.3% sales in 2022.
We also don't need any oil changes, transmission fluids/maintenance, brake work (pads on our EV with ~30k miles are practically new still), etc, etc, etc. Those add up pretty fast as well.
Meh. Everyone seems to be ignoring what's probably the biggest factor. People were really excited about EV's a few years back when gas was ~$4.50/gallon and Russia's invasion of Ukraine reminded everyone about where energy dollars were going (even if the US wasn't a big Russia buyer). People are a lot less interested now that gas prices are ~$2.50/gallon and there's less constant reminder about energy shocks.
Interest rates don't help either. For most people who view car prices in monthly payments, it's a lot harder to justify the gas savings.
Bringing the price of EV's down is great, and it needs to happen. But it only makes a difference if the price of the competition (ICE car + gas costs) stays the same or goes up.
Gas prices are a good point. As of 2Q2023, most ICE cars were about 20-30% cheaper to operate per mile than their electric counterparts (if you believe the study linked below). And gas prices were higher than they are today so the economics diverge further. States like Texas with high electricity rates and cheap gas will be a hard sell (plus Texans and their huge trucks...).
https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/many-gas-powered-cars-cheaper-to-fuel-than-electric-in-2023/
Meh. Everyone seems to be ignoring what's probably the biggest factor. People were really excited about EV's a few years back when gas was ~$4.50/gallon and Russia's invasion of Ukraine reminded everyone about where energy dollars were going (even if the US wasn't a big Russia buyer). People are a lot less interested now that gas prices are ~$2.50/gallon and there's less constant reminder about energy shocks.
Interest rates don't help either. For most people who view car prices in monthly payments, it's a lot harder to justify the gas savings.
Bringing the price of EV's down is great, and it needs to happen. But it only makes a difference if the price of the competition (ICE car + gas costs) stays the same or goes up.
Gas prices are a good point. As of 2Q2023, most ICE cars were about 20-30% cheaper to operate per mile than their electric counterparts (if you believe the study linked below). And gas prices were higher than they are today so the economics diverge further. States like Texas with high electricity rates and cheap gas will be a hard sell (plus Texans and their huge trucks...).
https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/many-gas-powered-cars-cheaper-to-fuel-than-electric-in-2023/
Meh. Everyone seems to be ignoring what's probably the biggest factor. People were really excited about EV's a few years back when gas was ~$4.50/gallon and Russia's invasion of Ukraine reminded everyone about where energy dollars were going (even if the US wasn't a big Russia buyer). People are a lot less interested now that gas prices are ~$2.50/gallon and there's less constant reminder about energy shocks.
Interest rates don't help either. For most people who view car prices in monthly payments, it's a lot harder to justify the gas savings.
Bringing the price of EV's down is great, and it needs to happen. But it only makes a difference if the price of the competition (ICE car + gas costs) stays the same or goes up.
Gas prices are a good point. As of 2Q2023, most ICE cars were about 20-30% cheaper to operate per mile than their electric counterparts (if you believe the study linked below). And gas prices were higher than they are today so the economics diverge further. States like Texas with high electricity rates and cheap gas will be a hard sell (plus Texans and their huge trucks...).
https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/many-gas-powered-cars-cheaper-to-fuel-than-electric-in-2023/
Meh. Everyone seems to be ignoring what's probably the biggest factor. People were really excited about EV's a few years back when gas was ~$4.50/gallon and Russia's invasion of Ukraine reminded everyone about where energy dollars were going (even if the US wasn't a big Russia buyer). People are a lot less interested now that gas prices are ~$2.50/gallon and there's less constant reminder about energy shocks.
Interest rates don't help either. For most people who view car prices in monthly payments, it's a lot harder to justify the gas savings.
Bringing the price of EV's down is great, and it needs to happen. But it only makes a difference if the price of the competition (ICE car + gas costs) stays the same or goes up.
Gas prices are a good point. As of 2Q2023, most ICE cars were about 20-30% cheaper to operate per mile than their electric counterparts (if you believe the study linked below). And gas prices were higher than they are today so the economics diverge further. States like Texas with high electricity rates and cheap gas will be a hard sell (plus Texans and their huge trucks...).
https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/many-gas-powered-cars-cheaper-to-fuel-than-electric-in-2023/
I live in Texas and found this doubtful. The three source I quickly scanned rated Texas as 12th, 22nd, and 27th lowest in price by state. Would love to see your source on this.
https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates/
https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/
https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/
My most recent electric bill was $81.50 for 448 kWh. That's $0.182 / kWh though it would be slightly lower for higher usage. (My distribution is $0.07797 / kWh, while generation is currently $0.0799 / kWh.)
Guess it's a much higher cost of living area than those of you that pay just $0.0129 / kWh!
It will be interesting to see about tire usage. The tires on our ICE car were 9 years old before a nail forced replacement.You should be replacing tires based on age at 6 years old. Tires lose grip as they age regardless of tread depth. You are also risking sudden tire delamination.
Honestly, we had no idea how old they were until I looked in our records. We just don't drive that much.It will be interesting to see about tire usage. The tires on our ICE car were 9 years old before a nail forced replacement.You should be replacing tires based on age at 6 years old. Tires lose grip as they age regardless of tread depth. You are also risking sudden tire delamination.
Honestly, we had no idea how old they were until I looked in our records. We just don't drive that much.It will be interesting to see about tire usage. The tires on our ICE car were 9 years old before a nail forced replacement.You should be replacing tires based on age at 6 years old. Tires lose grip as they age regardless of tread depth. You are also risking sudden tire delamination.
Tires also have a date code stamped on the sidewall (WWYY) which is the most reliable way to check your tires' age.Honestly, we had no idea how old they were until I looked in our records. We just don't drive that much.It will be interesting to see about tire usage. The tires on our ICE car were 9 years old before a nail forced replacement.You should be replacing tires based on age at 6 years old. Tires lose grip as they age regardless of tread depth. You are also risking sudden tire delamination.
I just watched a review of the Volvo EX30. It seems to be priced well & has a decent range. I don't know where they are produced, or if they are actually at the dealerships yet.
Have any of you driven one or seen one yet?
The EX30 looks extremely promising. Currently they are being built in China but there will be additional production in Belgium. Should become available for sale this year.
The EX30 looks extremely promising. Currently they are being built in China but there will be additional production in Belgium. Should become available for sale this year.
Range and charging rate, 275 miles & 175 kW look great. They're getting that range out of a 69 kWh battery so its efficiency is excellent
Unfortunately looks like the rear seat legroom is only 32.3 inches, cargo volume with rear seats up is only 11.5 cubic feet. I find 36 inch rear legroom kind of the minimum for an adult. Good car if you only drive two people around (which many people do).
After watching Doug DeMuro's review I was also a bit concerned about rear legroom. But I wasn't sure how far back the driver's seat was positioned in the video.
Another concern I had about the Volvo EX30 is the full glass roof. In my experience with a Jetta wagon the glass roof requires a sunscreen otherwise, it gets quite uncomfortable in the Summer. I did not see a sunscreen in the Volvo.
After watching Doug DeMuro's review I was also a bit concerned about rear legroom. But I wasn't sure how far back the driver's seat was positioned in the video.
Another concern I had about the Volvo EX30 is the full glass roof. In my experience with a Jetta wagon the glass roof requires a sunscreen otherwise, it gets quite uncomfortable in the Summer. I did not see a sunscreen in the Volvo.
After watching Doug DeMuro's review I was also a bit concerned about rear legroom. But I wasn't sure how far back the driver's seat was positioned in the video.
Another concern I had about the Volvo EX30 is the full glass roof. In my experience with a Jetta wagon the glass roof requires a sunscreen otherwise, it gets quite uncomfortable in the Summer. I did not see a sunscreen in the Volvo.
I also question the trend of glass roofs in EV's. Particularly as most require buying an aftermarket reflective shade. It works fine, but it an annoyance about semi-required accessories.
But I suspect there's a logic behind it that's a little behind-the-scenes. I think the two following things make glass roofs appealing to EV makers:
1. The glass roof adds a lot of heat gain in the winter, when cabin heating is necessary. I've had my AC kick on in the glass roof car when it's 35 degrees out. The sun keeps the car a lot warmer in the winter, reducing winter range loss.
2. It's considered more of a "luxury" item, yet it doesn't cost as much to add in an EV due to the structural rigidity of the battery. More EV's are also made of aluminum, which is expensive, and therefore lowering the price gap between a glass vs. aluminum roof. I have no empirical evidence of this, but I have a suspicion there's something going one here.
After watching Doug DeMuro's review I was also a bit concerned about rear legroom. But I wasn't sure how far back the driver's seat was positioned in the video.
Another concern I had about the Volvo EX30 is the full glass roof. In my experience with a Jetta wagon the glass roof requires a sunscreen otherwise, it gets quite uncomfortable in the Summer. I did not see a sunscreen in the Volvo.
I also question the trend of glass roofs in EV's. Particularly as most require buying an aftermarket reflective shade. It works fine, but it an annoyance about semi-required accessories.
But I suspect there's a logic behind it that's a little behind-the-scenes. I think the two following things make glass roofs appealing to EV makers:
1. The glass roof adds a lot of heat gain in the winter, when cabin heating is necessary. I've had my AC kick on in the glass roof car when it's 35 degrees out. The sun keeps the car a lot warmer in the winter, reducing winter range loss.
2. It's considered more of a "luxury" item, yet it doesn't cost as much to add in an EV due to the structural rigidity of the battery. More EV's are also made of aluminum, which is expensive, and therefore lowering the price gap between a glass vs. aluminum roof. I have no empirical evidence of this, but I have a suspicion there's something going one here.
Glass is kind of heavy. Aluminum is light. Is a sheet of aluminum really more expensive than glass?
I saw a F-150 Lightning bedecked in AAA signage sitting in a parking lot, presumably waiting for a call. Also have seen a couple wrapped/painted with construction and HVAC companies' info. Fleet EVs. Until this weekend, I'd only seen personal ones.Yeah, the section 179 vehicle deduction is a helluva drug.
Our daily driver was totaled and we're looking at EVs. It's amazing how many sales people at dealers don't know or don't care about the EV used car credit. Me: "Dude, it takes $4000 off the price of an EV at no cost to you. You should be embracing this!"
On the bolts - is there an easy way to get a quick feel for battery health? I know on the 2014 LEAF we bought in 2019 one of the things that leapt out to me was it still had 11 of 12 bars - very uncommon at the price that car was at.Our daily driver was totaled and we're looking at EVs. It's amazing how many sales people at dealers don't know or don't care about the EV used car credit. Me: "Dude, it takes $4000 off the price of an EV at no cost to you. You should be embracing this!"
For sure. It's a great market for used EVs right now. 2022 models are eligible since it's 2024.
Used 2020 Bolts lower than $14k. I've also seen Model 3s under the $25k cap as well.
On the bolts - is there an easy way to get a quick feel for battery health? I know on the 2014 LEAF we bought in 2019 one of the things that leapt out to me was it still had 11 of 12 bars - very uncommon at the price that car was at.Our daily driver was totaled and we're looking at EVs. It's amazing how many sales people at dealers don't know or don't care about the EV used car credit. Me: "Dude, it takes $4000 off the price of an EV at no cost to you. You should be embracing this!"
For sure. It's a great market for used EVs right now. 2022 models are eligible since it's 2024.
Used 2020 Bolts lower than $14k. I've also seen Model 3s under the $25k cap as well.
So basically I wouldn't worry about it.
-W
2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5s are in the $25k range now as well. Crazy market.
2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5s are in the $25k range now as well. Crazy market.
I would absolutely jump on that if I was in the market for a car. I honestly think the Hyandai/Kia EV's are the overall best options on the market today.
2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5s are in the $25k range now as well. Crazy market.
I would absolutely jump on that if I was in the market for a car. I honestly think the Hyandai/Kia EV's are the overall best options on the market today.
Hyundai dealer this weekend:
Us: So you're registered for the point-of-sale EV tax credit program?
Sales: Oh yeah, of course, of course.
Us: Because without that $4000 tax credit, we won't buy it.
Sales: Understood.
<shows us print out of all-in price of $25,500 + TTL>
Us: ?? The dealer price has to be $25k or less in order for the EV tax credit to work. Remove the "paint protection" and the numbers will work.
Sales: Ok, let me talk to my manager.
<10 minutes lapses>
Sales: Ok, he'll let you have it for the special price of $25,000 even.
Us: Great, let's do this. That's $25K + TTL - $4000 we owe you. How much deposit can we put on a card?
Sales: No, you'll have to get the $4000 tax credit when you do your taxes.
Us: <big sigh> I'll send you the IRS link. Let us know when you sign up.
It's like they're working against themselves.
2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5s are in the $25k range now as well. Crazy market.
I would absolutely jump on that if I was in the market for a car. I honestly think the Hyandai/Kia EV's are the overall best options on the market today.
Hyundai dealer this weekend:
Us: So you're registered for the point-of-sale EV tax credit program?
Sales: Oh yeah, of course, of course.
Us: Because without that $4000 tax credit, we won't buy it.
Sales: Understood.
<shows us print out of all-in price of $25,500 + TTL>
Us: ?? The dealer price has to be $25k or less in order for the EV tax credit to work. Remove the "paint protection" and the numbers will work.
Sales: Ok, let me talk to my manager.
<10 minutes lapses>
Sales: Ok, he'll let you have it for the special price of $25,000 even.
Us: Great, let's do this. That's $25K + TTL - $4000 we owe you. How much deposit can we put on a card?
Sales: No, you'll have to get the $4000 tax credit when you do your taxes.
Us: <big sigh> I'll send you the IRS link. Let us know when you sign up.
It's like they're working against themselves.
Our experience last year was similar. We tried to buy the car we had ordered at the price we agreed upon but the dealer couldn’t figure out how to submit the state EV tax credit. It took them 3 days to get it right. Literally no one there knew how to register the guaranteed state rebate
2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5s are in the $25k range now as well. Crazy market.
2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5s are in the $25k range now as well. Crazy market.
Hertz is starting to sell off their fleet of Tesla Model 3's too. Looks like $21-22k gets you a standard range Model 3 with around 75k miles:
https://www.hertzcarsales.com/used-cars-for-sale.htm?geoZip=46201&geoRadius=0&search=tesla&sortBy=internetPrice%20asc
I have recently been hearing horror stories about EV insurance rates skyrocketing. Curious if any EV owners here have had major increases in premiums?
I have recently been hearing horror stories about EV insurance rates skyrocketing. Curious if any EV owners here have had major increases in premiums?
I have recently been hearing horror stories about EV insurance rates skyrocketing. Curious if any EV owners here have had major increases in premiums?
We pseudo-selfinsure (liability only) and at least for that, the insurance for our Bolt is pretty identical to our ICE car.
For comprehensive/collision I have no idea, though I'd be suspicious of any blanket statements about EVs being more expensive to insure, since they're generally more expensive than ICE cars to buy (and hence to replace if totalled). Insuring a $50k model Y is not going to be as cheap as insuring a Corolla or something.
-W
I wonder if some people are holding off on buying CCS1 vehicles given many carmakers are moving to NACS in NA?
I'm guessing the resale of CCS1 or CHAdeMO vehicles may suffer in a few years.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
I wonder if some people are holding off on buying CCS1 vehicles given many carmakers are moving to NACS in NA?
I'm guessing the resale of CCS1 or CHAdeMO vehicles may suffer in a few years.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
On other electric car forums I read it seems people would prefer to buy a NACS car, but aren't ruling out CCS cars. NACS is just preferred for convenience. Many a folk pull the trigger on a CCS car anyways when it is a good deal for them. So I think long term yeah CCS is going to depress a car's price by a small amount but not devastatingly
Of course these people are more literate in electric cars and understand charging adapters.
I think many are just making it hard. The plug is nothing but an arrangement of (hefty) wires and connections. Many Tesla owners have bought adapters so they could use CCS chargers, so as things swing toward NACS, those with CCS can buy adapters that go the other way.
Musk has been promising to open up Tesla Superchargers, but there still aren’t any within 300 miles of me, so meh.
It won’t change how I charge - plug it in at home. I wouldn’t sweat it.
I've watched Technology Connections video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJOfyMCEzjQ) on the switch, and (not being a techie), it seems that the big software change will be on Tesla's side, but yeah, apparently it's complicated even with CCS equipped cars and CCS charging stations.
The NACS' use of the same pins for AC and DC chargers does seem like it could make things spicy.
So when's that Supercharger network going to open up again? They've been touting it for a couple years now, and there's not much happening.
I've watched Technology Connections video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJOfyMCEzjQ) on the switch, and (not being a techie), it seems that the big software change will be on Tesla's side, but yeah, apparently it's complicated even with CCS equipped cars and CCS charging stations.
The NACS' use of the same pins for AC and DC chargers does seem like it could make things spicy.
So when's that Supercharger network going to open up again? They've been touting it for a couple years now, and there's not much happening.
The only manufacturer that I'm aware of that's going NACS from the ground up is Aptera, but it looks like those have been delayed until at least 2025, plus it's more like a two-seater sports car purchase rather than a family people mover.I'm sure they'll be available any day now...
I've firmly filed that Aptera under 'vaporware' at this point.
I wonder if we'll see conversations of CCS1 cars to NACS?
Are there chargers with card readers over there or are all payments handled in-app? Although given how non-existent tap and go was when I was in the US in 2015...
I rented an EV in October and ended up installing/registering for two payment apps. I didn't mind but it's definitely a bit more friction.
I'm looking to buy an EV once my 20 year old ICE needs replacement. Probably a while off but still find EVs interesting. Hopefully by then we see more vehicles with V2H and larger LFP batteries.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
I've talked to a few people in the EV industry, and none see a path for Aptera to deliver cars in volume. I kinda hope they're wrong, as there's a lot to be said for super efficient vehicles. But I think they're probably right.
Part of the problem with chargers is that the payment methods are inconsistent, even within the same network. And payment devices are a common point of failure on chargers. Some EA chargers have card readers and some don't. Sometimes the card readers are broken meaning you have to use the RFID/phone option. Sometimes the RFID option is broken, but the card reader works. Every station is different.
I'm trying to imagine my mom navigating the EV situation. She'd probably appreciate an EV, but she doesn't have or want a smart phone. I also don't think she could easily manipulate a CCS cable.
The Aptera got me thinking... I'd like an efficient solar charging car, needs four wheels and a back seat though.
We only have space to charge one car at a time in our driveway. If we have two electric cars we'd have to shuffle them around to charge them. If the less-used car could add 5 miles of range a day it'd keep itself topped off mostly, in the sunnier months.
A trim of the prius prime can in the best case add 4 miles a day. Not quite enough and wouldn't want to have the ICE to maintain. Maybe the old Ioniq EV (250 Wh/mile EPA rating) with a 400 Watt solar panel bolted to the roof
Used Chevy Bolts are a great deal...easily under $18k, $4k federal credit, whatever state credit you get. Batteries will be brand new and warranty for ten year due to recall of every Bolt ever sold.
The Aptera got me thinking... I'd like an efficient solar charging car, needs four wheels and a back seat though.
We only have space to charge one car at a time in our driveway. If we have two electric cars we'd have to shuffle them around to charge them. If the less-used car could add 5 miles of range a day it'd keep itself topped off mostly, in the sunnier months.
A trim of the prius prime can in the best case add 4 miles a day. Not quite enough and wouldn't want to have the ICE to maintain. Maybe the old Ioniq EV (250 Wh/mile EPA rating) with a 400 Watt solar panel bolted to the roof
The Aptera got me thinking... I'd like an efficient solar charging car, needs four wheels and a back seat though.
We only have space to charge one car at a time in our driveway. If we have two electric cars we'd have to shuffle them around to charge them. If the less-used car could add 5 miles of range a day it'd keep itself topped off mostly, in the sunnier months.
A trim of the prius prime can in the best case add 4 miles a day. Not quite enough and wouldn't want to have the ICE to maintain. Maybe the old Ioniq EV (250 Wh/mile EPA rating) with a 400 Watt solar panel bolted to the roof
The Aptera got me thinking... I'd like an efficient solar charging car, needs four wheels and a back seat though.
We only have space to charge one car at a time in our driveway. If we have two electric cars we'd have to shuffle them around to charge them. If the less-used car could add 5 miles of range a day it'd keep itself topped off mostly, in the sunnier months.
A trim of the prius prime can in the best case add 4 miles a day. Not quite enough and wouldn't want to have the ICE to maintain. Maybe the old Ioniq EV (250 Wh/mile EPA rating) with a 400 Watt solar panel bolted to the roof
Yeah, a lot of people seem to think you need a dedicated charger. But if you're only driving ~50 or fewer miles a day, you can just plug into any old cheapo 15A 110V outlet in your garage/house overnight, and you will be able to keep the car charged just fine.
If you want to drive farther some of the time, you'll need either a 240v setup at your house, or to use public chargers (more expensive).
90% of our charging is just trickle charging.
-W
Yeah, a lot of people seem to think you need a dedicated charger. But if you're only driving ~50 or fewer miles a day, you can just plug into any old cheapo 15A 110V outlet in your garage/house overnight, and you will be able to keep the car charged just fine.
If you want to drive farther some of the time, you'll need either a 240v setup at your house, or to use public chargers (more expensive).
90% of our charging is just trickle charging.
-W
Our electric company paid to install the wiring and the EVSE (but not for the EVSE itself). In the US, there's a 30% federal tax credit for the EVSE and wiring, up to $1000.
One thing I learned recently is that anyone that has an electric dryer can charge their EV from the dryer's electrical socket. Just need an adapter for your car and it will plug right in. You'll get between 20 and 40 miles worth of charge, per hour. Obviously this is not a great long-term solution, but might be useful in a pinch.
One thing I learned recently is that anyone that has an electric dryer can charge their EV from the dryer's electrical socket. Just need an adapter for your car and it will plug right in. You'll get between 20 and 40 miles worth of charge, per hour. Obviously this is not a great long-term solution, but might be useful in a pinch.
A typical 240v electric dryer outlet is 30 amps which is only good for 10-20 miles of range per hour in my experience. You'd need a 240v circuit with higher amperage (and a vehicle willing to accept it) to get more than that.
One thing I learned recently is that anyone that has an electric dryer can charge their EV from the dryer's electrical socket. Just need an adapter for your car and it will plug right in. You'll get between 20 and 40 miles worth of charge, per hour. Obviously this is not a great long-term solution, but might be useful in a pinch.
A typical 240v electric dryer outlet is 30 amps which is only good for 10-20 miles of range per hour in my experience. You'd need a 240v circuit with higher amperage (and a vehicle willing to accept it) to get more than that.
32 amps will get me about 8kwh an hour, so that's around 28-32 miles per hour for my Model Y. I'd assume for a smaller car it would be even more. 48 gets me to 12-13 kwh an hour.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to think you need a dedicated charger. But if you're only driving ~50 or fewer miles a day, you can just plug into any old cheapo 15A 110V outlet in your garage/house overnight, and you will be able to keep the car charged just fine.
If you want to drive farther some of the time, you'll need either a 240v setup at your house, or to use public chargers (more expensive).
90% of our charging is just trickle charging.
-W
One caveat here that I learned when a friend had to trickle charge his Model 3 outside in winter -- if it's cold enough, battery conditioning will take more power than the 15a charger can provide and you may end up with the same or less charge in the morning. Warm weather (or a reasonably warm garage) would prevent that, of course.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to think you need a dedicated charger. But if you're only driving ~50 or fewer miles a day, you can just plug into any old cheapo 15A 110V outlet in your garage/house overnight, and you will be able to keep the car charged just fine.
If you want to drive farther some of the time, you'll need either a 240v setup at your house, or to use public chargers (more expensive).
90% of our charging is just trickle charging.
-W
One caveat here that I learned when a friend had to trickle charge his Model 3 outside in winter -- if it's cold enough, battery conditioning will take more power than the 15a charger can provide and you may end up with the same or less charge in the morning. Warm weather (or a reasonably warm garage) would prevent that, of course.
Wow! My old 6 volt VW Beetle used to lose battery charge on cold Winter's days. I used to take the battery into the warm house to guarantee a morning start. That was bad. Your description sounds a whole lot worse. That is reason enough to not buy an electric only car.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to think you need a dedicated charger. But if you're only driving ~50 or fewer miles a day, you can just plug into any old cheapo 15A 110V outlet in your garage/house overnight, and you will be able to keep the car charged just fine.
If you want to drive farther some of the time, you'll need either a 240v setup at your house, or to use public chargers (more expensive).
90% of our charging is just trickle charging.
-W
One caveat here that I learned when a friend had to trickle charge his Model 3 outside in winter -- if it's cold enough, battery conditioning will take more power than the 15a charger can provide and you may end up with the same or less charge in the morning. Warm weather (or a reasonably warm garage) would prevent that, of course.
Wow! My old 6 volt VW Beetle used to lose battery charge on cold Winter's days. I used to take the battery into the warm house to guarantee a morning start. That was bad. Your description sounds a whole lot worse. That is reason enough to not buy an electric only car.
Why in the world would someone use a regular 15a wall outlet to charge their EV in winter? That's pretty dumb.
Why in the world would someone use a regular 15a wall outlet to charge their EV in winter? That's pretty dumb.
I did it for the first two years without issue. As others have said, if your commute isn’t terrible you can start each day with a full battery, even with “just” a standard 15a circuit. In the dead of winter with single digits I’d still get 2+ miles of battery per hour, so plugging it in around 8pm a leaving around 7:30 and I’d have more than enough to cover my 20 mile round trip commute, starting each day with a full battery.
I suspect the issue mentioned earlier about a Tesla losing charge has to do with “phantom drain”, which is an issue that can plague Tesla owners who don’t understand their cars. Tesla had so many features onboard that can be a battery drain if not properly turned off, and unfortunately it’s not always obvious. Battery conditioning and preconditioning are big culprits but can be controlled (timed) with the onboard system. A number of apps also interface with the car and can made you think the car is off when it isn’t.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to think you need a dedicated charger. But if you're only driving ~50 or fewer miles a day, you can just plug into any old cheapo 15A 110V outlet in your garage/house overnight, and you will be able to keep the car charged just fine.
If you want to drive farther some of the time, you'll need either a 240v setup at your house, or to use public chargers (more expensive).
90% of our charging is just trickle charging.
-W
One caveat here that I learned when a friend had to trickle charge his Model 3 outside in winter -- if it's cold enough, battery conditioning will take more power than the 15a charger can provide and you may end up with the same or less charge in the morning. Warm weather (or a reasonably warm garage) would prevent that, of course.
Wow! My old 6 volt VW Beetle used to lose battery charge on cold Winter's days. I used to take the battery into the warm house to guarantee a morning start. That was bad. Your description sounds a whole lot worse. That is reason enough to not buy an electric only car.
I also cannot imagine that a propery switched off car can lose energy charging just because it's cold. Do you have 4 seat warmer running?
If the winter was at fault, how would all the people in e.g. Sweden wih their electric cars get anywhere?
Why in the world would someone use a regular 15a wall outlet to charge their EV in winter? That's pretty dumb.
Why in the world would someone use a regular 15a wall outlet to charge their EV in winter? That's pretty dumb.
Because not everyone can afford a service upgrade and a charger. You may then say, "If you buy a BEV, you should plan on spending that!" This is probably true but then it shouldn't be a surprise why EV sales have slowed down (+ range anxiety + cultural wars).
Anecdotally, of my three Tesla owning friends, only one has a charger. The other two use 120v at home and use the (free or subsidized) L2 chargers at work.
We didn't have service for a charger for two years when we bought our used leaf. We installed the level 2 charger when we upgraded to a 200 Amp service.Why in the world would someone use a regular 15a wall outlet to charge their EV in winter? That's pretty dumb.
Because not everyone can afford a service upgrade and a charger. You may then say, "If you buy a BEV, you should plan on spending that!" This is probably true but then it shouldn't be a surprise why EV sales have slowed down (+ range anxiety + cultural wars).
Anecdotally, of my three Tesla owning friends, only one has a charger. The other two use 120v at home and use the (free or subsidized) L2 chargers at work.
If someone takes a train to work, there's no reason they can't charge their car at the same time.There is: It's hideously expensive and unlikely to be recouped by the owner of the charger.
I am beginning to see why all electric cars haven't had recent good sales figures. Perhaps the "bloom is off the rose" for electric cars. They may have sold to the early adopters and now are faced with less enthusiastic potential customers.Thanks to lowered battery prices, EV are very close to getting cheaper (if car manufacturers would not try to maximize profit) then ICE, if you also substract all the new fetish stuff like "entertainment systems". I think that pure difference is down to 10%.
Do hybrid cars have this same issue with the battery? Is part of the battery energy used to maintain the temperature of the battery? I assume the battery in the hybrid is of the same type as in a fully electric vehicle but with a lower amp-hour rating. (capacity rating or watt rating)
I am beginning to see why all electric cars haven't had recent good sales figures. Perhaps the "bloom is off the rose" for electric cars. They may have sold to the early adopters and now are faced with less enthusiastic potential customers.
Do hybrid cars have this same issue with the battery? Is part of the battery energy used to maintain the temperature of the battery? I assume the battery in the hybrid is of the same type as in a fully electric vehicle but with a lower amp-hour rating. (capacity rating or watt rating)
I am beginning to see why all electric cars haven't had recent good sales figures. Perhaps the "bloom is off the rose" for electric cars. They may have sold to the early adopters and now are faced with less enthusiastic potential customers.
The interesting difference between hybrid batteries and BEV batteries is that they can actually differ in chemistry. A BEV probably charges/discharges an average under once per day as some are charged nightly, while others are charged every few days. A hybrid needs a battery that can be fully charged/discharged every couple of miles and still last hundreds of thousands of miles.This is an interesting point. I went looking for the chemistry that's used in Honda's hybrid vehicles and could not find a definite answer, only that it's likely and NMC chemistry. It might differ somewhat in the percentages of nickle, manganese, or cobalt compared to other pure EV batteries. The manufacturer, Blue Energy, claims a life of 50000 cycles which seems incredibly high to me. I wonder if they are simply derating the capacity of the battery so that a "full cycle" is not anywhere close to a full cycle allowed by the chemistry. Their specific energy is 78 Wh/kg, about a third of what Tesla claims, which would support that hypothesis.
The interesting difference between hybrid batteries and BEV batteries is that they can actually differ in chemistry. A BEV probably charges/discharges an average under once per day as some are charged nightly, while others are charged every few days. A hybrid needs a battery that can be fully charged/discharged every couple of miles and still last hundreds of thousands of miles.This is an interesting point. I went looking for the chemistry that's used in Honda's hybrid vehicles and could not find a definite answer, only that it's likely and NMC chemistry. It might differ somewhat in the percentages of nickle, manganese, or cobalt compared to other pure EV batteries. The manufacturer, Blue Energy, claims a life of 50000 cycles which seems incredibly high to me. I wonder if they are simply derating the capacity of the battery so that a "full cycle" is not anywhere close to a full cycle allowed by the chemistry. Their specific energy is 78 Wh/kg, about a third of what Tesla claims, which would support that hypothesis.
Model Y is officially the best selling car in Europe. This is a first in several categories:
- First BEV
- First mid-sized car
- First car by an American company
- First premium priced car
Model Y is officially the best selling car in Europe. This is a first in several categories:
- First BEV
- First mid-sized car
- First car by an American company
- First premium priced car
It's crazy it's considered a premium priced car. It's basically the cost of a Touring Hybrid CR-V in the US after just the federal rebate.
Model Y is officially the best selling car in Europe. This is a first in several categories:
- First BEV
- First mid-sized car
- First car by an American company
- First premium priced car
It's crazy it's considered a premium priced car. It's basically the cost of a Touring Hybrid CR-V in the US after just the federal rebate.
How much is the US Federal Rebate in Europe? :) Oh right...
In the U.S., our Mazda CX-5 was $29k. Before rebate, the Model Y with AWD starts at $49k. So it seems it's pretty obviously a premium priced vehicle. The rebate is between the U.S. government and me, not the OEM or the specific model.
That's beccause in Europe most people don't drive around in Fake Farmer vehicles. A "normal" Ford F-150 is just a bit shorter than the standard (minimum) parking space here, and the super cab is decidedly longer. Also we are "poorer" because more of our money automatically goes into pensions and health care, so most don't have the money to afford such big cars. Also gas prices! If it costs more than 100€ to fill up your car, people tend to not like it.Model Y is officially the best selling car in Europe. This is a first in several categories:
- First BEV
- First mid-sized car
- First car by an American company
- First premium priced car
It's crazy it's considered a premium priced car. It's basically the cost of a Touring Hybrid CR-V in the US after just the federal rebate.
I am beginning to see why all electric cars haven't had recent good sales figures. Perhaps the "bloom is off the rose" for electric cars. They may have sold to the early adopters and now are faced with less enthusiastic potential customers.
So in the US are you saying you wouldn't consider the Model Y AWD a premium vehicle or would you also consider cars like the Honda CR-V Touring Hybrid or the Kia Sportage SX Prestige Hybrid.
I have recently been hearing horror stories about EV insurance rates skyrocketing. Curious if any EV owners here have had major increases in premiums?
I am beginning to see why all electric cars haven't had recent good sales figures. Perhaps the "bloom is off the rose" for electric cars. They may have sold to the early adopters and now are faced with less enthusiastic potential customers.
Depends on your definition of "good." EVs are selling in record numbers. Just not the numbers the suits at the car companies hoped.
I am beginning to see why all electric cars haven't had recent good sales figures. Perhaps the "bloom is off the rose" for electric cars. They may have sold to the early adopters and now are faced with less enthusiastic potential customers.
Depends on your definition of "good." EVs are selling in record numbers. Just not the numbers the suits at the car companies hoped.
People’s memories are so short. Go back and read the predictions of where EV sales might be in three years in 2021;.Spoiler: show
Or just read the first three pages of this threadSpoiler: show
Note: sales across the EV market continues to grow - just not quite as fast as it was 12 months ago for [reasons debated here]
I have recently been hearing horror stories about EV insurance rates skyrocketing. Curious if any EV owners here have had major increases in premiums?
Just got my renewal letter. My insurance for 2 cars (1 EV, 1 ICE), 2 drivers is going up 9% for the 6 months. Less than $100.
Model Y is officially the best selling car in Europe. This is a first in several categories:
- First BEV
- First mid-sized car
- First car by an American company
- First premium priced car
It's crazy it's considered a premium priced car. It's basically the cost of a Touring Hybrid CR-V in the US after just the federal rebate.
How much is the US Federal Rebate in Europe? :) Oh right...
In the U.S., our Mazda CX-5 was $29k. Before rebate, the Model Y with AWD starts at $49k. So it seems it's pretty obviously a premium priced vehicle. The rebate is between the U.S. government and me, not the OEM or the specific model.
I figured many European countries also have rebates for BEVs.
In the US the Honda CR-V Touring Hybrid is priced at about $41k out the door, Model Y AWD as you mentioned is sitting at between $47-$50k depending on inventory vs build. So around $40-$42.5k after federal rebate.
So in the US are you saying you wouldn't consider the Model Y AWD a premium vehicle or would you also consider cars like the Honda CR-V Touring Hybrid or the Kia Sportage SX Prestige Hybrid.
If you look at an inflation calculator a car that cost $25k in 2002 when I graduated HS would cost $42.5k today. Obvioulsy $45k in 2002 was a premium priced vehicle, just seems like it's an average priced vehicle today.
Also, automakers have shifted their lineups to decidedly more premium models and trim levels in recent years so they can raise prices/profits. So the "average" new vehicle price doesn't necessarily mean you're getting a basic car. You're more or less getting the average of the OEM's most profitable vehicles. Spending $40k+ for a new vehicle gets you decidedly premium features and capabilities by most standards, even if that's the average new vehicle price.
Also, automakers have shifted their lineups to decidedly more premium models and trim levels in recent years so they can raise prices/profits. So the "average" new vehicle price doesn't necessarily mean you're getting a basic car. You're more or less getting the average of the OEM's most profitable vehicles. Spending $40k+ for a new vehicle gets you decidedly premium features and capabilities by most standards, even if that's the average new vehicle price.
Yeah - on the one hand, the average American car buyer is average so yeah, if there are substantially equivalent electric vehicles competing at the same (or better) price point than all competitive alternatives, it makes sense if they start hitting the mainstream / early majority (https://ondigitalmarketing.com/learn/odm/foundations/5-customer-segments-technology-adoption/) of the technology adoption curve.
On the other hand, as Mustachians, average is not our benchmark. So I don't think $49k electric SUVs should get us excited just yet.
But yeah, Model 3 was announced in early 2016 with a target price of $35k. With inflation, that's $44k, so the Model Y AWD (particularly with the rebate) actually slides under that benchmark. We're making progress. I'll beat a dead horse, and go back to my original premise - we need lots of competition for$30k$40k electric vehicles, produced in ample quantity to fully flood mainstream America with these cars. But it certainly feels like we're very close, and just maybe, if no one else steps up, Tesla will just eat all the cake themselves. (I just personally would prefer alternatives, and much healthier competition to keep prices down, keep the charging network as not-stupid as possible, and make it as consumer friendly a scenario as possible.)
As a cheap bastard, these super low costs make me very happy.
As a cheap bastard, these super low costs make me very happy.
Exactly! My CX-5 cost me $29k and so far the first 8000 miles, I've spent $1000 on gas and maintenance. So I'm still well under $39.5k ;) and that makes me very happy!
As a cheap bastard, these super low costs make me very happy.
Exactly! My CX-5 cost me $29k and so far the first 8000 miles, I've spent $1000 on gas and maintenance. So I'm still well under $39.5k ;) and that makes me very happy!
yep, just today I had to stop and pay 2$ to put air into the tires, but purchase price in '06 (?) was like $13k (?) I might still be under $39.5k even with the un-mmm-gucci-air :-)
As a cheap bastard, these super low costs make me very happy.
Exactly! My CX-5 cost me $29k and so far the first 8000 miles, I've spent $1000 on gas and maintenance. So I'm still well under $39.5k ;) and that makes me very happy!
yep, just today I had to stop and pay 2$ to put air into the tires, but purchase price in '06 (?) was like $13k (?) I might still be under $39.5k even with the un-mmm-gucci-air :-)
I made the un-mmm decision to buy my current car BRAND NEW for $14,322.95 in '11 (including dealer fees, tax, title, and registration). As of today I've spent a total of $31,571.21* including fuel, depreciation, taxes, fees, insurance, maintenance, and repairs over the course of 12.5 years and 127,500 miles driven. By my projections, I won't reach $39.5k for 5 more years, around the 180k mile mark...which makes me very happy ;)
*I'd guess I'm near $39.5k now adjusting for inflation.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to think you need a dedicated charger. But if you're only driving ~50 or fewer miles a day, you can just plug into any old cheapo 15A 110V outlet in your garage/house overnight, and you will be able to keep the car charged just fine
Test drove a model Y today, I hadn't realized there's no option to turn off one pedal driving on it.The strength of the regen when your foot is off the accelerator should be adjustable. But yeah, might not be able to turn it off entirely on the Model Y.
Are you trying to replace the ioniq phev, LD? If so, why? I'm curious because I have been eyeing the ioniq phev as a possible replacement for my old prius.
It's just the common parlance, though I agree that it's not correct.
-W
Test drove a model Y today, I hadn't realized there's no option to turn off one pedal driving on it. The Tesla rep blathered about it being an important part of the "Tesla experience" when I asked, which made my eyes roll.
My Ioniq PHEV blends Regen on the brake pedal, the first half of braking is 100% regen, then it adds mechanical brakes. It's not a perfectly smooth transition but I like it. I like to pull my foot off the accelerator at the crest of a hill or whatever and get to stretch my ankle a bit.
Anyways I think it might be a deal breaker on a tesla for me. Anyone else have experience with it?
Are you trying to replace the ioniq phev, LD? If so, why? I'm curious because I have been eyeing the ioniq phev as a possible replacement for my old prius.
We're keeping an eye out for a larger electric vehicle just to go fully electric. Also have our first kid on the way and might enjoy more space for roadtrips.
I do recommend the Ioniq PHEV, they're an incredible value. In summer I get 29 miles electric and 56 mpg on gas, winter with snow tires 26 miles electric and 50 mpg. The hatch is spacious and the back seat is tolerable for adults. The front seats slide way back if you're tall. Some people don't like that in winter it needs to idle the engine off and on to produce cabin heat, but I find that fuel use to be minimal. It drives well and has been reliable for us
Test drove a model Y today, I hadn't realized there's no option to turn off one pedal driving on it. The Tesla rep blathered about it being an important part of the "Tesla experience" when I asked, which made my eyes roll.I drove Model Y in the neighborhoods and I was not a fan of one pedal driving. It was quite jarring for me, who is not used to it. I bet it takes more than half hour experience to get used to it. I was eager to return car to owner and get out of it.
My Ioniq PHEV blends Regen on the brake pedal, the first half of braking is 100% regen, then it adds mechanical brakes. It's not a perfectly smooth transition but I like it. I like to pull my foot off the accelerator at the crest of a hill or whatever and get to stretch my ankle a bit.
Anyways I think it might be a deal breaker on a tesla for me. Anyone else have experience with it?
One pedal driving on Tesla is fantastic. Once you drive it for a day or two, it will feel natural. It's a drastically superior technology than scraping friction material on metal to stop your car.One pedal driving is not required to use regen, avoiding friction brakes. EVs will use regen when you press the brake pedal and will only use the friction brakes if you require stronger stopping power than is available via regen.
Wait, so you have to keep your foot on the pedal the entire time you're driving? That sounds awful. Doesn't your foot/ankle get tired?That's what I am thinking. I have a little knee problem and driving on the highway where you have to constantly press the gas... well, I get off it for a short time at least. Means I slow down to 80km/h every few minutes, but that stops hurting.
Wait, so you have to keep your foot on the pedal the entire time you're driving? That sounds awful. Doesn't your foot/ankle get tired?
Wait, so you have to keep your foot on the pedal the entire time you're driving? That sounds awful. Doesn't your foot/ankle get tired?That's what I am thinking. I have a little knee problem and driving on the highway where you have to constantly press the gas... well, I get off it for a short time at least. Means I slow down to 80km/h every few minutes, but that stops hurting.
If I would not be able to do that... no chance!
This - highway driving, even in traffic, is so much physically just better, particularly for the legs with modern adaptive cruise control. And a lot of this stuff is highly adjustable - takes time to get used to some of the quirks of course. I rented a tesla for a week (actually twice - I now know I don't want to buy a tesla, but the one-pedal-driving isn't why) and by the end of the week I was used to the one-pedal where I was able to drive smoothly (that very first day - woof. I also managed to have to scramble to find the key card in the exit gate of a parking garage that trip), but I could have turned it off if I really wanted to.Wait, so you have to keep your foot on the pedal the entire time you're driving? That sounds awful. Doesn't your foot/ankle get tired?That's what I am thinking. I have a little knee problem and driving on the highway where you have to constantly press the gas... well, I get off it for a short time at least. Means I slow down to 80km/h every few minutes, but that stops hurting.
If I would not be able to do that... no chance!
You'd just use autopilot.
...
I rented a tesla for a week (actually twice - I now know I don't want to buy a tesla, but the one-pedal-driving isn't why)
...
Are you trying to replace the ioniq phev, LD? If so, why? I'm curious because I have been eyeing the ioniq phev as a possible replacement for my old prius.
We're keeping an eye out for a larger electric vehicle just to go fully electric. Also have our first kid on the way and might enjoy more space for roadtrips.
I do recommend the Ioniq PHEV, they're an incredible value. In summer I get 29 miles electric and 56 mpg on gas, winter with snow tires 26 miles electric and 50 mpg. The hatch is spacious and the back seat is tolerable for adults. The front seats slide way back if you're tall. Some people don't like that in winter it needs to idle the engine off and on to produce cabin heat, but I find that fuel use to be minimal. It drives well and has been reliable for us
It took me about a week to get used to 1 pedal driving. In my old car I was used to coasting when I let off the gas.
After driving with regen I now really like how much more precise my control is over the vehicle. Adjusting to different speeds in different zones is much faster and cleaner. It's hard to explain if you've not experienced it.
Nowadays driving an ICE car feels 'sloppy' in comparison.
As a cheap person, I also like that I almost never use my breaks, saving me $$ down the road on brake replacement/maintenance.
It took me about a week to get used to 1 pedal driving. In my old car I was used to coasting when I let off the gas.
After driving with regen I now really like how much more precise my control is over the vehicle. Adjusting to different speeds in different zones is much faster and cleaner. It's hard to explain if you've not experienced it.
Nowadays driving an ICE car feels 'sloppy' in comparison.
As a cheap person, I also like that I almost never use my breaks, saving me $$ down the road on brake replacement/maintenance.
This is a matter of taste I think. I had a Prius for a long time and really liked the blended brake function of the brake pedal. In other words, if you pressed the brake pedal lightly, it would do regen and if you pressed it hard, the friction brakes applied. I much prefer this to one pedal driving. I have driven a Tesla once and absolutely hated one pedal driving.
Spending a lot of time on EV forums, I'd anecdotally say that maybe 90-95% of people seem to like one-pedal-driving, but there are some people that just don't care for it.
Each manufacturer seems to be implementing it slightly different, but the market seems to be generally headed towards Tesla's approach, albeit with adjustable regen strength.
Official numbers are in and the Model Y is the best selling car in the world.In the same quarter where BYD is selling more electric cars than Tesla for the first time? How funny.
First time an EV has taken this spot.
Official numbers are in and the Model Y is the best selling car in the world.In the same quarter where BYD is selling more electric cars than Tesla for the first time? How funny.
First time an EV has taken this spot.
We're still having a difficult time finding a dealer that is signed up for the point-of-sale program. I don't know if it's fear of a "cash for clunkers" repeat, where dealers waited months for a payout, or politics, but the resistance to signing up is strong. Often the finance managers don't even understand it -- some have referred to it as a state program -- and trying to educate them is proving useless. Reading some reddit threads about even Chevy dealers not bothering to fill out or file Form 15400 doesn't give me hope.
Watching prices drift downward as used EVs sit on lots is amusing though.
We're still having a difficult time finding a dealer that is signed up for the point-of-sale program. I don't know if it's fear of a "cash for clunkers" repeat, where dealers waited months for a payout, or politics, but the resistance to signing up is strong. Often the finance managers don't even understand it -- some have referred to it as a state program -- and trying to educate them is proving useless. Reading some reddit threads about even Chevy dealers not bothering to fill out or file Form 15400 doesn't give me hope.
Watching prices drift downward as used EVs sit on lots is amusing though.
Most dealers don't make much money on the sale of the car itself. They make most of their money servicing the vehicle after the sale. EV's don't really need that type of servicing so it's no wonder the dealers are reluctant, they are cutting their own throats doing that.
Besides, you wouldn't get Tesla service from a Carmax or Prius Prime service from a Hyundai dealer anyway.
I'm surprised how many people have such a strong dislike for one pedal driving -- maybe because I grew up driving manual transmissions? Cars slowing down when you let off the gas feels normal to me.It is not just the feeling of the car slowing down - it is how fast it slows down. Feels like the car is slamming on the brakes. At least in all the ICE cars I've driven, you take foot of pedal and the car coasts until you apply the brake - unless downhill, likely to slow down but not very suddenly. When I've rented a Tesla, takes me nearly a week to be driving smoothly (aside from on-highway where the auto-pilot makes that easy). Of course, the amount of regen braking is adjustable - even my 2014 Nissan leaf has a sport / normal / eco mode, but it doesn't go to where it will bring the car to a complete stop without me touching the brakes. And you do get used to it, but it takes time.
I'm surprised how many people have such a strong dislike for one pedal driving -- maybe because I grew up driving manual transmissions? Cars slowing down when you let off the gas feels normal to me.It is not just the feeling of the car slowing down - it is how fast it slows down. Feels like the car is slamming on the brakes. At least in all the ICE cars I've driven, you take foot of pedal and the car coasts until you apply the brake - unless downhill, likely to slow down but not very suddenly. When I've rented a Tesla, takes me nearly a week to be driving smoothly (aside from on-highway where the auto-pilot makes that easy). Of course, the amount of regen braking is adjustable - even my 2014 Nissan leaf has a sport / normal / eco mode, but it doesn't go to where it will bring the car to a complete stop without me touching the brakes. And you do get used to it, but it takes time.
ETA: oh - and the Tesla doesn't communicate very well what the blue flashing means when you're on auto-pilot - yes the whole screen flashes blue, but the description of what is wrong (you haven't held wheel firmly enough and therefore it thinks you're not paying attention - apparently I have a light touch) is in tiny print at the bottom of the screen. About 4 times on the first rental I got into "sorry - have to stop & turn car off to use autopilot again" before I could ascertain what the car was trying to tell me. Now I know, but still that was not a very good first experience. When that happens you're likely on the highway and have to do the one-pedal thing until you can pull off. Drove a Hyunai ICE car that had similar super-cruise and its message was super clear - a picture of the steering wheel being jiggled in addition to the very clear change in lighting.
One-pedal driving is another name for the super-aggressive mode, or at least I've seen it there. I kinda like the Leaf's level of regen - slows you down a bit more when you remove foot from pedal, but nothing like the Teslas the couple of times I've rented them. With the Leaf I do have to remember to put foot on brake if I'm stopping up-hill - that's the one situation where the regen is typically enough to fully stop that particular car, except at least on our 2014 it doesn't apply brake and then you start rolling backwards if you're not on the ball with the brake pedal.I'm surprised how many people have such a strong dislike for one pedal driving -- maybe because I grew up driving manual transmissions? Cars slowing down when you let off the gas feels normal to me.It is not just the feeling of the car slowing down - it is how fast it slows down. Feels like the car is slamming on the brakes. At least in all the ICE cars I've driven, you take foot of pedal and the car coasts until you apply the brake - unless downhill, likely to slow down but not very suddenly. When I've rented a Tesla, takes me nearly a week to be driving smoothly (aside from on-highway where the auto-pilot makes that easy). Of course, the amount of regen braking is adjustable - even my 2014 Nissan leaf has a sport / normal / eco mode, but it doesn't go to where it will bring the car to a complete stop without me touching the brakes. And you do get used to it, but it takes time.
ETA: oh - and the Tesla doesn't communicate very well what the blue flashing means when you're on auto-pilot - yes the whole screen flashes blue, but the description of what is wrong (you haven't held wheel firmly enough and therefore it thinks you're not paying attention - apparently I have a light touch) is in tiny print at the bottom of the screen. About 4 times on the first rental I got into "sorry - have to stop & turn car off to use autopilot again" before I could ascertain what the car was trying to tell me. Now I know, but still that was not a very good first experience. When that happens you're likely on the highway and have to do the one-pedal thing until you can pull off. Drove a Hyunai ICE car that had similar super-cruise and its message was super clear - a picture of the steering wheel being jiggled in addition to the very clear change in lighting.
I'm familiar with regen braking - we have a couple EVs and I've owned a few in years past. Unless it's in a super aggressive mode, it's not that far off vs downshifting / engine braking in a manual transmission vehicle. If people have only driven automatics, then it's definitely a huge shift.
I love it, though. After 4+ years, I'd be hard pressed to buy an EV that didn't have one pedal driving.
Shit, if we're completely redesigning how cars work . . . let's get rid of pedals entirely. I would rather drive a vehicle with a playstation controller than a steering wheel and pedals.
This is one of the few times when I miss an upvote button on this forum.Shit, if we're completely redesigning how cars work . . . let's get rid of pedals entirely. I would rather drive a vehicle with a playstation controller than a steering wheel and pedals.
Nice side effect would be people who got road rage would throw their controller and maybe not be able to drive for awhile.
It looks like a lot of the pubic is like me. It appears they want a cheaper basic electric car.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-demand-still-strong-despite-slowdown-hybrids-survey-2024-1 (https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-demand-still-strong-despite-slowdown-hybrids-survey-2024-1)
I'd like to spend less on the car and use the savings to buy something like a titanium frame bicycle.
It looks like a lot of the pubic is like me. It appears they want a cheaper basic electric car.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-demand-still-strong-despite-slowdown-hybrids-survey-2024-1 (https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-demand-still-strong-despite-slowdown-hybrids-survey-2024-1)
I'd like to spend less on the car and use the savings to buy something like a titanium frame bicycle.
It looks like a lot of the pubic is like me. It appears they want a cheaper basic electric car.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-demand-still-strong-despite-slowdown-hybrids-survey-2024-1 (https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-demand-still-strong-despite-slowdown-hybrids-survey-2024-1)
I'd like to spend less on the car and use the savings to buy something like a titanium frame bicycle.
Was that not the Chevy Bolt and the Nissan Leaf?
I'm surprised how many people have such a strong dislike for one pedal driving -- maybe because I grew up driving manual transmissions? Cars slowing down when you let off the gas feels normal to me.
Yeah - it is a learning-curve thing. Was hyper-aware in our ICE car last night (1 EV, 1 ICE - wife and I just take whichever one doesn't involve shuffling cars) and noticed that what I do is a solid 5 seconds before I need the brake is lift my foot completely and put it on the brake without pushing the brake while coasting, then brake as needed. The older leaf is close enough that this approach works there, although I've noticed sometimes someone will rush past me just to get to a red light - I am slowing down faster in the leaf, not so much it bothers me but enough it bothers some people around me. I've only done the one-pedal on 1-week rentals, and you do get used to it. But then I give the car back so that adaptation is lost until the next time.I'm surprised how many people have such a strong dislike for one pedal driving -- maybe because I grew up driving manual transmissions? Cars slowing down when you let off the gas feels normal to me.
Some people are just wired to be unwilling to adapt and accept change. EV's are different. Everything that's different isn't bad, but for folks that are wired that way, change = bad.
When cars first came out, the same type of people probably hated that you had to *push* the brake to stop instead of *pulling* on the reins. It was different. IMO, not bad.
Yeah - it is a learning-curve thing. Was hyper-aware in our ICE car last night (1 EV, 1 ICE - wife and I just take whichever one doesn't involve shuffling cars) and noticed that what I do is a solid 5 seconds before I need the brake is lift my foot completely and put it on the brake without pushing the brake while coasting, then brake as needed. The older leaf is close enough that this approach works there, although I've noticed sometimes someone will rush past me just to get to a red light - I am slowing down faster in the leaf, not so much it bothers me but enough it bothers some people around me. I've only done the one-pedal on 1-week rentals, and you do get used to it. But then I give the car back so that adaptation is lost until the next time.I'm surprised how many people have such a strong dislike for one pedal driving -- maybe because I grew up driving manual transmissions? Cars slowing down when you let off the gas feels normal to me.
Some people are just wired to be unwilling to adapt and accept change. EV's are different. Everything that's different isn't bad, but for folks that are wired that way, change = bad.
When cars first came out, the same type of people probably hated that you had to *push* the brake to stop instead of *pulling* on the reins. It was different. IMO, not bad.
It looks like a lot of the pubic is like me. It appears they want a cheaper basic electric car.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-demand-still-strong-despite-slowdown-hybrids-survey-2024-1 (https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-demand-still-strong-despite-slowdown-hybrids-survey-2024-1)
I'd like to spend less on the car and use the savings to buy something like a titanium frame bicycle.
25 Bestselling cars in 2023 (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g43553191/bestselling-cars-2023/).
For the curious, brand breakdown by units - top 25 only:
Toyota 20.0%
Ford 15.8%
Chevy/GMC 15.4%
RAM/Jeep 12.4%
Honda 11.1%
Tesla 9.1%
Subaru 6.9%
Nissan 4.0%
Hyundai 3.1%
Mazda 2.3%
And categories by unit:
SUV 42.9%
Pickup 33.3%
Sedan 16.9%
Wagon 6.9%
Tesla 9.1% (All-electric)
ICE 90.9% (including some hybrids - 24k - or 0.35% - F-150 Lightning also lumped in here)
We have a Kia Niro EV with adjustable regen down to 0, but requires manually pulling a paddle to stop and you have to time it right.Wait, what? Our ‘23 Niro EV has 4 levels, and I never touch the paddle to stop, in any regen mode. In the lowest regen mode it responds no differently than an ice car. I don’t understand the discomfort people have with it.
One pedal driving should become a business school case study about not alienating customers with pointless controversy. EVs are essentially computers on wheels, and regen settings are just a bit of software. Just make it an option. Telling customers they are wrong or old fashioned isn't the answer -- this will always be viewed as arrogant and condescending, not a good look. In time it may be that everyone moves to one-pedal driving. But maybe not, there may always be a segment of the population that, for whatever reason, prefers one way over another.
If one-pedal driving becomes the norm I think we'll see pedal misapplication accidents essentially disappear. Since the muscle memory for braking would be to release the pedal.
It looks like a lot of the pubic is like me. It appears they want a cheaper basic electric car.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-demand-still-strong-despite-slowdown-hybrids-survey-2024-1 (https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-demand-still-strong-despite-slowdown-hybrids-survey-2024-1)
I'd like to spend less on the car and use the savings to buy something like a titanium frame bicycle.
If one-pedal driving becomes the norm I think we'll see pedal misapplication accidents essentially disappear. Since the muscle memory for braking would be to release the pedal.
Agreed. If something goes wrong for any reason and a foot comes off the pedal, the car comes to a stop. I think it's safer in the vast majority of situations.
We have a Kia Niro EV with adjustable regen down to 0, but requires manually pulling a paddle to stop and you have to time it right.Wait, what? Our ‘23 Niro EV has 4 levels, and I never touch the paddle to stop, in any regen mode. In the lowest regen mode it responds no differently than an ice car. I don’t understand the discomfort people have with it.
Here's an article I thought the group would find interesting. It's about total electricity usage with all of the new EV's and data centers going in.
It's a good reminder that overall efficiency and building standards are an important part of the mix too.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/the-us-added-1-2-million-evs-to-the-grid-last-year-electricity-use-went-down/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/the-us-added-1-2-million-evs-to-the-grid-last-year-electricity-use-went-down/)
Where does your utility source it's electricity?Here's an article I thought the group would find interesting. It's about total electricity usage with all of the new EV's and data centers going in.
It's a good reminder that overall efficiency and building standards are an important part of the mix too.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/the-us-added-1-2-million-evs-to-the-grid-last-year-electricity-use-went-down/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/the-us-added-1-2-million-evs-to-the-grid-last-year-electricity-use-went-down/)
Interesting article. Once my old AC unit gives up the ghost, I'll be replacing it with a combo heatpump that can do AC in the summer and heating in the winter. I've already changed my water heater to be electric, my clothes dryer is electric and I now drive an EV. Once the heatpump is in, I'll be completely off oil and gas. Feels good.
Where does your utility source it's electricity?Here's an article I thought the group would find interesting. It's about total electricity usage with all of the new EV's and data centers going in.
It's a good reminder that overall efficiency and building standards are an important part of the mix too.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/the-us-added-1-2-million-evs-to-the-grid-last-year-electricity-use-went-down/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/the-us-added-1-2-million-evs-to-the-grid-last-year-electricity-use-went-down/)
Interesting article. Once my old AC unit gives up the ghost, I'll be replacing it with a combo heatpump that can do AC in the summer and heating in the winter. I've already changed my water heater to be electric, my clothes dryer is electric and I now drive an EV. Once the heatpump is in, I'll be completely off oil and gas. Feels good.
Where I live hydroelectric is the main source, but we still get large amounts from natural gas and coal.
While Oregon closed it's last coal plant, we still import electricity generated from coal from other states.
Hydroelectricity, while being good for the environment, is also the leading cause of the decimation of the native salmon runs.
I've been building all electric houses for a number of years, likely for the same reasons you are switching to all electric (efficiency), but the the electricity still can come from unfortunate sources.
Where does your utility source it's electricity?Here's an article I thought the group would find interesting. It's about total electricity usage with all of the new EV's and data centers going in.
It's a good reminder that overall efficiency and building standards are an important part of the mix too.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/the-us-added-1-2-million-evs-to-the-grid-last-year-electricity-use-went-down/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/the-us-added-1-2-million-evs-to-the-grid-last-year-electricity-use-went-down/)
Interesting article. Once my old AC unit gives up the ghost, I'll be replacing it with a combo heatpump that can do AC in the summer and heating in the winter. I've already changed my water heater to be electric, my clothes dryer is electric and I now drive an EV. Once the heatpump is in, I'll be completely off oil and gas. Feels good.
Where I live hydroelectric is the main source, but we still get large amounts from natural gas and coal.
While Oregon closed it's last coal plant, we still import electricity generated from coal from other states.
Hydroelectricity, while being good for the environment, is also the leading cause of the decimation of the native salmon runs.
I've been building all electric houses for a number of years, likely for the same reasons you are switching to all electric (efficiency), but the the electricity still can come from unfortunate sources.
This is my favorite tool to view where our electricity and related emissions come from. It's most useful viewing it at the state or plant level.
https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer (https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer)
It's based on where electricity is produced, not where it's consumed, so it doesn't necessarily line up with your exact consumed resource mix. But it seems to be a good guide.
I'm in Colorado, which has slightly above-average emissions intensity. I've done the math on emissions for all of my electrification projects. Conclusions for my household:
1. Electrifying cars is a big win for emissions, even if you're in a predominately coal state. You can get to an edge case scenario if you try hard enough. For example, an electric F150 has comparable emissions to a 55mpg Prius if you're sourcing your electricity in West Virginia or Wyoming (~1.8lbs/kWh). But the US average emissions intensity is about 0.8lbs/kWh.
2. Electrifying my water heater was both a big win for emissions and my wallet. My heat-pump water heater costs about 50% less to run, with a comparable reduction in emissions.
3. Changing my HVAC to a heat-pump was roughly break-even from an emissions standpoint based on my utilities resource mix of today. But it's an emissions win when you look at the full lifecycle.
All of this is based on emissions today. Colorado is 29% wind and 4% solar as of 2022. My utility is committed to being ~75%-80% renewables by 2030. All the coal plants will close by then as well. Electrifying and utility emissions reductions seem to be beneficial across the spectrum of potential projects.
The data shows that overall EV adoption is fairly low in the United States: only 0.86% of registered vehicles are electric.
EVAdoption considers a 16% adoption rate (share of sales) to be “mass adoption,” which means the US is projected to reach mass electric vehicle adoption in 2028.
California is the first state to reach mass adoption, hitting 16.2% in 2023.
...
I suspect Hyundai/Kia and a few others will fall into a model that works, despite rough starts, because there's just so much money on the table. But it'll be curious to see if Toyota doesn't take a beating for being so stubborn and delaying their foray into the transition. GM has often hurt themselves by letting "bean counters" make the call, but they also have loyal brand following in the U.S. Ford has had some great ideas / models but they need to fix their pricing and volume before they destroy their credibility entirely in the EV space.
I used to think that my next car would be an EV with 100% certainty but I am no longer sure about that. If Toyota and Honda get around to increasing their production of plugin hybrids, I feel I would go for one of those instead of a full EV. Now that I am retired and not commuting to work in my car, flexibility has become way more important than saving money on fuel.
The much bigger advantage in our eyes is not needing oil changes, far fewer brake jobs and just less maintenance time overall.
Finally, saving money on fuel is the least important metric for us. With the mpg of the PHEV and current gasoline prices we do save more driving the EV, but it’s on the order of $10-15/week when we don’t consider all the free charging (we both get free at work plus three years of fast charging on trips). The much bigger advantage in our eyes is not needing oil changes, far fewer brake jobs and just less maintenance time overall.
We went from a one car family to two when we bought the EV, just in case the new one gave us problems, or we both needed to be somewhere, or we wanted to take a trip and didn't want to deal with charging on the go, or.... When we realized we'd let the old car's battery go completely dead because no one had driven it for over 3 months, we borrowed a trickle charger and decided it was time to sell.
Low maintenance is great, and an efficient car that can easily merge is a plus. The best part to me, though, is no gas stations. We plug in once a week or so and put $3-4 worth of electricity in. Done!
Yeah, a PHEV is a great option for many, and we considered it, but then you still have to deal with a gas engine and all its components.This - the big gain is the maintenance getting away from the ICE itself. Wife's 2010 Prius was an awesome car for 8 years. Then needed $1800 engine gasket repair (part cheap, but involves pulling the engine) and we cried uncle when about 1 year later something with the hybrid system broke to the tune of $3600 - with hindsight, wish I would have had the car fixed. But we were out of town, the part was going to take longer than we intended to be out of town (and was almost the whole cost) so a huge hassle factor. But had I known that 6 months later I'd be looking at a piece of mail from Toyota telling me that specific problem would be reimbursed under warranty . . .
We went from a one car family to two when we bought the EV, just in case the new one gave us problems, or we both needed to be somewhere, or we wanted to take a trip and didn't want to deal with charging on the go, or.... When we realized we'd let the old car's battery go completely dead because no one had driven it for over 3 months, we borrowed a trickle charger and decided it was time to sell.
Low maintenance is great, and an efficient car that can easily merge is a plus. The best part to me, though, is no gas stations. We plug in once a week or so and put $3-4 worth of electricity in. Done!
Wouldn't a PHEV act the same for many people (and the FIREd especially). We drive fewer than 20 miles/day in the city, which a PHEV and 120v cord could handle easily overnight.
We're leaning to a PHEV only because it's a hassle to charge when we do long distance driving and camping. Getting an RV campsite to charge and a tent site to sleep is silly and expensive.
Yeah, a PHEV is a great option for many, and we considered it, but then you still have to deal with a gas engine and all its components.
Yeah, a PHEV is a great option for many, and we considered it, but then you still have to deal with a gas engine and all its components.
I only have to change the oil in my PHEV's ICE once every 15-20k miles because I do enough miles in EV mode. I'm just now nearing 100k miles on the car, but the ICE has required zero maintenance besides oil changes thus far.
Yes, in a PHEV you have an ICE powertrain that you might rarely use. But if you drive an EV in the same way as a PHEV, you'd have a bunch of battery capacity that you pay for and rarely use. Either way, you have something that you're paying for, but rarely using, that you drag around.
Yeah, a PHEV is a great option for many, and we considered it, but then you still have to deal with a gas engine and all its components.
I only have to change the oil in my PHEV's ICE once every 15-20k miles because I do enough miles in EV mode. I'm just now nearing 100k miles on the car, but the ICE has required zero maintenance besides oil changes thus far.
Yes, in a PHEV you have an ICE powertrain that you might rarely use. But if you drive an EV in the same way as a PHEV, you'd have a bunch of battery capacity that you pay for and rarely use. Either way, you have something that you're paying for, but rarely using, that you drag around.
Are there some PHEVs where the engine runs little or at low load? If run on battery power, I would expect that you would get many more hours of engine life out of such a vehicle. Is my perception correct? As for maintenance, people who sell oil tell you to change it every three months. I sometimes only put a thousand miles or less on my vehicle in 3 months. I change oil by mileage. is is possible to change oil on your PHEV by engine operating hours? I'm just thinking you could get by with less maintenance than a conventional ICE engine. Please tell me if I'm wrong so if I buy one someday, I will properly maintain it.
Ford rethinks EV strategy, is working on a smaller, cheaper EV platform (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/02/ford-rethinks-ev-strategy-is-working-on-a-smaller-cheaper-ev-platform/)
Ford now says mass-adoption needs EVs that cost the same as combustion cars.
More... promises... from Ford. But at least a strategy that makes sense. The Mach-E / Lightning being "bolted together" the way they were, and then prices raised through the stratosphere ensured failure. Actually building an affordable platform and selling at affordable prices is a fantastic strategy, if they execute on it. But it being 2024 and they are still "in the works" isn't great for them. Still watching with excitement, however this goes.
Ford rethinks EV strategy, is working on a smaller, cheaper EV platform (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/02/ford-rethinks-ev-strategy-is-working-on-a-smaller-cheaper-ev-platform/)
Ford now says mass-adoption needs EVs that cost the same as combustion cars.
More... promises... from Ford. But at least a strategy that makes sense. The Mach-E / Lightning being "bolted together" the way they were, and then prices raised through the stratosphere ensured failure. Actually building an affordable platform and selling at affordable prices is a fantastic strategy, if they execute on it. But it being 2024 and they are still "in the works" isn't great for them. Still watching with excitement, however this goes.
Yes - New cars are a major expenditure. For many to take the stretch and get an all electric car seems to represent some risk. A small car that serves as a second car may entice timid buyers such as myself to take the plunge. If gasoline prices rise as they inevitably will, this will certainly be true. Would an inexpensive small lower range car with those low maintenance costs be more mustachian?
Would an inexpensive small lower range car with those low maintenance costs be more mustachian?
Would an inexpensive small lower range car with those low maintenance costs be more mustachian?You are asking if a second car that is small would be mustachian?
Would an inexpensive small lower range car with those low maintenance costs be more mustachian?You are asking if a second car that is small would be mustachian?
Wait a moment, I need to get the facepunch machine... connect it to the drilling machine... there! Can you please ask again?
----
The problems with those cheap electric cars were that there were still 2 times as expensive as the cheapest model of each car maker. And there was no public charging infrastructure at all, so not even half of the population could even think about it - those who could charge at their house. And of course the range thing. It simply was not attractive.
Give me a BYD Dolphin for Chinese prices and it looks very different.
Would an inexpensive small lower range car with those low maintenance costs be more mustachian?You are asking if a second car that is small would be mustachian?
Wait a moment, I need to get the facepunch machine... connect it to the drilling machine... there! Can you please ask again?
----
The problems with those cheap electric cars were that there were still 2 times as expensive as the cheapest model of each car maker. And there was no public charging infrastructure at all, so not even half of the population could even think about it - those who could charge at their house. And of course the range thing. It simply was not attractive.
Give me a BYD Dolphin for Chinese prices and it looks very different.
Good points - I guess the first car would be a bicycle or a good pair of boots.
Your second point is also good. Sometimes products are introduced that are ahead of their time. I remember people saying to one another, "What the heck do I need a computer for?" I still hear people discuss electric cars with the simple statement, "Well, I ain't gonna buy one." Many of us are not quite ready for an electric car. I guess I would have to wire a dryer outlet in my garage and be prepared for higher electric bills.
The internal combustion engine has been a part of North American culture for a long time. Some took great joy in the throaty sound of a V-8 engine through straight pipes and the sound of custom camshafts was music to their ears. There's a lot of good old Rock 'n' Roll songs tied to the automobile as we know it today. Look at the racing scene in the deep South. Maybe, it's a bit more than a shift from one type of tool to another. Some of us are giving up a part of ourselves.
As in many things in life, practicality is not always in the forefront.
Yeah, a PHEV is a great option for many, and we considered it, but then you still have to deal with a gas engine and all its components.
I only have to change the oil in my PHEV's ICE once every 15-20k miles because I do enough miles in EV mode. I'm just now nearing 100k miles on the car, but the ICE has required zero maintenance besides oil changes thus far.
Yes, in a PHEV you have an ICE powertrain that you might rarely use. But if you drive an EV in the same way as a PHEV, you'd have a bunch of battery capacity that you pay for and rarely use. Either way, you have something that you're paying for, but rarely using, that you drag around.
Yeah, a PHEV is a great option for many, and we considered it, but then you still have to deal with a gas engine and all its components.
I only have to change the oil in my PHEV's ICE once every 15-20k miles because I do enough miles in EV mode. I'm just now nearing 100k miles on the car, but the ICE has required zero maintenance besides oil changes thus far.
Yes, in a PHEV you have an ICE powertrain that you might rarely use. But if you drive an EV in the same way as a PHEV, you'd have a bunch of battery capacity that you pay for and rarely use. Either way, you have something that you're paying for, but rarely using, that you drag around.
That extra battery capacity helps the battery age slower for people like me who try to keep a car for 15+ years. It had ~250 miles range when it was new. By the time it is ancient, it still might have ~50 miles of range which exceeds my around town needs extending the BEV's utility lifespan.
Yeah, a PHEV is a great option for many, and we considered it, but then you still have to deal with a gas engine and all its components.
I only have to change the oil in my PHEV's ICE once every 15-20k miles because I do enough miles in EV mode. I'm just now nearing 100k miles on the car, but the ICE has required zero maintenance besides oil changes thus far.
Yes, in a PHEV you have an ICE powertrain that you might rarely use. But if you drive an EV in the same way as a PHEV, you'd have a bunch of battery capacity that you pay for and rarely use. Either way, you have something that you're paying for, but rarely using, that you drag around.
That extra battery capacity helps the battery age slower for people like me who try to keep a car for 15+ years. It had ~250 miles range when it was new. By the time it is ancient, it still might have ~50 miles of range which exceeds my around town needs extending the BEV's utility lifespan.
A PHEV has a very similar advantage though. The battery keeps the ICE from running very often, which extends the life of the ICE and reduces the amount of maintenance needed.
My overall point is that most people are paying to drag around something that they rarely use. In a BEV, you pay more for extra battery capacity. In a PHEV, you pay more to have EV and ICE power capability in the same vehicle. The extra stuff in the BEV is more of the same (for better or worse). The extra stuff in the PHEV is completely different (for better or worse). There are advantages and disadvantages to both. The PHEV gives you zero range anxiety and flexibility to use whatever energy source is cheaper or available. You pay for that flexibility and convenience with a bit more maintenance over the life of the vehicle. The BEV probably gives you lower maintenance and fueling costs, and you are hopefully charging where you park but requires more planning for long trips, and a dependence on what is currently questionable charging infrastructure.
Yeah, a PHEV is a great option for many, and we considered it, but then you still have to deal with a gas engine and all its components.
I only have to change the oil in my PHEV's ICE once every 15-20k miles because I do enough miles in EV mode. I'm just now nearing 100k miles on the car, but the ICE has required zero maintenance besides oil changes thus far.
Yes, in a PHEV you have an ICE powertrain that you might rarely use. But if you drive an EV in the same way as a PHEV, you'd have a bunch of battery capacity that you pay for and rarely use. Either way, you have something that you're paying for, but rarely using, that you drag around.
That extra battery capacity helps the battery age slower for people like me who try to keep a car for 15+ years. It had ~250 miles range when it was new. By the time it is ancient, it still might have ~50 miles of range which exceeds my around town needs extending the BEV's utility lifespan.
A PHEV has a very similar advantage though. The battery keeps the ICE from running very often, which extends the life of the ICE and reduces the amount of maintenance needed.
My overall point is that most people are paying to drag around something that they rarely use. In a BEV, you pay more for extra battery capacity. In a PHEV, you pay more to have EV and ICE power capability in the same vehicle. The extra stuff in the BEV is more of the same (for better or worse). The extra stuff in the PHEV is completely different (for better or worse). There are advantages and disadvantages to both. The PHEV gives you zero range anxiety and flexibility to use whatever energy source is cheaper or available. You pay for that flexibility and convenience with a bit more maintenance over the life of the vehicle. The BEV probably gives you lower maintenance and fueling costs, and you are hopefully charging where you park but requires more planning for long trips, and a dependence on what is currently questionable charging infrastructure.
So,......they are both like these big crew cab pickup trucks with a single driver. People are paying to drag around something they rarely use.
A PHEV has a very similar advantage though. The battery keeps the ICE from running very often, which extends the life of the ICE and reduces the amount of maintenance needed.
My overall point is that most people are paying to drag around something that they rarely use. In a BEV, you pay more for extra battery capacity. In a PHEV, you pay more to have EV and ICE power capability in the same vehicle. The extra stuff in the BEV is more of the same (for better or worse). The extra stuff in the PHEV is completely different (for better or worse). There are advantages and disadvantages to both. The PHEV gives you zero range anxiety and flexibility to use whatever energy source is cheaper or available. You pay for that flexibility and convenience with a bit more maintenance over the life of the vehicle. The BEV probably gives you lower maintenance and fueling costs, and you are hopefully charging where you park but requires more planning for long trips, and a dependence on what is currently questionable charging infrastructure.
My overall point is that most people are paying to drag around something that they rarely use. In a BEV, you pay more for extra battery capacity. In a PHEV, you pay more to have EV and ICE power capability in the same vehicle. The extra stuff in the BEV is more of the same (for better or worse). The extra stuff in the PHEV is completely different (for better or worse). There are advantages and disadvantages to both. The PHEV gives you zero range anxiety and flexibility to use whatever energy source is cheaper or available. You pay for that flexibility and convenience with a bit more maintenance over the life of the vehicle. The BEV probably gives you lower maintenance and fueling costs, and you are hopefully charging where you park but requires more planning for long trips, and a dependence on what is currently questionable charging infrastructure.
So,......they are both like these big crew cab pickup trucks with a single driver. People are paying to drag around something they rarely use.
The difference between a Leaf Plus (~220mi range new) and a Leaf Standard (~150mi range new) is 156 kg or ~320 lbs. Not that much.
The difference between a Leaf Plus (~220mi range new) and a Leaf Standard (~150mi range new) is 156 kg or ~320 lbs. Not that much.
It's not strictly about the weight, it's about the composition and resource use. If we just replace one form of excess (oil consumption) with another (lithium mining), we are still on a path of planet destruction. By just solving all of our solutions with "more batteries", we are exasperating the negative externalities of that material extraction.
For instance, in an understandable desire to reduce national dependence on outside sources of lithium, we are now looking at extracting lithium from brine under the Colorado River, which is arguably the most important rive in North America. Should that operation go awry, our insatiable lithium appetite will have ruined the desert southwest along with southern California.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/rural-utah-concern-efforts-colorado-river-water-extract-107061371
The difference between mining battery material and oil/gas/coal is that battery material can be recycled. This allows a closed loop system once enough battery material is in the system. The amount of material that can be recovered is already over 90%. And getting better over time.
Our biggest issue is our current energy system is dependent upon literally burning stuff. Stop burning stuff is the biggest and most important change we can make.
First, I know the MMM forum is in 2024 a place where wealthy people often throw money at their problems w/o worry. A wealthy person just replaces their car when it acts up. I'm well off enough to do that too but choose not to. I still want to grow our pile of money so we can retire in comfort and security. I want to do this by, in part, continuing to minimize the cost of our driving. We chose a place to live where our driving distances are easy, low speed and about 10 minutes. DW and I are able to carpool. If your daily life or your choices are different - then no problem, I'm not here to criticize.
I believe EVs are the perfect local vehicle - as a commuter, for fun, for shopping, to reach entertainment - all things that are accessed well using an EV. I don't want to do long trips in one yet. Not prepared to hop from charger to charger. I tried it. Not for me. Basically any destination in a ~150 mile radius of home I'd do in an EV - and I have using borrowed EVs. Its a great second car.
I've become concerned about owning an EV long term though. Long term is how I own cars. We buy them and drive them forever. Our daily driver is 25 years old this year. It costs me insurance, gas, and an annual oil change. Maybe two oil changes. Repairs are infrequent and affordable. I do all my own work and source my own parts from a variety of retailers that I trust.
The way I see it - I can buy an EV with a small battery and then need a replacement sooner or buy a bigger battery and the battery will last years longer. Either way - replacement battery or larger battery - I'm buying battery materials. I'd argue that long term the slower aging larger battery represents less battery materials than a replacement battery more frequently. Anyhow, a battery that ages slower, and who takes longer to to fade down to my local use threshold needs serves my wallet better than a replacement battery sooner. I couple that with less driving, buying a smaller vehicle (and thus smaller batteries than a large vehicle), and slower charging at home. That's as optimized as I can be.
That lead me to think about all the junkyard cars I've seen over the years that were junked more b/c they were expensive to repair than crash damaged. Airbags deployed after a light collision that is easily repaired but not cost effective b/c NADA or KBB tells us what the car is supposedly worth.
A car's utility is generally ignored by valuations. My 25 year old car is worth more for its utility than its resale price. For that reason when the engine wore out at about 300K miles, I replaced the engine myself with a low mileage used engine - and we continue to not have a car payment today so we can grow our pile o'money faster. So this aging Honda is worth about $500 per month or $6000 per year to us. Far more than NADA says it is worth ($1500).
I wonder how fast EVs will reach the crusher b/c the battery remains expensive to replace or repair by the average consumer. $40K-$50K vehicles consumed by daily use seems absurd. We have a nicer vehicle for traveling that is a decade old this year. Still like new. Purchased used. No plans to replace it.
I read that battery prices continue to fall but I can't find replacement batteries that didn't originate from a wreck. I admire the Nissan Leaf Plus which meets our needs but if they discontinue it in few years, where would I source a battery in a decade or two? Not Nissan. Dealer battery prices are exorbitant. And the DIY folks (like me) prefer the Leaf battery for projects which is very modular and easy to reconfigure. If we buy a Chevy Bolt - how can I be confident that a 2019 Bolt can be repaired affordably in 2035? I can't.
This would be far easier if EVs used modular batteries that were interchangeable. It would also be easier if DW and I were the types to replace our vehicles often. Like someone we know who asked if a certain brand/model was reliable. I asked how many miles it had on it. ~30K. They might drive the rest of their years and never roll past their warranty coverage. Any car is reliable to 40K.
And we decided to do that too. Quit worrying about EVs and let the world buy and discard them as often they like. Not a good fit for us yet. Seems like a short term solution as long as the uncertainty of battery replacement looms in the future. I know the battery might last 150,000 miles or more. I'm more interested in ownership TCO mapped out to ~20 years. I don't think the parts support will be there. And its a shame b/c these cars are supposed to help humanity care for the environment, but they seem to have the same liabilities as a smart phone or a laptop - also not known for the longevity.
I really hope I'm wrong.
In other news, XBUS has filed for bankruptcy protection. Too bad. I might have considered one of those at a sub-$20K pricetag as earlier promised. The battery was said to be modular and removable and thus expandable. Give the rear mounted battery design - it might have been easy to adapt to different battery brands and designs if the OEM battery was no longer available due to something like a bankruptcy. These were never intended to be interstate capable vehicles. Mostly sub-45 mph vehicles which suits my needs well.
Edited for wording.
I come from a time when cars still had carburetors. There was minimal electronics. I like your idea of keeping the car running for a long time. These electric cars have a lot of software. The software has to work with whatever new battery is installed. I can't help but think of all the phones I've gone through since the turn of the century and all the computers I've replaced since the 1990s. It seems there are continuous changes being made to computer operating systems. Will you even be able to keep your car alive? Will planned obsolescence throw a wrench into your plans? Maybe a smart car maker will produce an EV that will make your idea possible. Now,....I don't know.
Crazy how it all sort of comes back to making a world not built for car but rather one built for people. Funny a 2 ton powered personal wheel chair can only get so "environmentally friendly" given you still have to have the hellcape of strip malls and strodes to support the e-canyonero.
Its the classics that help me worry about long term ownership of EVs. The aftermarket just isn't stepping up with solutions like they do for used ICE cars. I received a catalog in the mail today of parts for one of my classic brands going back to the 1950s. Much of each generation is available. Some classics can be bought piece by piece and reconstructed into a new car that never existed in the 1950s or 1960s.
The lack of aftermarket batteries (all uniquely proprietary of course) leads to me wonder if the aftermarket sees the writing on the wall. These cars won't be repaired and kept rolling for a couple of decades so why make many parts for them? When the battery is dead, the rest of the car may not be worthwhile to repair according to the valuation publications, so send it to the crusher.
The difference between a Leaf Plus (~220mi range new) and a Leaf Standard (~150mi range new) is 156 kg or ~320 lbs. Not that much.
It's not strictly about the weight, it's about the composition and resource use. If we just replace one form of excess (oil consumption) with another (lithium mining), we are still on a path of planet destruction. By just solving all of our solutions with "more batteries", we are exasperating the negative externalities of that material extraction.
For instance, in an understandable desire to reduce national dependence on outside sources of lithium, we are now looking at extracting lithium from brine under the Colorado River, which is arguably the most important rive in North America. Should that operation go awry, our insatiable lithium appetite will have ruined the desert southwest along with southern California.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/rural-utah-concern-efforts-colorado-river-water-extract-107061371 (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/rural-utah-concern-efforts-colorado-river-water-extract-107061371)
The difference between mining battery material and oil/gas/coal is that battery material can be recycled. This allows a closed loop system once enough battery material is in the system. The amount of material that can be recovered is already over 90%. And getting better over time.
Our biggest issue is our current energy system is dependent upon literally burning stuff. Stop burning stuff is the biggest and most important change we can make.
Oil and Gas on the other hand involves a 6" hole in the earth to let the hydrocarbons flow out. When done, a cement plug goes in the well and that's it.
QuoteOil and Gas on the other hand involves a 6" hole in the earth to let the hydrocarbons flow out. When done, a cement plug goes in the well and that's it.
Can you please remind me long did it take to put the plug into Deewater Horizon?
btw. did you know that a single litre of oil will contaminate a million litres of water?
Table salt production can also uses huge evaporation pits.
GilesMM, try using data and numbers not just pictures. Might be more convincing in this crowd.
I live near a coal sea port, the entire area can get some coal dust from the open top trains and storage piles along with countless towns along the rail line. Is better than it once was but my city is effected by mining hundreds of miles away even before the coal is burnt into a gas.
https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/erma-deepwater-gulf-response-surface-and-shoreline-oiling_noaa.png (https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/erma-deepwater-gulf-response-surface-and-shoreline-oiling_noaa.png)
Oil and Gas on the other hand involves a 6" hole in the earth to let the hydrocarbons flow out. When done, a cement plug goes in the well and that's it.
The difference between a Leaf Plus (~220mi range new) and a Leaf Standard (~150mi range new) is 156 kg or ~320 lbs. Not that much.
It's not strictly about the weight, it's about the composition and resource use. If we just replace one form of excess (oil consumption) with another (lithium mining), we are still on a path of planet destruction. By just solving all of our solutions with "more batteries", we are exasperating the negative externalities of that material extraction.
For instance, in an understandable desire to reduce national dependence on outside sources of lithium, we are now looking at extracting lithium from brine under the Colorado River, which is arguably the most important rive in North America. Should that operation go awry, our insatiable lithium appetite will have ruined the desert southwest along with southern California.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/rural-utah-concern-efforts-colorado-river-water-extract-107061371 (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/rural-utah-concern-efforts-colorado-river-water-extract-107061371)
The difference between mining battery material and oil/gas/coal is that battery material can be recycled. This allows a closed loop system once enough battery material is in the system. The amount of material that can be recovered is already over 90%. And getting better over time.
Our biggest issue is our current energy system is dependent upon literally burning stuff. Stop burning stuff is the biggest and most important change we can make.
There are many differences. One is environmental impact of extraction. Lithium (and cobalt) mines are horrific strip mining operations involving complete destruction of the area for open pits plus in some cases massive evaporation ponds. Oil and Gas on the other hand involves a 6" hole in the earth to let the hydrocarbons flow out. When done, a cement plug goes in the well and that's it.
(https://www.mining-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2021/03/2-1.jpg)
Oil and Gas on the other hand involves a 6" hole in the earth to let the hydrocarbons flow out. When done, a cement plug goes in the well and that's it.
This isn't the first time you've tried to report such nonsense. It's so divorced from reality that it's hard to know where to even start. The hole may be 6" (though most nowadays are substantially larger - the bore-hole for larger wells can be a meter in diameter), but each drilling rig can take up acre or more, which involves bulldozing whatever there. Most inject drilling fluid and require hundreds of meters of pipe, which gets stacked nearby (more clearing). The mud/rock they remove gets piled nearby, and is typically tainted by the hydrocarbons they are trying to extract and the drilling slurry. Then you've got to get heavy trucks to/from the rig (more habitat fragmentation). When all is said and done it's not a simple cement plug in a 6" hole as you describe, but several acres of contaminated soil which can't be used for much else, and often a disruption to the aquifer which extends for miles. the NOP, for example, specifically excludes crops and livestock which are within 3/4 mile from even decommissioned wells. There's also increasing public health data showing adverse impacts on people who live within 2km of an active well.
What is in the water though? I've always wondered that.
Crazy how it all sort of comes back to making a world not built for car but rather one built for people. Funny a 2 ton powered personal wheel chair can only get so "environmentally friendly" given you still have to have the hell scape of strip malls and strodes to support the e-canyonero.
Crazy how it all sort of comes back to making a world not built for car but rather one built for people. Funny a 2 ton powered personal wheel chair can only get so "environmentally friendly" given you still have to have the hell scape of strip malls and strodes to support the e-canyonero.
Yes! The semantics about lithium vs oil mining are distractions IMO. The "stop burning stuff" only gets partway to the point. The real point should be "stop consuming stuff". If we were to switch the world to perfectly clean, recyclable EVs, we're still dealing with all of the other issues with cars:
1) Covering our planet in black tar and gravel for those cars to travel on. And maintaining that surface.
2) Reducing our ability to move freely about with human powered transportation. And all of the negative health that goes with that.
3) Leeching more chemicals into the environment. EVs are heavy, and heavy cars wear tires out faster. Those chemicals in tire wear have demonstrable effect on local environments, especially aquatic ones.
4) Spending our resources on all of the above said issues. It's like being addicted to sugar or cigarettes. Not only are we less healthy, but we have to spend a certain amount on cigarettes, ashtrays, candy, etc when that $ could be used for something cool like fancy ingredients for a new meal, rock climbing shoes, or what have you.
Traditional oil extraction doesn't have a lot of surface disruption, but as older oil fields are slowly being depleted other means of extraction are becoming more economical and therefore more common. Oil sands extraction is basically just a strip mining, very similar to the image posted above. Likewise, lithium extraction can come from mining, or it can be extracted from various naturally occurring brines depending on location. The idea that lithium extraction is significantly worse from an environmental point of view is nonsense; they are both have a negative environmental impact proportional to the quantities required. A typical EV will have several tens of kg of lithium, and similar amounts of nickel, etc. This will require a substantial amount of earth to be moved if mined or a substantial amount of water to extract from brines. But a typical gasoline car will required a few tens of thousands of kg of gasoline over its lifetime which requires substantially more earth to be moved when produced from bituminous sand.
What is in the water though? I've always wondered that.
There were fish there.
I work in the diesel engine industry and we are using a lot of resources trying to be ready for laws that are not yet written. It's a tough problem to solve. How much should the government force our innovation?
I work in the diesel engine industry and we are using a lot of resources trying to be ready for laws that are not yet written. It's a tough problem to solve. How much should the government force our innovation?
Ok - I co-taught a course on environmental regulation. The 30,000' synopsis is that most positive change within the world of environmental and ecosystem health has come from federal regulation and international treaties. These include almost all of the greatest 'wins' for our planet, from the Clean Water Act to the global outlaw of CFCs to the London Convention for vessel discharge. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, an enormous amount of time and money is exhausted trying to adapt to current regulations and chase future ones.
From a more philosophic viewpoint, the impact of emissions isn't limited to the manufacturer or even the end user. Tail pipe emission standards (e.g. through the Clean Air Act) are constitutional precisely because the 'harm' is experienced by people who didn't buy the car at all.
I work in the diesel engine industry and we are using a lot of resources trying to be ready for laws that are not yet written. It's a tough problem to solve. How much should the government force our innovation?
Ok - I co-taught a course on environmental regulation. The 30,000' synopsis is that most positive change within the world of environmental and ecosystem health has come from federal regulation and international treaties. These include almost all of the greatest 'wins' for our planet, from the Clean Water Act to the global outlaw of CFCs to the London Convention for vessel discharge. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, an enormous amount of time and money is exhausted trying to adapt to current regulations and chase future ones.
From a more philosophic viewpoint, the impact of emissions isn't limited to the manufacturer or even the end user. Tail pipe emission standards (e.g. through the Clean Air Act) are constitutional precisely because the 'harm' is experienced by people who didn't buy the car at all.
Just curious. Are there examples of "market forces" ever doing the environmental cleanup thing on their own. A few years back one used to hear the mantra of people practically worshiping the power of the market as a be all and end all solution to societal problems. I always thought the idea was kind of silly because often the market caused such problems in the first place.
I can see the "economy of scale" greatly lowering the price of electric cars. Then you could claim "market forces" are the solution, but the initial push needs to come from government forces.
Crazy how it all sort of comes back to making a world not built for car but rather one built for people. Funny a 2 ton powered personal wheel chair can only get so "environmentally friendly" given you still have to have the hell scape of strip malls and strodes to support the e-canyonero.
Yes! The semantics about lithium vs oil mining are distractions IMO. The "stop burning stuff" only gets partway to the point. The real point should be "stop consuming stuff". If we were to switch the world to perfectly clean, recyclable EVs, we're still dealing with all of the other issues with cars:
1) Covering our planet in black tar and gravel for those cars to travel on. And maintaining that surface.
2) Reducing our ability to move freely about with human powered transportation. And all of the negative health that goes with that.
3) Leeching more chemicals into the environment. EVs are heavy, and heavy cars wear tires out faster. Those chemicals in tire wear have demonstrable effect on local environments, especially aquatic ones.
4) Spending our resources on all of the above said issues. It's like being addicted to sugar or cigarettes. Not only are we less healthy, but we have to spend a certain amount on cigarettes, ashtrays, candy, etc when that $ could be used for something cool like fancy ingredients for a new meal, rock climbing shoes, or what have you.
Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't we stop burning stuff and at the same time take action on these other issues?
I work in the diesel engine industry and we are using a lot of resources trying to be ready for laws that are not yet written. It's a tough problem to solve. How much should the government force our innovation?
Ok - I co-taught a course on environmental regulation. The 30,000' synopsis is that most positive change within the world of environmental and ecosystem health has come from federal regulation and international treaties. These include almost all of the greatest 'wins' for our planet, from the Clean Water Act to the global outlaw of CFCs to the London Convention for vessel discharge. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, an enormous amount of time and money is exhausted trying to adapt to current regulations and chase future ones.
From a more philosophic viewpoint, the impact of emissions isn't limited to the manufacturer or even the end user. Tail pipe emission standards (e.g. through the Clean Air Act) are constitutional precisely because the 'harm' is experienced by people who didn't buy the car at all.
Just curious. Are there examples of "market forces" ever doing the environmental cleanup thing on their own. A few years back one used to hear the mantra of people practically worshiping the power of the market as a be all and end all solution to societal problems. I always thought the idea was kind of silly because often the market caused such problems in the first place.
I can see the "economy of scale" greatly lowering the price of electric cars. Then you could claim "market forces" are the solution, but the initial push needs to come from government forces.
The free market is great at getting us cool stuff at good prices and improving our lives directly. They are also great at externalizing as much of their costs as possible. This leads to 'the tragedy of the commons'. One of the roles of government is to protect it's citizens against this.
It's a problem called "the tragedy of the commons"
The Tragedy of the Not-Commons.
Hardin was a ideological enemy of anything common and hardcore market fanatist, that is why he invented this example with the sheeps of an anti-commons and named it wrongly.
The ozon layer hole is an example how a non-commons got turned into a commons by people doing commoning. Nature preserves are (as long as they aren't created where nobody wants to do anything anyway). Many flea markets are.
A toxic lake is not nobody ever cares about is not, as is a rule-free pasture. There is no commons without commoning.
The free market is great at getting us cool stuff at good prices and improving our lives directly. They are also great at externalizing as much of their costs as possible. This leads to 'the tragedy of the commons'. One of the roles of government is to protect it's citizens against this.QuoteIt's a problem called "the tragedy of the commons"
sigh
The Tragedy of the Not-Commons.
Hardin was a ideological enemy of anything common and hardcore market fanatist, that is why he invented this example with the sheeps of an anti-commons and named it wrongly.
The ozon layer hole is an example how a non-commons got turned into a commons by people doing commoning. Nature preserves are (as long as they aren't created where nobody wants to do anything anyway). Many flea markets are.
A toxic lake is not nobody ever cares about is not, as is a rule-free pasture. There is no commons without commoning.
Crazy how it all sort of comes back to making a world not built for car but rather one built for people. Funny a 2 ton powered personal wheel chair can only get so "environmentally friendly" given you still have to have the hell scape of strip malls and strodes to support the e-canyonero.
Yes! The semantics about lithium vs oil mining are distractions IMO. The "stop burning stuff" only gets partway to the point. The real point should be "stop consuming stuff". If we were to switch the world to perfectly clean, recyclable EVs, we're still dealing with all of the other issues with cars:
1) Covering our planet in black tar and gravel for those cars to travel on. And maintaining that surface.
2) Reducing our ability to move freely about with human powered transportation. And all of the negative health that goes with that.
3) Leeching more chemicals into the environment. EVs are heavy, and heavy cars wear tires out faster. Those chemicals in tire wear have demonstrable effect on local environments, especially aquatic ones.
4) Spending our resources on all of the above said issues. It's like being addicted to sugar or cigarettes. Not only are we less healthy, but we have to spend a certain amount on cigarettes, ashtrays, candy, etc when that $ could be used for something cool like fancy ingredients for a new meal, rock climbing shoes, or what have you.
Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't we stop burning stuff and at the same time take action on these other issues?
A basic summary of my view: If we have a limited amount of capital to fix the problem (whether that be fiscal, political or attention capital), then there are opportunity costs to spending that capital on certain issues. The more attention and focus that we spend on converting to electric, that will inherently take some our focus away from other issues (such as general energy reduction). It's obvously not a 1:1 reduction as we can "do both". But switching to EVs has a lot of general downsides compared to switching away from heavy vehicle transport in general. EVs solve only one or two of the negative externalities with cars (emissions), but are neutral or worse on the other externalities with cars. It's like switching from cigarettes to vaping- like, sure, it's sorta better, but why not cut the addiction out in the first place? Vaping isn't really a win overall, just a win compared to cigarettes. And that's a pretty low bar for beating. Same with cars in my view.
For example, if population level stays the same and we reduce our energy use by 30%, then we end up with a 30% reduction in energy usage. Yay!I get your point but your math is wrong. If the average person uses 30% less energy but the population doubles that is a net 40% increase in total usage, not 70%. Formula: 100 * 0.7 * 2 - 100.
But, if population is increasing, then reduction gets washed away in the overall growth. For example, if population doubles, that's a 100% increase in energy usage. Even if everyone decreases their average use by 30%, it's still a net increase of 70%.
The free market is great at getting us cool stuff at good prices and improving our lives directly. They are also great at externalizing as much of their costs as possible. This leads to 'the tragedy of the commons'. One of the roles of government is to protect it's citizens against this.QuoteIt's a problem called "the tragedy of the commons"
sigh
The Tragedy of the Not-Commons.
Hardin was a ideological enemy of anything common and hardcore market fanatist, that is why he invented this example with the sheeps of an anti-commons and named it wrongly.
The ozon layer hole is an example how a non-commons got turned into a commons by people doing commoning. Nature preserves are (as long as they aren't created where nobody wants to do anything anyway). Many flea markets are.
A toxic lake is not nobody ever cares about is not, as is a rule-free pasture. There is no commons without commoning.
Me too - I understand the tragedy of the commons answer that the other two gave.
Back in the late 1800s, there were lots of bison in North America. There were millions. A value was put on hides. They were nearly wiped out. It was similar with the Passenger pigeon. It was said as the flocks flew over that the sky would become dark. The last one was killed in the early 1900s.
It doesn't even have to be a part of nature that gives a product. A few days ago I heard they restored the wolves to Yellowstone a few years back and as a result other life had an astounding recovery. They used to put a price on wolf pelts. It was an artificially induced market that messed things up.
This nature thing has a delicate balance. I'm starting to think there are optimal balances with economics too. There's smart ways to do stuff and maybe not so smart. Some things are better done publicly and some privately. Different balances of public or private really have an effect on the common good.
Some people think electric cars are being shoved down their throats, but I don't see the choice of ICE or electric being removed. Biden and his crew are just nudging the market a bit.
For example, if population level stays the same and we reduce our energy use by 30%, then we end up with a 30% reduction in energy usage. Yay!I get your point but your math is wrong. If the average person uses 30% less energy but the population doubles that is a net 40% increase in total usage, not 70%. Formula: 100 * 0.7 * 2 - 100.
But, if population is increasing, then reduction gets washed away in the overall growth. For example, if population doubles, that's a 100% increase in energy usage. Even if everyone decreases their average use by 30%, it's still a net increase of 70%.
Crazy how it all sort of comes back to making a world not built for car but rather one built for people. Funny a 2 ton powered personal wheel chair can only get so "environmentally friendly" given you still have to have the hell scape of strip malls and strodes to support the e-canyonero.
Yes! The semantics about lithium vs oil mining are distractions IMO. The "stop burning stuff" only gets partway to the point. The real point should be "stop consuming stuff". If we were to switch the world to perfectly clean, recyclable EVs, we're still dealing with all of the other issues with cars:
1) Covering our planet in black tar and gravel for those cars to travel on. And maintaining that surface.
2) Reducing our ability to move freely about with human powered transportation. And all of the negative health that goes with that.
3) Leeching more chemicals into the environment. EVs are heavy, and heavy cars wear tires out faster. Those chemicals in tire wear have demonstrable effect on local environments, especially aquatic ones.
4) Spending our resources on all of the above said issues. It's like being addicted to sugar or cigarettes. Not only are we less healthy, but we have to spend a certain amount on cigarettes, ashtrays, candy, etc when that $ could be used for something cool like fancy ingredients for a new meal, rock climbing shoes, or what have you.
Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't we stop burning stuff and at the same time take action on these other issues?
A basic summary of my view: If we have a limited amount of capital to fix the problem (whether that be fiscal, political or attention capital), then there are opportunity costs to spending that capital on certain issues. The more attention and focus that we spend on converting to electric, that will inherently take some our focus away from other issues (such as general energy reduction). It's obvously not a 1:1 reduction as we can "do both". But switching to EVs has a lot of general downsides compared to switching away from heavy vehicle transport in general. EVs solve only one or two of the negative externalities with cars (emissions), but are neutral or worse on the other externalities with cars. It's like switching from cigarettes to vaping- like, sure, it's sorta better, but why not cut the addiction out in the first place? Vaping isn't really a win overall, just a win compared to cigarettes. And that's a pretty low bar for beating. Same with cars in my view.
I agree with you, we should reduce average usage. Having said that, its also true that reduction only works to solve this problem if our population is static.
For example, if population level stays the same and we reduce our energy use by 30%, then we end up with a 30% reduction in energy usage. Yay!
But, if population is increasing, then reduction gets washed away in the overall growth. For example, if population doubles, that's a 100% increase in energy usage. Even if everyone decreases their average use by 30%, it's still a net increase of 70%.
Since we are in the middle of large population increases (as well as a larger percentage of the world becoming middle class) means austerity won't work.
The only real solution I see is to completely transition everything to renewable and electric. Only by shifting the entire system to non-CO2 emitting will we be able to solve this problem.
For example, if population level stays the same and we reduce our energy use by 30%, then we end up with a 30% reduction in energy usage. Yay!I get your point but your math is wrong. If the average person uses 30% less energy but the population doubles that is a net 40% increase in total usage, not 70%. Formula: 100 * 0.7 * 2 - 100.
But, if population is increasing, then reduction gets washed away in the overall growth. For example, if population doubles, that's a 100% increase in energy usage. Even if everyone decreases their average use by 30%, it's still a net increase of 70%.
Ah, thank you for catching the mistake. Accuracy is important!
Even with those lower numbers, it's clear that cutting back simply won't work.
And that doesn't even account for the fact that large numbers of people (mostly China and India) are also shifting from poverty to a middle class lifestyle. This also dramatically increases energy usage at baseline.
So even if everyone 'cuts back', it won't make a difference, not when you take a global perspective.
Again, as far as I can see the only real solution is to move off the CO2 system entirely. Lucky for us solar/wind/batteries are already the cheapest form of energy generation in all history and is continuing to get cheaper every year.
There's hope.
Crazy how it all sort of comes back to making a world not built for car but rather one built for people. Funny a 2 ton powered personal wheel chair can only get so "environmentally friendly" given you still have to have the hell scape of strip malls and strodes to support the e-canyonero.
Yes! The semantics about lithium vs oil mining are distractions IMO. The "stop burning stuff" only gets partway to the point. The real point should be "stop consuming stuff". If we were to switch the world to perfectly clean, recyclable EVs, we're still dealing with all of the other issues with cars:
1) Covering our planet in black tar and gravel for those cars to travel on. And maintaining that surface.
2) Reducing our ability to move freely about with human powered transportation. And all of the negative health that goes with that.
3) Leeching more chemicals into the environment. EVs are heavy, and heavy cars wear tires out faster. Those chemicals in tire wear have demonstrable effect on local environments, especially aquatic ones.
4) Spending our resources on all of the above said issues. It's like being addicted to sugar or cigarettes. Not only are we less healthy, but we have to spend a certain amount on cigarettes, ashtrays, candy, etc when that $ could be used for something cool like fancy ingredients for a new meal, rock climbing shoes, or what have you.
Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't we stop burning stuff and at the same time take action on these other issues?
A basic summary of my view: If we have a limited amount of capital to fix the problem (whether that be fiscal, political or attention capital), then there are opportunity costs to spending that capital on certain issues. The more attention and focus that we spend on converting to electric, that will inherently take some our focus away from other issues (such as general energy reduction). It's obvously not a 1:1 reduction as we can "do both". But switching to EVs has a lot of general downsides compared to switching away from heavy vehicle transport in general. EVs solve only one or two of the negative externalities with cars (emissions), but are neutral or worse on the other externalities with cars. It's like switching from cigarettes to vaping- like, sure, it's sorta better, but why not cut the addiction out in the first place? Vaping isn't really a win overall, just a win compared to cigarettes. And that's a pretty low bar for beating. Same with cars in my view.
I agree with you, we should reduce average usage. Having said that, its also true that reduction only works to solve this problem if our population is static.
For example, if population level stays the same and we reduce our energy use by 30%, then we end up with a 30% reduction in energy usage. Yay!
But, if population is increasing, then reduction gets washed away in the overall growth. For example, if population doubles, that's a 100% increase in energy usage. Even if everyone decreases their average use by 30%, it's still a net increase of 70%.
Since we are in the middle of large population increases (as well as a larger percentage of the world becoming middle class) means austerity won't work.
The only real solution I see is to completely transition everything to renewable and electric. Only by shifting the entire system to non-CO2 emitting will we be able to solve this problem.
So you've change the subject on me here. I was discussing electric cars, particularly in the US, not a general global population increase and shift from poverty to middle class.
I don't disagree that, in a general sense, switching to non-emissions forms of energy production is critical to stabilizing our atmosphere and CO2 emissions. 100% with you on that one!
I also don't necessarily disagree that switching from ICE to EV as standard for personal vehicles is going to be a major factor in getting there either. I am disagreeing that changing our current transportation system from ICE to EV is a bad idea compared to more pedestrian oriented transportation; especially at a global scale. There is no reason for India and China to model their cities and cars after ours; our transportation is expensive, excessive, dangerous and wasteful no matter what fuel is used. There are quite a few studies that show that after a certain point, there is an inverse relationship between happiness and carbon footprint. The way we currently live would be disastrous if followed by the rest of the global population.
The Tragedy of the Not-Commons.
Hardin was a ideological enemy of anything common and hardcore market fanatist, that is why he invented this example with the sheeps of an anti-commons and named it wrongly.
The ozon layer hole is an example how a non-commons got turned into a commons by people doing commoning. Nature preserves are (as long as they aren't created where nobody wants to do anything anyway). Many flea markets are.
A toxic lake is not nobody ever cares about is not, as is a rule-free pasture. There is no commons without commoning.
I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Could you rephrase?
The only real solution I see is to completely transition everything to renewable and electric. Only by shifting the entire system to non-CO2 emitting will we be able to solve this problem.
The only real solution I see is to completely transition everything to renewable and electric. Only by shifting the entire system to non-CO2 emitting will we be able to solve this problem.
There seems to be a disconnect with the above bolded statement (apologies - not trying to call you out specifically and taking this out of context), and the continued hate directed at mining. I am all for the green energy transition. To accomplish a green energy transition we need continued and increased mining of key materials necessary for these technologies. You cant have one with out the other. Someone else up above was hating on mining also, Look we cant have modern life with out mining, period, including EVs, cell phones, fertilizer, etc. Solar panels, batteries, wind mills, nuclear power all need materials from mining.
If you cant grow it, you have to mine it.
Higher interest rates continue to hurt EV makers.
- Rivian is predicting basically flat sales for 2024 and just laid off 10% of their salaried workers. The stock has dropped 26% since their earnings call.
- Lucid is also predicting little to no growth this year, and has seen their stock fall 17.5% since their earnings call.
Both of those companies have cut prices on very well reviewed products in recent months, and are still struggling to sell their expensive models in a high interest rate environment. And because vehicle development takes years, it's going to be awhile before any potentially cheaper or more profitable vehicles are into customer hands.
Meanwhile, Mercedes CEO seems to be walking back their EV timeline a bit:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-22/mercedes-sees-lower-returns-this-year-on-slowing-global-economy?embedded-checkout=true
Still in "luxury product phase" - generally, those get hit first when economy slows.
Be interesting to see what happens to demand for cars lower on the price-scale - EVs overall are definitely luxury space, but there are a few lower-end models that might be less affected.
Higher interest rates continue to hurt EV makers.
- Rivian is predicting basically flat sales for 2024 and just laid off 10% of their salaried workers. The stock has dropped 26% since their earnings call.
- Lucid is also predicting little to no growth this year, and has seen their stock fall 17.5% since their earnings call.
Both of those companies have cut prices on very well reviewed products in recent months, and are still struggling to sell their expensive models in a high interest rate environment. And because vehicle development takes years, it's going to be awhile before any potentially cheaper or more profitable vehicles are into customer hands.
Meanwhile, Mercedes CEO seems to be walking back their EV timeline a bit:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-22/mercedes-sees-lower-returns-this-year-on-slowing-global-economy?embedded-checkout=true
Rivian is announcing their lower cost R2 in two weeks, FWIW.
Still in "luxury product phase" - generally, those get hit first when economy slows.
Be interesting to see what happens to demand for cars lower on the price-scale - EVs overall are definitely luxury space, but there are a few lower-end models that might be less affected.
No question. I guess my mind goes straight to the larger business case though. If expensive EVs were difficult to make profitably, then what happens to the business outlook for less expensive models? Many of the OEMs EV product roadmaps had lower cost options hitting the market in the coming years, but they needed large scale battery production to make that viable and that isn't happening yet, and may not happen for some time. If they can't sell their expensive EVs to build scale, then there's no profit in less expensive, more mainstream models. So I think we're likely to continue to see established OEMs switch their plans, while EV only startups struggle to hang on.
Rivian has Amazon's backing, but the stock is down 47% YTD. Lucid had Saudi backers flush with cash, but the stock is down 27% YTD. Tesla is the biggest fish in the pond, and the stock is down 20% YTD. All of this while the greater market is up more than 7% over the same time frame.
Then there's bicycles - https://www.statista.com/statistics/674381/size-global-market-electric-bicycles/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/674381/size-global-market-electric-bicycles/)
I bet they grow a lot faster than electric cars.
Still in "luxury product phase" - generally, those get hit first when economy slows.
Be interesting to see what happens to demand for cars lower on the price-scale - EVs overall are definitely luxury space, but there are a few lower-end models that might be less affected.
No question. I guess my mind goes straight to the larger business case though. If expensive EVs were difficult to make profitably, then what happens to the business outlook for less expensive models? Many of the OEMs EV product roadmaps had lower cost options hitting the market in the coming years, but they needed large scale battery production to make that viable and that isn't happening yet, and may not happen for some time. If they can't sell their expensive EVs to build scale, then there's no profit in less expensive, more mainstream models. So I think we're likely to continue to see established OEMs switch their plans, while EV only startups struggle to hang on.
Rivian has Amazon's backing, but the stock is down 47% YTD. Lucid had Saudi backers flush with cash, but the stock is down 27% YTD. Tesla is the biggest fish in the pond, and the stock is down 20% YTD. All of this while the greater market is up more than 7% over the same time frame.
Looking at the stock price is irrelevant. Looking at the plans/execution of a few manufacturers is also irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not EV sales are growing, year over year, on a global scale. And..... they are.
I do agree with you about the need for more and better choices in the mid-priced EV area. It is happening and the underlying factor that's allowing it to happen is a dramatic decrease in the price of batteries. Last year, the price of a battery pack for an EV dropped 30%. This year it's projected to drop another 50%. That takes the price of the battery from 40% of the cost of the car, all the way down to 20% of the price of the car.
That's probably why Tesla is able to sell the Model 3 for $35k now. I just checked their website under 'inventory' and that's the current price.
Still in "luxury product phase" - generally, those get hit first when economy slows.
Be interesting to see what happens to demand for cars lower on the price-scale - EVs overall are definitely luxury space, but there are a few lower-end models that might be less affected.
No question. I guess my mind goes straight to the larger business case though. If expensive EVs were difficult to make profitably, then what happens to the business outlook for less expensive models? Many of the OEMs EV product roadmaps had lower cost options hitting the market in the coming years, but they needed large scale battery production to make that viable and that isn't happening yet, and may not happen for some time. If they can't sell their expensive EVs to build scale, then there's no profit in less expensive, more mainstream models. So I think we're likely to continue to see established OEMs switch their plans, while EV only startups struggle to hang on.
Rivian has Amazon's backing, but the stock is down 47% YTD. Lucid had Saudi backers flush with cash, but the stock is down 27% YTD. Tesla is the biggest fish in the pond, and the stock is down 20% YTD. All of this while the greater market is up more than 7% over the same time frame.
Looking at the stock price is irrelevant. Looking at the plans/execution of a few manufacturers is also irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not EV sales are growing, year over year, on a global scale. And..... they are.
I do agree with you about the need for more and better choices in the mid-priced EV area. It is happening and the underlying factor that's allowing it to happen is a dramatic decrease in the price of batteries. Last year, the price of a battery pack for an EV dropped 30%. This year it's projected to drop another 50%. That takes the price of the battery from 40% of the cost of the car, all the way down to 20% of the price of the car.
That's probably why Tesla is able to sell the Model 3 for $35k now. I just checked their website under 'inventory' and that's the current price.
Battery prices don't just magically drop. It takes scale. And that's not happening at nearly the rate that many people/businesses forecast. EV adoption has been growing each year, but they've existed almost exclusively in a macro environment where financing was cheap and easy. Everybody's sales slowed significantly in the latter half of last year, and now every EV maker that I can find is predicting much slower sales in 2024. Even Tesla is predicting 2024 to be worse than 2023 was, and they're the only ones that might actually have enough scale to keep $/kwh low:
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/tesla-q4-2023-results/#:~:text=Tesla%20did%20not%20specify%20any,million%20to%202.3%20million%20units.
Tesla sold 20% more EVs in Q4 than they did the year prior, and profit dropped 23% YoY. That shift is guaranteed to change plans for anybody making EVs.
I mentioned the stock prices to show that it's not a single player suffering mismanagement or a bad product. The stock prices of these companies are taking pretty significant falls because the profitability of EVs has gotten worse, and the short term forecasts don't look good.
...
That's probably why Tesla is able to sell the Model 3 for $35k now. I just checked their website under 'inventory' and that's the current price.
...
That's probably why Tesla is able to sell the Model 3 for $35k now. I just checked their website under 'inventory' and that's the current price.
Isn't $35k what Tesla promised a Model 3 would cost five years ago when it was announced?
As mentioned above, BYD is selling more full electric cars than Tesla now. Tesla is not the world, even if Musk wants to make you belive with everything he does, might it be his noring Boring company or his hyperstupid Hyperloop.
Battery prices don't just magically drop. It takes scale. And that's not happening at nearly the rate that many people/businesses forecast. EV adoption has been growing each year, but they've existed almost exclusively in a macro environment where financing was cheap and easy. Everybody's sales slowed significantly in the latter half of last year, and now every EV maker that I can find is predicting much slower sales in 2024. Even Tesla is predicting 2024 to be worse than 2023 was, and they're the only ones that might actually have enough scale to keep $/kwh low:
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/tesla-q4-2023-results/#:~:text=Tesla%20did%20not%20specify%20any,million%20to%202.3%20million%20units.
Tesla sold 20% more EVs in Q4 than they did the year prior, and profit dropped 23% YoY. That shift is guaranteed to change plans for anybody making EVs.
I mentioned the stock prices to show that it's not a single player suffering mismanagement or a bad product. The stock prices of these companies are taking pretty significant falls because the profitability of EVs has gotten worse, and the short term forecasts don't look good.
As mentioned above, BYD is selling more full electric cars than Tesla now. Tesla is not the world, even if Musk wants to make you belive with everything he does, might it be his noring Boring company or his hyperstupid Hyperloop.
Battery prices don't just magically drop. It takes scale. And that's not happening at nearly the rate that many people/businesses forecast. EV adoption has been growing each year, but they've existed almost exclusively in a macro environment where financing was cheap and easy. Everybody's sales slowed significantly in the latter half of last year, and now every EV maker that I can find is predicting much slower sales in 2024. Even Tesla is predicting 2024 to be worse than 2023 was, and they're the only ones that might actually have enough scale to keep $/kwh low:
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/tesla-q4-2023-results/#:~:text=Tesla%20did%20not%20specify%20any,million%20to%202.3%20million%20units.
Tesla sold 20% more EVs in Q4 than they did the year prior, and profit dropped 23% YoY. That shift is guaranteed to change plans for anybody making EVs.
I mentioned the stock prices to show that it's not a single player suffering mismanagement or a bad product. The stock prices of these companies are taking pretty significant falls because the profitability of EVs has gotten worse, and the short term forecasts don't look good.
It's not only scale, but also technology.
Falling profits it also not an indicator, since they are the result of lowered sell prices. Lower prices for a good or not commonly connected to lessened demand. It doesn't matter which company sells those cars for volume of battery used.
It's simply a market doing it's thing, which is kicking out companies that cannot compete with their product. There used to be thousands of car companies (basically every village smith who wanted to go bigger and teamed up with the carriage maker). Now it's down to a few dozen of any significance. Maybe in 10 years 10 will be left.
...
That's probably why Tesla is able to sell the Model 3 for $35k now. I just checked their website under 'inventory' and that's the current price.
Isn't $35k what Tesla promised a Model 3 would cost five years ago when it was announced?
I have no idea. Also, Tesla isn't the only game in town. Hyundai and Kia are also making good quality EV's. BYD does too, but of course the US tariffs jack the price up for any car made in China. The ID4 is not bad either but it's from Volkswagen and I refuse to buy anything from them after diesel-gate. What a bunch of scammers.
...
That's probably why Tesla is able to sell the Model 3 for $35k now. I just checked their website under 'inventory' and that's the current price.
Isn't $35k what Tesla promised a Model 3 would cost five years ago when it was announced?
I have no idea. Also, Tesla isn't the only game in town. Hyundai and Kia are also making good quality EV's. BYD does too, but of course the US tariffs jack the price up for any car made in China. The ID4 is not bad either but it's from Volkswagen and I refuse to buy anything from them after diesel-gate. What a bunch of scammers.
BYD even being sold in the USA?
BYD even being sold in the USA?
Then there's bicycles - https://www.statista.com/statistics/674381/size-global-market-electric-bicycles/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/674381/size-global-market-electric-bicycles/)
I bet they grow a lot faster than electric cars.
By what metric?
Anyone ever see mention of the charging process efficiency?
What I mean is an EV has, for example, a 50KWH battery. To charge the battery - I know it takes some number more than 50KWH to charge the EV because cooling fans, battery heaters, charger inefficiencies, etc.
What I'd want to do is charge an EV with a Kill-A-Watt meter in the middle - or its equivalent.
Anyone ever see mention of the charging process efficiency?
What I mean is an EV has, for example, a 50KWH battery. To charge the battery - I know it takes some number more than 50KWH to charge the EV because cooling fans, battery heaters, charger inefficiencies, etc.
What I'd want to do is charge an EV with a Kill-A-Watt meter in the middle - or its equivalent.
DC fast chargers will tell you exactly how many kWh were actually used to charge your car. My home charger also has an app that logs the supplied energy. Losses are around 10%, plus or minus depending.
Anyone ever see mention of the charging process efficiency?
What I mean is an EV has, for example, a 50KWH battery. To charge the battery - I know it takes some number more than 50KWH to charge the EV because cooling fans, battery heaters, charger inefficiencies, etc.
What I'd want to do is charge an EV with a Kill-A-Watt meter in the middle - or its equivalent.
I do monitor the charging consumption of my EV and it seems to be 80-85% efficient when charging from AC.
The house lifepo4 cells seem to lose about 3% in DC-DC charge/discharge and it's reasonable to assume the same sort of loss in EV batteries.
I do monitor the charging consumption of my EV and it seems to be 80-85% efficient when charging from AC.
The house lifepo4 cells seem to lose about 3% in DC-DC charge/discharge and it's reasonable to assume the same sort of loss in EV batteries.
Level 1 or Level 2 charging?
As mentioned above, BYD is selling more full electric cars than Tesla now. Tesla is not the world, even if Musk wants to make you belive with everything he does, might it be his noring Boring company or his hyperstupid Hyperloop.
Battery prices don't just magically drop. It takes scale. And that's not happening at nearly the rate that many people/businesses forecast. EV adoption has been growing each year, but they've existed almost exclusively in a macro environment where financing was cheap and easy. Everybody's sales slowed significantly in the latter half of last year, and now every EV maker that I can find is predicting much slower sales in 2024. Even Tesla is predicting 2024 to be worse than 2023 was, and they're the only ones that might actually have enough scale to keep $/kwh low:
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/tesla-q4-2023-results/#:~:text=Tesla%20did%20not%20specify%20any,million%20to%202.3%20million%20units.
Tesla sold 20% more EVs in Q4 than they did the year prior, and profit dropped 23% YoY. That shift is guaranteed to change plans for anybody making EVs.
I mentioned the stock prices to show that it's not a single player suffering mismanagement or a bad product. The stock prices of these companies are taking pretty significant falls because the profitability of EVs has gotten worse, and the short term forecasts don't look good.
It's not only scale, but also technology.
Falling profits it also not an indicator, since they are the result of lowered sell prices. Lower prices for a good or not commonly connected to lessened demand. It doesn't matter which company sells those cars for volume of battery used.
It's simply a market doing it's thing, which is kicking out companies that cannot compete with their product. There used to be thousands of car companies (basically every village smith who wanted to go bigger and teamed up with the carriage maker). Now it's down to a few dozen of any significance. Maybe in 10 years 10 will be left.
As mentioned above, BYD is selling more full electric cars than Tesla now. Tesla is not the world, even if Musk wants to make you belive with everything he does, might it be his noring Boring company or his hyperstupid Hyperloop.
Battery prices don't just magically drop. It takes scale. And that's not happening at nearly the rate that many people/businesses forecast. EV adoption has been growing each year, but they've existed almost exclusively in a macro environment where financing was cheap and easy. Everybody's sales slowed significantly in the latter half of last year, and now every EV maker that I can find is predicting much slower sales in 2024. Even Tesla is predicting 2024 to be worse than 2023 was, and they're the only ones that might actually have enough scale to keep $/kwh low:
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/tesla-q4-2023-results/#:~:text=Tesla%20did%20not%20specify%20any,million%20to%202.3%20million%20units.
Tesla sold 20% more EVs in Q4 than they did the year prior, and profit dropped 23% YoY. That shift is guaranteed to change plans for anybody making EVs.
I mentioned the stock prices to show that it's not a single player suffering mismanagement or a bad product. The stock prices of these companies are taking pretty significant falls because the profitability of EVs has gotten worse, and the short term forecasts don't look good.
It's not only scale, but also technology.
Falling profits it also not an indicator, since they are the result of lowered sell prices. Lower prices for a good or not commonly connected to lessened demand. It doesn't matter which company sells those cars for volume of battery used.
It's simply a market doing it's thing, which is kicking out companies that cannot compete with their product. There used to be thousands of car companies (basically every village smith who wanted to go bigger and teamed up with the carriage maker). Now it's down to a few dozen of any significance. Maybe in 10 years 10 will be left.
Shrinking profit margins for EVs (indicated by major declines in share prices from EV makers) mean less incentive for companies to invest in EVs, and it means less money sloshing around for R&D and/or scaling up for large scale manufacturing. We already see this with many OEMs scaling back their EV investments. That's bad news for anybody who wants EVs to become more mainstream. And any companies that may dissolve as a result of this natural process will mean fewer EV options, which is also bad for consumers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/24/ev-market-cools-us/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0m-Qqrm3FjQMiu50aGDiDrgaokBMBaclg6Xu9OStubzLgGJviyCnwDiZw (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/24/ev-market-cools-us/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0m-Qqrm3FjQMiu50aGDiDrgaokBMBaclg6Xu9OStubzLgGJviyCnwDiZw)
Headline "Car shoppers aren’t electrified by electric vehicles
EV growth slows as skeptical consumers look to hybrids and plug-ins"
Has the attached image in the article. 50% annual growth in sales is apparently this big cause for concern / discussion around EVs, and the only part of the market growing faster are also vehicles that make use of electricity. Narrative around this seems kind of absurd when you look at actual numbers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/24/ev-market-cools-us/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0m-Qqrm3FjQMiu50aGDiDrgaokBMBaclg6Xu9OStubzLgGJviyCnwDiZw (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/24/ev-market-cools-us/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0m-Qqrm3FjQMiu50aGDiDrgaokBMBaclg6Xu9OStubzLgGJviyCnwDiZw)
Headline "Car shoppers aren’t electrified by electric vehicles
EV growth slows as skeptical consumers look to hybrids and plug-ins"
Has the attached image in the article. 50% annual growth in sales is apparently this big cause for concern / discussion around EVs, and the only part of the market growing faster are also vehicles that make use of electricity. Narrative around this seems kind of absurd when you look at actual numbers.
"EVs outsold PHEVs by over 3x" isn't as click-baity of a headline, lol
I have a feeling that EV sales growth will be correlated with fuel prices.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Technically they have just now or will this year.I have a feeling that EV sales growth will be correlated with fuel prices.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Exactly - Four years ago when I bought my small SUV I briefly considered an electric car. I looked at the price difference at that time. I used gas at $5.00 gallon at 100,000 miles with 25 mpg. That's $20,000. the vehicle I bought was about $20,000 and the electrics were going for about $40K or more at that time.
Aren't EVs simpler than Internal Combustion cars? Shouldn't an equivalent EV sell for less than an IC car? They do seem to be approaching this.
Technically they have just now or will this year.I have a feeling that EV sales growth will be correlated with fuel prices.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Exactly - Four years ago when I bought my small SUV I briefly considered an electric car. I looked at the price difference at that time. I used gas at $5.00 gallon at 100,000 miles with 25 mpg. That's $20,000. the vehicle I bought was about $20,000 and the electrics were going for about $40K or more at that time.
Aren't EVs simpler than Internal Combustion cars? Shouldn't an equivalent EV sell for less than an IC car? They do seem to be approaching this.
But that is A) an average and B) does not mean that car sellers, who have switched off small cars anyway, want to build a small EV.
There is more money to made from overpriced big and/or luxurious EVs. Thoug of course most car makers are too late in the game and now can't get up the numbers that would also allow (through coop-use of parts) make cheaper smaller cars.
Meanwhile BYDs first Ro-Ro ship has now been let to water. It is the first of 8 the company has ordered to build just for Europe alone. One transports 3000 cars. I think a roundtrip costs 6 weeks? Do the math, that are easily 100K EVs for the EU just from this BYD owned ships. How many EVs has Ford sold per year?
All of China has ordered 200 RoRos to build. For comparison: Today in the whole world 700 exist, and a lot of them are smaller or even unable to cross the high seas.
https://topelectricsuv.com/news/scout/2026-scout-electric-truck-pickup/
That looks interesting. Well, all except the pricetag. I'm too cheap for that. ;)
Internet speculation says $40K. Probably more like $50K+ b/c everyone advertises a low price version.
An electric Maverick type vehicle would be a good utility vehicle. Unsure whether the VW is larger, it looks larger. Probably just the oversize tires.
Maybe this has been hashed over and I missed it, but it appears that Sodium Ion batteries have some advantages over Lithium Ion batteries. There has been a lot of discussion about whether adequate lithium exists to meet the anticipated needs. Sodium seems pretty common.
It looks like the energy density is a bit less and the longevity may also be a bit less, but this may be made up with a lower price. Perhaps if a vehicle using a Sodium Ion battery needs to have a battery replacement, the cost could be less.
https://www.dnkpower.com/will-sodium-batteries-replace-lithium-batteries/ (https://www.dnkpower.com/will-sodium-batteries-replace-lithium-batteries/)
They are getting better.
Also to say - don't people buy cars that aren't somewhere on the grey-scale anymore? ;) Seriously!
That's why GM decided to bring back the Chevrolet Bolt EV rather than follow an earlier plan to develop a separate lower-cost EV platform. Reviving the Bolt nameplate in 2025, after discontinuing the first generation last year, will save billions of dollars, Jacobson said.
Just popping in to say that no, we haven't bought an EV yet. We will I think. I've been shopping. We know what we want now.
Just popping in to say that no, we haven't bought an EV yet. We will I think. I've been shopping. We know what we want now.
We've been looking too. We resigned ourselves to the fact that we won't be able to use the EV point-of-sale program because dealers think it's a risk (costing us ~$1500) but now we've found that a lot of dealers won't even register and fill out the online form. No form, no VIN registration, no tax credit when we file next year.
Just popping in to say that no, we haven't bought an EV yet. We will I think. I've been shopping. We know what we want now.
We've been looking too. We resigned ourselves to the fact that we won't be able to use the EV point-of-sale program because dealers think it's a risk (costing us ~$1500) but now we've found that a lot of dealers won't even register and fill out the online form. No form, no VIN registration, no tax credit when we file next year.
What's their reasoning on this?? Do they not want to sell these cars?
Just popping in to say that no, we haven't bought an EV yet. We will I think. I've been shopping. We know what we want now.
We've been looking too. We resigned ourselves to the fact that we won't be able to use the EV point-of-sale program because dealers think it's a risk (costing us ~$1500) but now we've found that a lot of dealers won't even register and fill out the online form. No form, no VIN registration, no tax credit when we file next year.
What's their reasoning on this?? Do they not want to sell these cars?
"We won't do your taxes."
I think it's ignorance and arrogance. Ignorance because they don't understand the credit ("That's for new EVs only!") and arrogance because the finance managers refuse to look at the IRS site/pamphlet I send them. I'm beginning to think that dealer managers are a perfect example of the Peter Principle.
And you're right because the cars are sitting on the lot. We would've bought a particular EV for near $25k but it's now being sold for $24k two months later. I just called the dealer back to ask them if they'd now consider signing up. Salesperson: "Yeah, a lot of people are asking about that."
Also to say - don't people buy cars that aren't somewhere on the grey-scale anymore? ;) Seriously!
Yeah, it's so depressing. You can have a car in white, silver, ash, grey, slate, charcoal, or black. Or maybe blue or red if you're really lucky. People are so boring.
Just "built" a Nissan Leaf SV online. SL series discontinued.
$38K for this car... I like the Leaf. We're leaning towards a used Leaf. $38K when there are so many alternatives with watercooled batteries and a non-CHADEMO fast charger port?
Also: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1128891_nissan-s-move-to-ccs-fast-charging-makes-chademo-a-legacy-standard
Fortunately: https://www.autoblog.com/2024/02/06/chademo-ccs-charging-adapter-nissan-leaf/
Unfortunately: The adapter is $1100 from China direct or $1300 from a domestic online store.
In use: https://youtu.be/wydql2N_F-k
Feels SO much like the VHS vs Betamax war of my youth. Or DP vs HDMI. Or a dozen other technology "wars".
You dont need a wiper for the rear window, you can't look through it anyway.
Why do they all have that shitty form? You cant look out to the back and the back one cant look through it to see the traffic ahead in stop&go for example.
Yeah 38k is a total non-starter for the leaf. I mean heck you could get a very lightly used Ariya for less than that. Longer range, faster charging, larger (probably a minus, tbh). Too bad the Ariya seems to be a kinda phoned it in product.
A used bolt is close to half the cost of the leaf and has longer range, just as fast charging (but a bigger pack so it'd take longer to get full) and very similar in size/etc.
And the bolt came in orange, if you can find one. But I can tell you from experience people will still not see it despite the color and still hit your car, because they've done that to our orange fit (both while parked and while stopped at a light).
I wish I liked the Bolt more. Just an aesthetic thing.
According to Barron's:QuoteToyota appears to be winning from a decision to take it slow in the world of battery-electric vehicles. Shares are near a record and profit margins in 2023 came in at around 11%, about 2 percentage points better than Tesla’s.
Toyota North American CEO Ted Ogawa took a victory lap recently, saying his company would rather buy emissions credits to satisfy regulations than “waste money” on EVs. He also suggested that EVs would account for about 30% of U.S. car sales by the end of the decade, far short of the federal government’s goal of about 60%.
Did Toyota read the crystal ball better than anyone else?The co-CEOs of RIM doubled down in 2007 that the market needs a physical keyboard on the blackberry, while apple was just hoping to sell 1 million phones(<1%TAM) in that first year of the iPhone. By the time RIM shifted towards a new OS and touch screen strategy in 2012 it was too late and leadership was pushed out. It took ~5 years for RIM to realize they were no longer the king of the smartphone hill and by then it was too late to recover their former glory. In 2018, the last blackberry was released and its support ended in 2022. 15 years from owning ~20%of the global market(~43%in US) for smart phones to exiting the market entirely.
Did they foresee a limit to how many expensive cars people could/would buy?
Or are they just stubbornly married to big oil and making excuses?
Or?
According to Barron's:QuoteToyota appears to be winning from a decision to take it slow in the world of battery-electric vehicles. Shares are near a record and profit margins in 2023 came in at around 11%, about 2 percentage points better than Tesla’s.
Toyota North American CEO Ted Ogawa took a victory lap recently, saying his company would rather buy emissions credits to satisfy regulations than “waste money” on EVs. He also suggested that EVs would account for about 30% of U.S. car sales by the end of the decade, far short of the federal government’s goal of about 60%.
I wonder where some sites get their information. Or just define things very differently...
https://finbox.com/NYSE:TM/explorer/gp_margin/ (~17-19%)
https://ycharts.com/companies/TM/profit_margin (11%)
https://ycharts.com/companies/TSLA/gross_profit_margin (17%)
Tesla was so interesting because they lost money for a bit over a decade... then had exemplary profit margins. They have slid recently and are starting to look more like traditional automotive companies. But generally still meaningfully better.
See https://ycharts.com/companies/GM/gross_profit_margin (7.7% in most recent quarter).
the 17% figure is the more meaningful one of Tesla's numbers.
Looks like Tesla got big enough that they're getting more "well established car manufacturer" numbers.the 17% figure is the more meaningful one of Tesla's numbers.
And if you follow the previous numbers from March 2022 through September 2023 you might infer a trajectory into the low single digits for profit margin. Average is also 7.6%, compared to Toyota (8.1%) and GM (5.8%).
Looks like Tesla got big enough that they're getting more "well established car manufacturer" numbers.the 17% figure is the more meaningful one of Tesla's numbers.
And if you follow the previous numbers from March 2022 through September 2023 you might infer a trajectory into the low single digits for profit margin. Average is also 7.6%, compared to Toyota (8.1%) and GM (5.8%).
The listing source really matters. Found the same car again on "ISEECARS.com" for more $$$ off. Maybe if I keep this up someone will give me the car. ;)
How much has the dealer spent to list the car everywhere? Definitely spooked on this particular car now but was useful to learn about research tools.
So this was just announced today with very little details. I think it will be a compelling option at a lower price point. Although we won't see it until at least 2027 or 2028.
https://rivian.com/msp (https://rivian.com/msp)
The R2 was also just announced, albeit right around the same price and size as a Model Y. This one is coming in 2026.
https://rivian.com/r2 (https://rivian.com/r2)
So this was just announced today with very little details. I think it will be a compelling option at a lower price point. Although we won't see it until at least 2027 or 2028.
https://rivian.com/msp (https://rivian.com/msp)
The R2 was also just announced, albeit right around the same price and size as a Model Y. This one is coming in 2026.
https://rivian.com/r2 (https://rivian.com/r2)
Also some good old slight of hand in this announcement as they slid in the fact that they're pausing construction of their $5 billion manufacturing plant in Georgia that was supposed to enable them to scale.
The R2 and R3 look amazing. If they hit the announced timeline and price/feature points either could end up being our first EV.
hello fellow irresponsible Rivian owner!The R2 and R3 look amazing. If they hit the announced timeline and price/feature points either could end up being our first EV.
I have the very face punch worthy R1T. It was dumb from a logical/financial standpoint.
But holy crap, it is an amazing car. I’ve gone from “cars are dumb” to “I can’t imagine driving anything else” in the last six months. It is as fun to drive as the Miata I had in my 20’s, yet it can easily get around the full family, haul in the bed, and has incredibly useful locked storage. My kids smelly sports stuff just stays in the gear tunnel all season.
The R2 and R3 will be very popular if they can capture most of that same essence.
This is mostly why I think EV’s will eventually take over, even if it is a rough road. If your view of an EV is it being a car with a battery (kinda like Toyota and Subaru see the world), it’s easy to just see the downsides. If you see an EV as a way to expand on what a vehicle can be (see Tesla, Rivian, Hyandai, Kia and maybe Ford) than you have a platform for a better driving experience.
Had my parents old Volt for several months until we bought our own PHEV, then replaced our other car with a fully electric BEV.
Recently someone hit our EV so it’s in the shop for a bumper/wheel repair and we were given a rental (an ICE Corolla). After driving the battery driven cars for the last couple years the combustion engine is jarring. It feels weird to start it up and then hear the rpm’s drop. There is a noticeable lag when moving from a stop. I hate how the car moves if I am at a stop light and take my foot off the brake. It’s louder, especially driving around the neighborhood. Refueling makes my hands smell like gasoline. It has a noticeable higher center of gravity and the weight is all in the front.
All minor things and certainly “first world problems”, but collectively they add up to a much better experience overall driving EV.
Had my parents old Volt for several months until we bought our own PHEV, then replaced our other car with a fully electric BEV.
Recently someone hit our EV so it’s in the shop for a bumper/wheel repair and we were given a rental (an ICE Corolla). After driving the battery driven cars for the last couple years the combustion engine is jarring. It feels weird to start it up and then hear the rpm’s drop. There is a noticeable lag when moving from a stop. I hate how the car moves if I am at a stop light and take my foot off the brake. It’s louder, especially driving around the neighborhood. Refueling makes my hands smell like gasoline. It has a noticeable higher center of gravity and the weight is all in the front.
All minor things and certainly “first world problems”, but collectively they add up to a much better experience overall driving EV.
Someone in your location has first hand experience with Electric cars in Winter. I've seen quite a few articles and comments to articles lambasting the performance of electric cars in Winter. I'm not quite I believe the CEO of Rivian. He has a vested interest.
Had my parents old Volt for several months until we bought our own PHEV, then replaced our other car with a fully electric BEV.
Recently someone hit our EV so it’s in the shop for a bumper/wheel repair and we were given a rental (an ICE Corolla). After driving the battery driven cars for the last couple years the combustion engine is jarring. It feels weird to start it up and then hear the rpm’s drop. There is a noticeable lag when moving from a stop. I hate how the car moves if I am at a stop light and take my foot off the brake. It’s louder, especially driving around the neighborhood. Refueling makes my hands smell like gasoline. It has a noticeable higher center of gravity and the weight is all in the front.
All minor things and certainly “first world problems”, but collectively they add up to a much better experience overall driving EV.
Someone in your location has first hand experience with Electric cars in Winter. I've seen quite a few articles and comments to articles lambasting the performance of electric cars in Winter. I'm not quite I believe the CEO of Rivian. He has a vested interest.
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/rivian-ceo-evs-negative-media-bias-politics/ (https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/rivian-ceo-evs-negative-media-bias-politics/)
This would be a real concern to me with electric cars. Not only would I wonder about decreased battery capacity, but I would also worry about increased usage to defrost the windows and to keep passengers with some degree of comfort.
My first car was a 1962 Beetle with a 1969 engine. Unlike the Canadian models, it did not have a separate gas heater. I remember driving with one hand on the steering wheel and other scraping the window. It also had a 6 volt battery which I removed during cold Winter nights and brought it inside to assure it would have adequate capacity for the engine the following day.
I may have raised this concern before. Maybe it's not a problem. Winters don't seem as cold as they used to be.
Had my parents old Volt for several months until we bought our own PHEV, then replaced our other car with a fully electric BEV.
Recently someone hit our EV so it’s in the shop for a bumper/wheel repair and we were given a rental (an ICE Corolla). After driving the battery driven cars for the last couple years the combustion engine is jarring. It feels weird to start it up and then hear the rpm’s drop. There is a noticeable lag when moving from a stop. I hate how the car moves if I am at a stop light and take my foot off the brake. It’s louder, especially driving around the neighborhood. Refueling makes my hands smell like gasoline. It has a noticeable higher center of gravity and the weight is all in the front.
All minor things and certainly “first world problems”, but collectively they add up to a much better experience overall driving EV.
Someone in your location has first hand experience with Electric cars in Winter. I've seen quite a few articles and comments to articles lambasting the performance of electric cars in Winter. I'm not quite I believe the CEO of Rivian. He has a vested interest.
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/rivian-ceo-evs-negative-media-bias-politics/ (https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/rivian-ceo-evs-negative-media-bias-politics/)
This would be a real concern to me with electric cars. Not only would I wonder about decreased battery capacity, but I would also worry about increased usage to defrost the windows and to keep passengers with some degree of comfort.
My first car was a 1962 Beetle with a 1969 engine. Unlike the Canadian models, it did not have a separate gas heater. I remember driving with one hand on the steering wheel and other scraping the window. It also had a 6 volt battery which I removed during cold Winter nights and brought it inside to assure it would have adequate capacity for the engine the following day.
I may have raised this concern before. Maybe it's not a problem. Winters don't seem as cold as they used to be.
Had my parents old Volt for several months until we bought our own PHEV, then replaced our other car with a fully electric BEV.
Recently someone hit our EV so it’s in the shop for a bumper/wheel repair and we were given a rental (an ICE Corolla). After driving the battery driven cars for the last couple years the combustion engine is jarring. It feels weird to start it up and then hear the rpm’s drop. There is a noticeable lag when moving from a stop. I hate how the car moves if I am at a stop light and take my foot off the brake. It’s louder, especially driving around the neighborhood. Refueling makes my hands smell like gasoline. It has a noticeable higher center of gravity and the weight is all in the front.
All minor things and certainly “first world problems”, but collectively they add up to a much better experience overall driving EV.
Someone in your location has first hand experience with Electric cars in Winter. I've seen quite a few articles and comments to articles lambasting the performance of electric cars in Winter. I'm not quite I believe the CEO of Rivian. He has a vested interest.
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/rivian-ceo-evs-negative-media-bias-politics/ (https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/rivian-ceo-evs-negative-media-bias-politics/)
This would be a real concern to me with electric cars. Not only would I wonder about decreased battery capacity, but I would also worry about increased usage to defrost the windows and to keep passengers with some degree of comfort.
My first car was a 1962 Beetle with a 1969 engine. Unlike the Canadian models, it did not have a separate gas heater. I remember driving with one hand on the steering wheel and other scraping the window. It also had a 6 volt battery which I removed during cold Winter nights and brought it inside to assure it would have adequate capacity for the engine the following day.
I may have raised this concern before. Maybe it's not a problem. Winters don't seem as cold as they used to be.
Some cars are as good cars for limited conditions but the marketing department suggests they excel in most conditions. 6V batteries have always been marginal in cold weather. I once drove a 6V pickup truck year 'round. Not much spare capacity if the engine isn't eager to startup on a cold morning.
As a long time aircooled Beetle and Bus owner they are good cars down to about 25F but the heater system has to be 100% intact and all components of the heater must be in good condition - all the tubes need to connect tightly, rubber seals must fit well with no tears, etc. Anything that is missing decreases the heater capacity and there isn't much to spare in the first place. Add in a decade of salt and rust, missing components left out by the mechanic at the corner garage and the car no longer does its job.
The EV is the similar. When it is new, everything is great. However if your driving needs requires most of a charge once cold weather, battery degradation, and heavy traffic is factored in, the car may not meet get the job done. Of course the marketing materials tell us everything is awesome except in the fine print. It is still a very technical machine that the average consumer has much to learn about. If they assume that it is nearly like driving an ICE they are likely to be disappointed. For example: battery management. A person can optimize charging/usage to extend the life of the battery or they can simply plug it in keeping it full w/o understanding the long term consequences. The second group will likely be disappointed.
I feel our aircooled VWs are good cars for sub-50 mph conditions with mild temperatures. I equally feel like the Nissan Leaf for example is a good car for people who mostly charge at home and rarely intend to travel or fast charge it. When shopping for any EV buy one with a battery much larger than required so there is spare capacity during cold weather and to account for battery degradation. Also, a larger battery cycles less than a smaller battery so it should age slower.
The reality is most folks just want the EV to be as exciting and look good as the marketing materials promised. How many want to truly understand their machine? And if the marketing department or the salesman promoted it hard w/o the requisite reality check, consumers are disappointed. This may be a setback to EV adoption. It might explain the low mileage 3-4 year old EVs I see for sale which is a boon to the used EV buyer.
Had my parents old Volt for several months until we bought our own PHEV, then replaced our other car with a fully electric BEV.
Recently someone hit our EV so it’s in the shop for a bumper/wheel repair and we were given a rental (an ICE Corolla). After driving the battery driven cars for the last couple years the combustion engine is jarring. It feels weird to start it up and then hear the rpm’s drop. There is a noticeable lag when moving from a stop. I hate how the car moves if I am at a stop light and take my foot off the brake. It’s louder, especially driving around the neighborhood. Refueling makes my hands smell like gasoline. It has a noticeable higher center of gravity and the weight is all in the front.
All minor things and certainly “first world problems”, but collectively they add up to a much better experience overall driving EV.
Someone in your location has first hand experience with Electric cars in Winter. I've seen quite a few articles and comments to articles lambasting the performance of electric cars in Winter. I'm not quite I believe the CEO of Rivian. He has a vested interest.
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/rivian-ceo-evs-negative-media-bias-politics/ (https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/rivian-ceo-evs-negative-media-bias-politics/)
This would be a real concern to me with electric cars. Not only would I wonder about decreased battery capacity, but I would also worry about increased usage to defrost the windows and to keep passengers with some degree of comfort.
My first car was a 1962 Beetle with a 1969 engine. Unlike the Canadian models, it did not have a separate gas heater. I remember driving with one hand on the steering wheel and other scraping the window. It also had a 6 volt battery which I removed during cold Winter nights and brought it inside to assure it would have adequate capacity for the engine the following day.
I may have raised this concern before. Maybe it's not a problem. Winters don't seem as cold as they used to be.
Some cars are as good cars for limited conditions but the marketing department suggests they excel in most conditions. 6V batteries have always been marginal in cold weather. I once drove a 6V pickup truck year 'round. Not much spare capacity if the engine isn't eager to startup on a cold morning.
As a long time aircooled Beetle and Bus owner they are good cars down to about 25F but the heater system has to be 100% intact and all components of the heater must be in good condition - all the tubes need to connect tightly, rubber seals must fit well with no tears, etc. Anything that is missing decreases the heater capacity and there isn't much to spare in the first place. Add in a decade of salt and rust, missing components left out by the mechanic at the corner garage and the car no longer does its job.
The EV is the similar. When it is new, everything is great. However if your driving needs requires most of a charge once cold weather, battery degradation, and heavy traffic is factored in, the car may not meet get the job done. Of course the marketing materials tell us everything is awesome except in the fine print. It is still a very technical machine that the average consumer has much to learn about. If they assume that it is nearly like driving an ICE they are likely to be disappointed. For example: battery management. A person can optimize charging/usage to extend the life of the battery or they can simply plug it in keeping it full w/o understanding the long term consequences. The second group will likely be disappointed.
I feel our aircooled VWs are good cars for sub-50 mph conditions with mild temperatures. I equally feel like the Nissan Leaf for example is a good car for people who mostly charge at home and rarely intend to travel or fast charge it. When shopping for any EV buy one with a battery much larger than required so there is spare capacity during cold weather and to account for battery degradation. Also, a larger battery cycles less than a smaller battery so it should age slower.
The reality is most folks just want the EV to be as exciting and look good as the marketing materials promised. How many want to truly understand their machine? And if the marketing department or the salesman promoted it hard w/o the requisite reality check, consumers are disappointed. This may be a setback to EV adoption. It might explain the low mileage 3-4 year old EVs I see for sale which is a boon to the used EV buyer.
Good comments on the old Beetle. I learned about taping up the heater boxes and adding a booster fan to get that air up front. Eventually, I found a used gas heater and installed it. I also converted the car to 12 volts. That old Beetle ran well in the cold and snow. I used to pass Jeeps which somehow found themselves in the ditch. Would I want another one? No.
So, I wonder if there may possibly be an accessory such as a propane heater for electric cars. I think this would help out battery longevity. I realize that the addition of a fossil fueled appliance is anathema to many, but in below zero weather principles may waver. It would have to tie in to existing ducting. Does the very idea induce extreme scorn to EV owners?
So, I wonder if there may possibly be an accessory such as a propane heater for electric cars. I think this would help out battery longevity. I realize that the addition of a fossil fueled appliance is anathema to many, but in below zero weather principles may waver. It would have to tie in to existing ducting. Does the very idea induce extreme scorn to EV owners?
https://www.evcreate.com/using-tesla-thermal-management-system-parts/
I believe the Leaf doesn't have any heaters at all??? In my part of the country, if it is parked in the garage it will stay above freezing most winter nights. That garage seldom drops below 45F even on the coldest nights. It'll have 200 miles of range and we'll need ~20 miles.
Had my parents old Volt for several months until we bought our own PHEV, then replaced our other car with a fully electric BEV.
Recently someone hit our EV so it’s in the shop for a bumper/wheel repair and we were given a rental (an ICE Corolla). After driving the battery driven cars for the last couple years the combustion engine is jarring. It feels weird to start it up and then hear the rpm’s drop. There is a noticeable lag when moving from a stop. I hate how the car moves if I am at a stop light and take my foot off the brake. It’s louder, especially driving around the neighborhood. Refueling makes my hands smell like gasoline. It has a noticeable higher center of gravity and the weight is all in the front.
All minor things and certainly “first world problems”, but collectively they add up to a much better experience overall driving EV.
Someone in your location has first hand experience with Electric cars in Winter. I've seen quite a few articles and comments to articles lambasting the performance of electric cars in Winter. I'm not quite I believe the CEO of Rivian. He has a vested interest.
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/rivian-ceo-evs-negative-media-bias-politics/ (https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/rivian-ceo-evs-negative-media-bias-politics/)
This would be a real concern to me with electric cars. Not only would I wonder about decreased battery capacity, but I would also worry about increased usage to defrost the windows and to keep passengers with some degree of comfort.
My first car was a 1962 Beetle with a 1969 engine. Unlike the Canadian models, it did not have a separate gas heater. I remember driving with one hand on the steering wheel and other scraping the window. It also had a 6 volt battery which I removed during cold Winter nights and brought it inside to assure it would have adequate capacity for the engine the following day.
I may have raised this concern before. Maybe it's not a problem. Winters don't seem as cold as they used to be.
Some cars are as good cars for limited conditions but the marketing department suggests they excel in most conditions. 6V batteries have always been marginal in cold weather. I once drove a 6V pickup truck year 'round. Not much spare capacity if the engine isn't eager to startup on a cold morning.
As a long time aircooled Beetle and Bus owner they are good cars down to about 25F but the heater system has to be 100% intact and all components of the heater must be in good condition - all the tubes need to connect tightly, rubber seals must fit well with no tears, etc. Anything that is missing decreases the heater capacity and there isn't much to spare in the first place. Add in a decade of salt and rust, missing components left out by the mechanic at the corner garage and the car no longer does its job.
The EV is the similar. When it is new, everything is great. However if your driving needs requires most of a charge once cold weather, battery degradation, and heavy traffic is factored in, the car may not meet get the job done. Of course the marketing materials tell us everything is awesome except in the fine print. It is still a very technical machine that the average consumer has much to learn about. If they assume that it is nearly like driving an ICE they are likely to be disappointed. For example: battery management. A person can optimize charging/usage to extend the life of the battery or they can simply plug it in keeping it full w/o understanding the long term consequences. The second group will likely be disappointed.
I feel our aircooled VWs are good cars for sub-50 mph conditions with mild temperatures. I equally feel like the Nissan Leaf for example is a good car for people who mostly charge at home and rarely intend to travel or fast charge it. When shopping for any EV buy one with a battery much larger than required so there is spare capacity during cold weather and to account for battery degradation. Also, a larger battery cycles less than a smaller battery so it should age slower.
The reality is most folks just want the EV to be as exciting and look good as the marketing materials promised. How many want to truly understand their machine? And if the marketing department or the salesman promoted it hard w/o the requisite reality check, consumers are disappointed. This may be a setback to EV adoption. It might explain the low mileage 3-4 year old EVs I see for sale which is a boon to the used EV buyer.
Good comments on the old Beetle. I learned about taping up the heater boxes and adding a booster fan to get that air up front. Eventually, I found a used gas heater and installed it. I also converted the car to 12 volts. That old Beetle ran well in the cold and snow. I used to pass Jeeps which somehow found themselves in the ditch. Would I want another one? No.
So, I wonder if there may possibly be an accessory such as a propane heater for electric cars. I think this would help out battery longevity. I realize that the addition of a fossil fueled appliance is anathema to many, but in below zero weather principles may waver. It would have to tie in to existing ducting. Does the very idea induce extreme scorn to EV owners?
https://www.evcreate.com/using-tesla-thermal-management-system-parts/
I believe the Leaf doesn't have any heaters at all??? In my part of the country, if it is parked in the garage it will stay above freezing most winter nights. That garage seldom drops below 45F even on the coldest nights. It'll have 200 miles of range and we'll need ~20 miles.
I do not believe this is accurate.
https://www.cars.com/articles/2012-nissan-leaf-battery-warmer-more-details-1420663161727/
Here is an EV question about the ~$4000 rebate.
The dealer I am trying to work with says this car is not eligible for the tax rebate b/c it is older than two years.
I read it as must be older than two years old i.e. not a 2023 or 2024 model. I'm looking at a 2020 model.
I'm always sensitive to dealer shenanigans...
Meanwhile: https://electrek.co/2024/01/23/here-are-all-the-used-evs-that-qualify-for-the-new-4000-tax-credit/
Additionally, in order for used EV to qualify for federal tax credits, it must:
Have a sale price of $25,000 or less
Have a model year at least 2 years earlier than the calendar year when you buy it
For example, a vehicle purchased in 2023 would need a model year of 2021 or older.
As IRS Energy Credits Online provides real-time confirmation of a vehicle's eligibility using VINs provided by manufacturers, we strongly recommend this submission occurs prior to finalizing a sale and when the buyer places the vehicle in service. However, you may submit the seller report to IRS Energy Credits Online within 3 calendar days of the time of sale.(bolded)
Okay, good to know I wasn't way, way off base.
I don't want to rely on any dealers to do anything. Most of my interactions with dealers have been disappointing going back decades. Misinformation, dealers who don't understand their product, or scheming.
Car is advertised for $XX amount but not really once we tack on all these extra fees that should have been built into the price in the first place.
One car I saw last week online had close to $3K in fees added on once I asked for the price out the door.
Care to explain? I found that lojack is some sort of direct line to police? But what has that to do with the car being a Prius?Okay, good to know I wasn't way, way off base.
I don't want to rely on any dealers to do anything. Most of my interactions with dealers have been disappointing going back decades. Misinformation, dealers who don't understand their product, or scheming.
Car is advertised for $XX amount but not really once we tack on all these extra fees that should have been built into the price in the first place.
One car I saw last week online had close to $3K in fees added on once I asked for the price out the door.
Yeah, one dealer tried to add on $1000 for a lojack system. Not only did it kick the price above $25k but I was like, "Dude, this is a Prius Prime."
Care to explain? I found that lojack is some sort of direct line to police? But what has that to do with the car being a Prius?Okay, good to know I wasn't way, way off base.
I don't want to rely on any dealers to do anything. Most of my interactions with dealers have been disappointing going back decades. Misinformation, dealers who don't understand their product, or scheming.
Car is advertised for $XX amount but not really once we tack on all these extra fees that should have been built into the price in the first place.
One car I saw last week online had close to $3K in fees added on once I asked for the price out the door.
Yeah, one dealer tried to add on $1000 for a lojack system. Not only did it kick the price above $25k but I was like, "Dude, this is a Prius Prime."
Care to explain? I found that lojack is some sort of direct line to police? But what has that to do with the car being a Prius?Okay, good to know I wasn't way, way off base.
I don't want to rely on any dealers to do anything. Most of my interactions with dealers have been disappointing going back decades. Misinformation, dealers who don't understand their product, or scheming.
Car is advertised for $XX amount but not really once we tack on all these extra fees that should have been built into the price in the first place.
One car I saw last week online had close to $3K in fees added on once I asked for the price out the door.
Yeah, one dealer tried to add on $1000 for a lojack system. Not only did it kick the price above $25k but I was like, "Dude, this is a Prius Prime."
A LoJack is a hidden tracking device meant to track a car after it's been stolen. It's usually used for expensive vehicles. Even joyriders, who steal a car for an evening for fun, wouldn't consider a Prius because it's not exactly a fun car to drive.
This was at a Hyundai dealer and that makes sense. A lot of the Hyundai models are stolen easily and the knowledge is out there thanks to tutorials on tiktok.
EV prices dropped by nearly 13% year-over-year in February
On average, used EVs dropped 31.8%. Leading the pack is the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf, but not far behind was the Tesla Model X with a 24.6% drop, followed by the Model 3 at 24.1%, and the Model S at 20.5%.
Not a bad thing for long term owners. For the folks that like to trade in and move to a newer vehicle often, it is bad.
This does lead me to wonder if despite all the necessary development if EVs will return to being a niche product that very few people choose regardless of the environmental consequences of ICE powered vehicles.
I would think that on a frugality based forum like MMM that high depreciation would be celebrated because you could pick up a used EV for much cheaper than buying it new.
I would think that on a frugality based forum like MMM that high depreciation would be celebrated because you could pick up a used EV for much cheaper than buying it new.
I would think that on a frugality based forum like MMM that high depreciation would be celebrated because you could pick up a used EV for much cheaper than buying it new.
I think there are two reasons for the rapid depreciation of EVs in particular:
- Newer EVs have better batteries, traction motors and interior features
- There is still a lot of uncertainty about the durability of batteries and the drive train in the real world.
Teslas Depreciate Way Faster Than Maseratis Or Alfa Romeos: Study (https://insideevs.com/news/712157/why-do-teslas-depreciate-so-fast/)QuoteOn average, used EVs dropped 31.8%. Leading the pack is the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf, but not far behind was the Tesla Model X with a 24.6% drop, followed by the Model 3 at 24.1%, and the Model S at 20.5%.
It's no secret that Tesla has been aggressive on its pricing.
A year ago, the Model 3 Performance was $53,240. The last time an inventory car popped up on Tesla's website, it was $48,700, according to Tesla Price Tracker. To make things sting a bit more, the M3P cost $62,990 in January 2023 and $78,000 when it launched in May 2018. Model X owners have it even worse. The lowest cost 2023 Model X Plaid on cars.com is $83,161. This time last year, a new Plaid was $119,990 after a price cut from $138,990 in January.
I think for Teslas a big part of the depreciation is the price drop they implemented last year. During Covid the 3 and Y were welling for 55k and 65k respectively. Now they are selling for $35k and $45k respectively. Which is great news if you want a new model. But not so great if you're trying to sell one that you bought for $65k 2 years ago.
Teslas Depreciate Way Faster Than Maseratis Or Alfa Romeos: Study (https://insideevs.com/news/712157/why-do-teslas-depreciate-so-fast/)QuoteOn average, used EVs dropped 31.8%. Leading the pack is the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf, but not far behind was the Tesla Model X with a 24.6% drop, followed by the Model 3 at 24.1%, and the Model S at 20.5%.
Eh- this doesn't bother my much because I plan on keeping my Bolt EUV for a long time; hopefully 10 years or more.
For what it's worth, yesterday was my 1 year anniversary of owning my Bolt EUV. Just over 15k miles of fun driving and still enjoy the car as much as the day I got it!
Hertz made a huge bet on electric cars (mostly Tesla and Polecat) but it didn't work out. Renters didn't want them, they were expensive to repair, and resale value was low. The CEO was just fired and they are moving back to ICE vehicles. I wonder what will happen to that football player on their advertisements for EV rentals.
Not to mention they pushed HARD for "Rent a Tesla, drive Uber/Lyft, Profit". And people did that - thus maintenance savings that might have happened were swamped in a lot of cases by using the car as a taxi for 12+ hours per day (apparently many who did this worked in teams of 2).Hertz made a huge bet on electric cars (mostly Tesla and Polecat) but it didn't work out. Renters didn't want them, they were expensive to repair, and resale value was low. The CEO was just fired and they are moving back to ICE vehicles. I wonder what will happen to that football player on their advertisements for EV rentals.
Hertz screwed the pooch with their implementation. EVs are great if you can charge where you park, don't have to take super long trips, and keep them long enough for the decreased maintenance costs to actually pay off. Hertz didn't really do any of that. They didn't have the charging infrastructure in many locations to ensure their fleet of EVs could be recharged quickly/easily. They didn't keep them long enough for the lower maintenance advantages to pay off. And they didn't properly account for the fluctuation(s) in depreciation, although not many fleets did or can anticipate significant, random price changes from OEMs.
Not to mention they pushed HARD for "Rent a Tesla, drive Uber/Lyft, Profit". And people did that - thus maintenance savings that might have happened were swamped in a lot of cases by using the car as a taxi for 12+ hours per day (apparently many who did this worked in teams of 2).Hertz made a huge bet on electric cars (mostly Tesla and Polecat) but it didn't work out. Renters didn't want them, they were expensive to repair, and resale value was low. The CEO was just fired and they are moving back to ICE vehicles. I wonder what will happen to that football player on their advertisements for EV rentals.
Hertz screwed the pooch with their implementation. EVs are great if you can charge where you park, don't have to take super long trips, and keep them long enough for the decreased maintenance costs to actually pay off. Hertz didn't really do any of that. They didn't have the charging infrastructure in many locations to ensure their fleet of EVs could be recharged quickly/easily. They didn't keep them long enough for the lower maintenance advantages to pay off. And they didn't properly account for the fluctuation(s) in depreciation, although not many fleets did or can anticipate significant, random price changes from OEMs.
Not to mention they pushed HARD for "Rent a Tesla, drive Uber/Lyft, Profit". And people did that - thus maintenance savings that might have happened were swamped in a lot of cases by using the car as a taxi for 12+ hours per day (apparently many who did this worked in teams of 2).Hertz made a huge bet on electric cars (mostly Tesla and Polecat) but it didn't work out. Renters didn't want them, they were expensive to repair, and resale value was low. The CEO was just fired and they are moving back to ICE vehicles. I wonder what will happen to that football player on their advertisements for EV rentals.
Hertz screwed the pooch with their implementation. EVs are great if you can charge where you park, don't have to take super long trips, and keep them long enough for the decreased maintenance costs to actually pay off. Hertz didn't really do any of that. They didn't have the charging infrastructure in many locations to ensure their fleet of EVs could be recharged quickly/easily. They didn't keep them long enough for the lower maintenance advantages to pay off. And they didn't properly account for the fluctuation(s) in depreciation, although not many fleets did or can anticipate significant, random price changes from OEMs.
I saw that many Uber/Lyft drivers using Tesla got the version with NMC batteries and proceeded to charge them up to 100% at superchargers every day. That's going to damage the battery. If they'd gotten the models with LFP batteries that would not have happened as LFP is pretty much impervious to full charges.
I think the biggest problem Hertz had was the extreme price drops that Tesla implemented really affected the value of their re-sales.
It'll be interesting to see if Tesla continues to cut prices as their cost of goods sold continues to decline. I did see that they cut prices so aggressively that it cut into their profit margins on the 3 and Y, so I'd guess prices are probably stable for a while.
I wonder how much the wider public will see the Hertz backtrack as conformation that EV's are shit and no one wants them or will it just not register at all. Probably has minimal effect on people already inclined to go get one.
Not to mention they pushed HARD for "Rent a Tesla, drive Uber/Lyft, Profit". And people did that - thus maintenance savings that might have happened were swamped in a lot of cases by using the car as a taxi for 12+ hours per day (apparently many who did this worked in teams of 2).Hertz made a huge bet on electric cars (mostly Tesla and Polecat) but it didn't work out. Renters didn't want them, they were expensive to repair, and resale value was low. The CEO was just fired and they are moving back to ICE vehicles. I wonder what will happen to that football player on their advertisements for EV rentals.
Hertz screwed the pooch with their implementation. EVs are great if you can charge where you park, don't have to take super long trips, and keep them long enough for the decreased maintenance costs to actually pay off. Hertz didn't really do any of that. They didn't have the charging infrastructure in many locations to ensure their fleet of EVs could be recharged quickly/easily. They didn't keep them long enough for the lower maintenance advantages to pay off. And they didn't properly account for the fluctuation(s) in depreciation, although not many fleets did or can anticipate significant, random price changes from OEMs.
I saw that many Uber/Lyft drivers using Tesla got the version with NMC batteries and proceeded to charge them up to 100% at superchargers every day. That's going to damage the battery. If they'd gotten the models with LFP batteries that would not have happened as LFP is pretty much impervious to full charges.
I think the biggest problem Hertz had was the extreme price drops that Tesla implemented really affected the value of their re-sales.
It'll be interesting to see if Tesla continues to cut prices as their cost of goods sold continues to decline. I did see that they cut prices so aggressively that it cut into their profit margins on the 3 and Y, so I'd guess prices are probably stable for a while.
A quick glance at the financials shows Tesla with ~18% gross margins compared to 10%ish for Ford and GM. As much as Tesla doesn't want to cut prices, they'll probably end up with lower prices as more competition enters the EV space. This will be bad for Tesla's valuation, but great news for EV buyers.
The next few years are going to be weird for EV depreciation. I expect a lot of "step-function" depreciation events as technology progresses. For example, the CCS versions of EV's will probably take a big step down in value when the comparable NACS version is available. Similar things could happen with 800V charging, and other tech enhancements.
I wonder how much the wider public will see the Hertz backtrack as conformation that EV's are shit and no one wants them or will it just not register at all. Probably has minimal effect on people already inclined to go get one.
I wonder how much the wider public will see the Hertz backtrack as conformation that EV's are shit and no one wants them or will it just not register at all. Probably has minimal effect on people already inclined to go get one.
I think Hertz backtracking is unrelated to whether an individual should get one or not. People renting cars are renting them to drive. Usually pretty long distances or they'd just use rideshare. EVs are not great at that and public charging infrastructure is poor and about as expensive as gas until it gets to ~$4/gallon.
I wonder how much the wider public will see the Hertz backtrack as conformation that EV's are shit and no one wants them or will it just not register at all. Probably has minimal effect on people already inclined to go get one.
I think Hertz backtracking is unrelated to whether an individual should get one or not. People renting cars are renting them to drive. Usually pretty long distances or they'd just use rideshare. EVs are not great at that and public charging infrastructure is poor and about as expensive as gas until it gets to ~$4/gallon.
How did you arrive at that figure? Our own analysis has the crossover point around $1.85 given the cost of electricity (or more specifically $/kw*h per mi).
The only way I arrive near $4 is if I’m using primarily pay-per-use DCFC.
In reality more than 80% of our charging is free between work, a 3 year network subscription and the wide assortment of free public chargers in our area.
...
My assumption is that people renting cars don't have home charging so they are relying on superchargers and such to "fill up". For me charging at home the crossover point is definitely significantly lower.
I'm kind of an odd duck, but one of the things I always do in terms of spending more money for convenience is pre-paid fuel when I rent a car. Hertz was charging $35 for that on the EVs (Actually was "return with 10-70% battery" if I'm remembering the terms correctly - comparable to slightly less than what that service has been running when we rent a Toyota Corolla or similar kind of vehicle for gas. So that's another small data-point for "if you buy electricity for your car per use, expect to pay about the same price as gas", albeit I'd peg the break-even a little lower than $4 per gallon based on my own experience when I've rented and used the fast chargers much more than I do at home.I wonder how much the wider public will see the Hertz backtrack as conformation that EV's are shit and no one wants them or will it just not register at all. Probably has minimal effect on people already inclined to go get one.
I think Hertz backtracking is unrelated to whether an individual should get one or not. People renting cars are renting them to drive. Usually pretty long distances or they'd just use rideshare. EVs are not great at that and public charging infrastructure is poor and about as expensive as gas until it gets to ~$4/gallon.
How did you arrive at that figure? Our own analysis has the crossover point around $1.85 given the cost of electricity (or more specifically $/kw*h per mi).
The only way I arrive near $4 is if I’m using primarily pay-per-use DCFC.
In reality more than 80% of our charging is free between work, a 3 year network subscription and the wide assortment of free public chargers in our area.
My assumption is that people renting cars don't have home charging so they are relying on superchargers and such to "fill up". For me charging at home the crossover point is definitely significantly lower.
...
On one recent rental, I remember Budget offering the guy in front of us to either wait until they could pull the kind of car that he requested around or take a truck or an EV. So Hertz isn't the only rental car company doing EVs - perhaps just the one that made the largest and most widely publicized bet. I had booked Avis on that one and no such offer was made to me.
My shift into EV, particularly Tesla.
Through the years, I rarely pay attention EV. Same as everyone. Too expensive, range anxiety, all the usual EV fears.
The thought of EV was a cool one but I always thought about getting a plug-in before full electric.
My wife got a new job last Oct and it's 85 miles round trip.
She has a Lexus IS250 and not really great for long distance.
We thought about getting a plug-in Prius Prime. The one we wanted was close to $40k and a wait list plus greedy dealers wanting price adjustment. Don't get me started with Toyota as we waited over 2 yrs to get a Sienna at MSRP and couldn't.
Wife then said an interesting to me. What about full electric and get a Tesla ??
Yup, I shifted gears and did all the research on Tesla. The possibility of getting a our first EV becoming real.
Through I research, I found out that starting 2024 the $7500 will be POS but Tesla was going to lose it's fed credit in 2024.
2024 came and the Model Y retained it's Fed credit and as soon as the $7500 POS became available, I jumped on it.
$51,000+1400 delivery fee. Minus $5100 inventory discount and $7500 credit made it just under $40k for a brand new long range AWD Model Y.
I even surprised my wife. Traded in her beloved Lexus without her knowing it.
Love everything about the car. I will probably end up trading mine in for another Tesla.
As everyone say, it's a smartphone on wheels.
I'm touting Tesla to anybody that I come across and they probably think I work for Tesla.
In fact in my group of friends, 2 other couples got a Model Y a week after I did. a 4th couples bought one 3 weeks after us.
I figured out that on her 85mile work trip would cost her $13.6 for gas vs $2.56 for electric as we 100% charge at home @.11 per kwh.
Mine is the blue one.
This thread and a friend d recently getting an electric rental car against her will made me think about it. I don't have an electric car (yet- I am sure we will get one at some point and I'm not opposed to owning one at all). When I rent a car for personal travel I usually am driving a fair bit and as a non-EV owner I have no idea what the charging systems and infrastructure are. When I rent a car for work, same. For both I have no extra time to wait for charging. I just absolutely don't want to mess with it. I am very every opposed to having a rental EV in almost every situation that I rent a car.
I think that will change if/when I own an EV and know the systems. But until then, on a trip where I am strapped for time is NOT when I want to learn and potentially get trapped somewhere. And I am sure the EV owners can tell me about how I won't get trapped but I don't see electric charging available at hotels, I don't see it available at work sites I go to, I don't see it at tiny small towns in remote areas near national parks. If I got stranded somewhere at home while learning, I have the resources to sort it out. Not so while traveling.
This thread and a friend d recently getting an electric rental car against her will made me think about it. I don't have an electric car (yet- I am sure we will get one at some point and I'm not opposed to owning one at all). When I rent a car for personal travel I usually am driving a fair bit and as a non-EV owner I have no idea what the charging systems and infrastructure are. When I rent a car for work, same. For both I have no extra time to wait for charging. I just absolutely don't want to mess with it. I am very every opposed to having a rental EV in almost every situation that I rent a car.
I think that will change if/when I own an EV and know the systems. But until then, on a trip where I am strapped for time is NOT when I want to learn and potentially get trapped somewhere. And I am sure the EV owners can tell me about how I won't get trapped but I don't see electric charging available at hotels, I don't see it available at work sites I go to, I don't see it at tiny small towns in remote areas near national parks. If I got stranded somewhere at home while learning, I have the resources to sort it out. Not so while traveling.
Good point - I only know of one charging station where I live. I googled to find more. It said there was 57 but only listed a few. I guess you are really dependent on those cell phone apps to find where to charge. Maybe, it will be different when my present vehicle is old and tired and I am ready for another. In the interim, the gas stations seem to be thriving and should not close.
This thread and a friend d recently getting an electric rental car against her will made me think about it. I don't have an electric car (yet- I am sure we will get one at some point and I'm not opposed to owning one at all). When I rent a car for personal travel I usually am driving a fair bit and as a non-EV owner I have no idea what the charging systems and infrastructure are. When I rent a car for work, same. For both I have no extra time to wait for charging. I just absolutely don't want to mess with it. I am very every opposed to having a rental EV in almost every situation that I rent a car.
I think that will change if/when I own an EV and know the systems. But until then, on a trip where I am strapped for time is NOT when I want to learn and potentially get trapped somewhere. And I am sure the EV owners can tell me about how I won't get trapped but I don't see electric charging available at hotels, I don't see it available at work sites I go to, I don't see it at tiny small towns in remote areas near national parks. If I got stranded somewhere at home while learning, I have the resources to sort it out. Not so while traveling.
Good point - I only know of one charging station where I live. I googled to find more. It said there was 57 but only listed a few. I guess you are really dependent on those cell phone apps to find where to charge. Maybe, it will be different when my present vehicle is old and tired and I am ready for another. In the interim, the gas stations seem to be thriving and should not close.
This thread and a friend d recently getting an electric rental car against her will made me think about it. I don't have an electric car (yet- I am sure we will get one at some point and I'm not opposed to owning one at all). When I rent a car for personal travel I usually am driving a fair bit and as a non-EV owner I have no idea what the charging systems and infrastructure are. When I rent a car for work, same. For both I have no extra time to wait for charging. I just absolutely don't want to mess with it. I am very every opposed to having a rental EV in almost every situation that I rent a car.
I think that will change if/when I own an EV and know the systems. But until then, on a trip where I am strapped for time is NOT when I want to learn and potentially get trapped somewhere. And I am sure the EV owners can tell me about how I won't get trapped but I don't see electric charging available at hotels, I don't see it available at work sites I go to, I don't see it at tiny small towns in remote areas near national parks. If I got stranded somewhere at home while learning, I have the resources to sort it out. Not so while traveling.
Good point - I only know of one charging station where I live. I googled to find more. It said there was 57 but only listed a few. I guess you are really dependent on those cell phone apps to find where to charge. Maybe, it will be different when my present vehicle is old and tired and I am ready for another. In the interim, the gas stations seem to be thriving and should not close.
About five years ago, I couldn't wait to buy an EV - now my enthusiasm has cooled. Like you, I'll eventually get an EV when one of my cars needs replacing. I was reflecting on this change in sentiment and realized an EV doesn't really solve any problem for me since I don't commute to work in my car (I'm retired) and don't really enjoy driving in any case.
I'm still somewhat new to the EV ownership experience but one thing that has been really surprising is how much more convenient an EV is if you can plug in at home. I never realized how much going to the gas station sucks until I no longer had to do it. I just wake up every day and my car is magically 'full'.
I'm still somewhat new to the EV ownership experience but one thing that has been really surprising is how much more convenient an EV is if you can plug in at home. I never realized how much going to the gas station sucks until I no longer had to do it. I just wake up every day and my car is magically 'full'.
For sure. You never have the "Aw shit, I gotta get gas first" when you leave the house to go somewhere. If the car is in the driveway, it is full. The aw shit moments aren't a big deal, but it is a suprising relief to not have them.
About five years ago, I couldn't wait to buy an EV - now my enthusiasm has cooled. Like you, I'll eventually get an EV when one of my cars needs replacing. I was reflecting on this change in sentiment and realized an EV doesn't really solve any problem for me since I don't commute to work in my car (I'm retired) and don't really enjoy driving in any case.
Same here - I used to put hundreds of miles a week on my cars. I bought my present vehicle about 4 -1/2 years ago. I'm almost at 18,000 miles.
I get irrationally angry at smartphone software, modern websites, my laptop updating, etc.
Is anyone out there like me and but bought a Tesla? Can you report whether you found yourself perpetually irritated?
I get irrationally angry at smartphone software, modern websites, my laptop updating, etc.
Is anyone out there like me and but bought a Tesla? Can you report whether you found yourself perpetually irritated?
I don't have the same irritation with software, but I have thought about people like my mom owning a Tesla. She doesn't own a smartphone and doesn't want one. I think the user experience would not be great.
I can say with confidence that a Tesla is not for you. The phone app is your key and a fairly important part of the user experience. The car interface feels very much like a mobile app, albeit a high quality one.
Maybe try renting one for a day if you're truly interested. But a Tesla is deliberately designed to feel like a smartphone on wheels.
Some brands are leaning into Tesla's design decisions, some are keeping cars much more traditional. I'd look at some of the other options in your use-case.
The phone app is your key and a fairly important part of the user experience. The car interface feels very much like a mobile app, albeit a high quality one.Wait, so I could not rent one because my dumb phone can't run a Tesla app?
Maybe try renting one for a day if you're truly interested. But a Tesla is deliberately designed to feel like a smartphone on wheels.
The phone app is your key and a fairly important part of the user experience. The car interface feels very much like a mobile app, albeit a high quality one.Wait, so I could not rent one because my dumb phone can't run a Tesla app?
Maybe try renting one for a day if you're truly interested. But a Tesla is deliberately designed to feel like a smartphone on wheels.
The phone app is your key and a fairly important part of the user experience. The car interface feels very much like a mobile app, albeit a high quality one.Wait, so I could not rent one because my dumb phone can't run a Tesla app?
Maybe try renting one for a day if you're truly interested. But a Tesla is deliberately designed to feel like a smartphone on wheels.
Teslas can be run from your phone, but they also come with physical key cards you can use as well.
Also not a tesla specific question, but do EV chargers require you to have a cell phone to use them?
Also not a tesla specific question, but do EV chargers require you to have a cell phone to use them?
For Pay-as-you-charge roadside ev chargers, almost all that I’ve seen have both an app and a credit card interface. Many L2 chargers are “dumb” and require no payment at all.
Tesla and other network chargers can be set up to work directly with the vehicle, so you have Ann account and plug in and you just get billed.
Does Tesla require use of an app for service scheduling?
Also not a tesla specific question, but do EV chargers require you to have a cell phone to use them?
Does Tesla require use of an app for service scheduling?
Also not a tesla specific question, but do EV chargers require you to have a cell phone to use them?
For Tesla you can call the service center directly and set up an appointment, no need for the app.
Does Tesla require use of an app for service scheduling?
Also not a tesla specific question, but do EV chargers require you to have a cell phone to use them?
For Tesla you can call the service center directly and set up an appointment, no need for the app.
Have you tried that?
Everything that I've read online says that it's way understaffed and average wait times when calling for service are multi-hour - or that it just tells you to use the app. Is the phone number really a valid option for this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/comments/1abooa2/tesla_isnt_letting_me_book_at_a_local_service/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/comments/1abooa2/tesla_isnt_letting_me_book_at_a_local_service/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/comments/10jkuum/anyone_know_a_better_method_to_contact_tesla_it/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/comments/10jkuum/anyone_know_a_better_method_to_contact_tesla_it/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/ej17w3/anyone_else_completely_frustrated_trying_to_reach/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/ej17w3/anyone_else_completely_frustrated_trying_to_reach/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/co90ss/getting_tesla_on_the_phone/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/co90ss/getting_tesla_on_the_phone/)
Just had an idea: chargers at all Starbucks (urban) and Dollar Generals (rural).
Still playing with the "A Better Route Planner" and running simulations for all the out of town places we go in a year's time.
Just had an idea: chargers at all Starbucks (urban) and Dollar Generals (rural).
Still playing with the "A Better Route Planner" and running simulations for all the out of town places we go in a year's time.
Just had an idea: chargers at all Starbucks (urban) and Dollar Generals (rural).
Still playing with the "A Better Route Planner" and running simulations for all the out of town places we go in a year's time.
If things get really desperate, you can always plug in at any place that has a 220v outlet. For example if you are staying with family and they don't have any chargers around, you can use the adapter and plug in to their electric dryer outlet. Or really any 220v outlet. Adds about 30 miles per hour you have it plugged in.
Also if you are in wilderness and need some juice, you can go to an RV park and plug in there, using an adapter.
We discovered this last summer. Most camp grounds have 30 amp circuits for RVs. We’ve been successful at recharging our RV fully during our trip at our campground (overnight) which dramatically simplified and expanded our range of where we would go on overnight camping trips.
Also if you are in wilderness and need some juice, you can go to an RV park and plug in there, using an adapter.
So if you got a plug in hybrid, but plugged her in every night and ran on battery during the day, could you expect that the engine/generator set would last about forever?
A lot of (most?) EVs come with a cable/adapter for 120V as well. Which means you can charge effectively anywhere in a pinch. It's slow but it's good safeguard against getting stranded.Annoyingly, some EVs are no longer coming with Level 1 chargers. We negotiated to have one included in our purchase.
Rumblings that the Model 2 may have been cancelled.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-tesla-scraps-low-cost-150726195.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANTLa4_RsKOuzksl1AtGqE40eCBAU4nLOSfDPKnTl90FNOmt8PvMPervTHvEbGQqoD5SjT7PHT31YCMTytZdeMZQkk3kmYtzPHSf09FVOzau6WhuxiGh9X1Kl_3cEJek2EmNcX35CPW2qb0wbMC4lyAQWn23KDN3GzcW2zkWRQSU
A lot of (most?) EVs come with a cable/adapter for 120V as well. Which means you can charge effectively anywhere in a pinch. It's slow but it's good safeguard against getting stranded.
I saw a remarkable lack of EVs driving to/from/parked-for the eclipse on Monday. Two Mach-Es and a handful of Tesla of various name. Didn't notice any bolts/ioniq/evNs. On the morning take-the-kids-to-school carpool, every 10th or 20th car is an EV, mostly Teslas.
Not that I didn't do the same thing. Take an EV that may or may not find a working charger, or take the Fit that has just a bit more range (and a classic 2000s dvd-based navigation system -- no cell service, no problem!).
So,I made a grocery run today. I had the radio on. I heard this ad It told me that Joe Biden was going to ban two out of three cars that are on the road today. I said to myself, "WTF?" Then the ad concluded with "This message was brought to you by the American Petroleum Institute." Ads don't usually make me laugh. That one did.
It's probably on this link.
https://www.afpm.org/newsroom/news/afpm-launches-second-round-ads-spotlighting-gas-car-ban-policies-across-battleground (https://www.afpm.org/newsroom/news/afpm-launches-second-round-ads-spotlighting-gas-car-ban-policies-across-battleground)
I think all you folks with the electric cars have got the oil and gas industry more than a mite nervous. Did the buggy whip manufacturers do something similar when the Model T came out?
If the battery electric car doesn't take over the market, I think hydrogen stands a good chance. It looks like a lot of clean hydrogen is going to be manufactured and shipped via pipelines. I was wondering about the reliability of fuel cells. I know NASA has used them for a long time. I found this:
"For example, many automakers of passenger cars aim for a fuel cell stack lifespan of at least 5,000 hours or approximately 150,000-200,000 miles. In the heavy-duty category, many bus fuel cell stacks (power plant) have reached lifetimes of 20,000 hours and more, with a goal of 30,000 hours by 2030."
https://h2fcp.org/faqs (https://h2fcp.org/faqs)
At any rate,, I haven't seen Joe Biden skulking around my garage.
Hydrogen probably won't take off, simply from a cost perspective. Hydrogen is 2x more expensive to fuel your car than regular gasoline. And battery powered vehicles are currently 4x cheaper to run than gas cars, right now. Which means Hydrogen would need to come down in price by 800% to compete with EV's. Possible, I suppose, but unlikely.
Hydrogen probably won't take off, simply from a cost perspective. Hydrogen is 2x more expensive to fuel your car than regular gasoline. And battery powered vehicles are currently 4x cheaper to run than gas cars, right now. Which means Hydrogen would need to come down in price by 800% to compete with EV's. Possible, I suppose, but unlikely.
Worldwide demand is expected to peak around 2028 due to growth in non-OECD economies. But China will make things interesting. China's market share in EV's is more than twice the US, and growing much faster. It hasn't put a dent in emissions or demand yet, as their economy is growing much faster. But the higher EV market share combined with China's rapidly aging population may create a much steeper demand decline when it starts happening.
Batteries can't do it all.
Worldwide demand is expected to peak around 2028 due to growth in non-OECD economies. But China will make things interesting. China's market share in EV's is more than twice the US, and growing much faster. It hasn't put a dent in emissions or demand yet, as their economy is growing much faster. But the higher EV market share combined with China's rapidly aging population may create a much steeper demand decline when it starts happening.
China has also been meeting its power needs with a significant number of new coal plants. (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-2023-coal-power-approvals-rose-putting-climate-targets-risk-2024-02-22/#:~:text=China%20has%20approved%20218%20GW,in%202022%2C%20the%20analysis%20said.) One step forward, two steps back.
Batteries can't do it all.
Why not? (serious question)
Generally when I see this argument it’s based on the supply of cobalt and lithium for one very specific battery type. But that’s not the only way of storing energy, particularly for non-auto uses where energy density isn’t the primary constraint.
I guess it also depends a good deal on whether we use the word “battery” to mean chemical-electric cells wired together. But if we talking energy storage there’s plenty of options beyond boxes of reactive metal steeped in an electrolytic brine connected by copper.
Worldwide demand is expected to peak around 2028 due to growth in non-OECD economies. But China will make things interesting. China's market share in EV's is more than twice the US, and growing much faster. It hasn't put a dent in emissions or demand yet, as their economy is growing much faster. But the higher EV market share combined with China's rapidly aging population may create a much steeper demand decline when it starts happening.
China has also been meeting its power needs with a significant number of new coal plants. (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-2023-coal-power-approvals-rose-putting-climate-targets-risk-2024-02-22/#:~:text=China%20has%20approved%20218%20GW,in%202022%2C%20the%20analysis%20said.) One step forward, two steps back.
An ICE and a coal powered EV emit similar amounts of CO2 per mile. So one step forward but only one step back.
Ignoring the possibility of the EV being powered by renewables later in its lifespan, the health benefits of doing combustion away from population centers, etc
Batteries can't do it all.
Why not? (serious question)
Generally when I see this argument it’s based on the supply of cobalt and lithium for one very specific battery type. But that’s not the only way of storing energy, particularly for non-auto uses where energy density isn’t the primary constraint.
I guess it also depends a good deal on whether we use the word “battery” to mean chemical-electric cells wired together. But if we talking energy storage there’s plenty of options beyond boxes of reactive metal steeped in an electrolytic brine connected by copper.
...
I'm being pedantic here, but the "steps back" in the case of vehicles come from the more intense embodied carbon used to make the vehicles in the first place. CO2 Emissions during driving are only part of the story of overall impact of vehicles. Particulate health benefits are better with EV's, but the overall heavier energy storage is worse for things like embodies emissions and environmental factors such as microplastics from tire wear. Both vehicle types are bad, mind you, but EVs are worse in some areas.
China is also intalling more solar power per year than the rest of the world combined. And they plan to stop building new coal power plants before 2030. And by that I mean finishing them, not planning.Worldwide demand is expected to peak around 2028 due to growth in non-OECD economies. But China will make things interesting. China's market share in EV's is more than twice the US, and growing much faster. It hasn't put a dent in emissions or demand yet, as their economy is growing much faster. But the higher EV market share combined with China's rapidly aging population may create a much steeper demand decline when it starts happening.
China has also been meeting its power needs with a significant number of new coal plants. (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-2023-coal-power-approvals-rose-putting-climate-targets-risk-2024-02-22/#:~:text=China%20has%20approved%20218%20GW,in%202022%2C%20the%20analysis%20said.) One step forward, two steps back.
...
I'm being pedantic here, but the "steps back" in the case of vehicles come from the more intense embodied carbon used to make the vehicles in the first place. CO2 Emissions during driving are only part of the story of overall impact of vehicles. Particulate health benefits are better with EV's, but the overall heavier energy storage is worse for things like embodies emissions and environmental factors such as microplastics from tire wear. Both vehicle types are bad, mind you, but EVs are worse in some areas.
Accounting for all environmental factors, EVs powered by the real world electricity mix are a vast improvement over ICE.
Irritating we're still getting these "both are bad" arguments in 2024. Reeks of the distract, doubt, and delay tactics of the fossil fuel industry
There are duty cycles (mainly heavy work) that will completely drain a battery in no time. This happens with cordless powertools or battery lawn care equipment, and it happens with big machines too. Things like towing, digging, harvesting, transporting people/goods over long distances, etc. Some of those more difficult duty cycles also come in weight sensitive applications (airplanes, over the road trucks, etc). Some of those more difficult duty cycles occur in places with minimal or no opportunity to recharge (earth moving, air travel, agriculture, etc).
I am excited to see more cars like fiat 500e. While it is not practical nor cheap, I like the direction. Smaller and hopefully cheaper electric cars in future in US.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/04/the-2024-fiat-500e-is-a-34k-ev-that-appeals-to-emotion-not-logic/
They've been like that for years in fact. They use a diesel generator to power an electric motor (and have like a 1,000 gallon fuel tank). BEV will be new though. This is a pretty easy case, as mines have ample power and the trucks have clearly defined duty cycles ending at the some place every day. Once BEV makes financial sense they would definitely go for it. One negative aspect to BEV here is that mines are incredibly sensitive to upfront capital costs, relative to operations cost savings. They'd want at most a 3-5 year time to break even on their investment based on my experience.There are duty cycles (mainly heavy work) that will completely drain a battery in no time. This happens with cordless powertools or battery lawn care equipment, and it happens with big machines too. Things like towing, digging, harvesting, transporting people/goods over long distances, etc. Some of those more difficult duty cycles also come in weight sensitive applications (airplanes, over the road trucks, etc). Some of those more difficult duty cycles occur in places with minimal or no opportunity to recharge (earth moving, air travel, agriculture, etc).
Seems that the makers of large scale equipment are developing electric versions.
https://www.komatsu.com/en/products/trucks/electric-drive-mining-trucks/?filters=54598B80-3647-4B22-BA6D-3E01C9E47182
https://www.caterpillar.com/en/news/corporate-press-releases/h/caterpillar-succesfully-demonstrates-first-battery-electric-large-mining-truck.html
I am excited to see more cars like fiat 500e. While it is not practical nor cheap, I like the direction. Smaller and hopefully cheaper electric cars in future in US.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/04/the-2024-fiat-500e-is-a-34k-ev-that-appeals-to-emotion-not-logic/
There are duty cycles (mainly heavy work) that will completely drain a battery in no time. This happens with cordless powertools or battery lawn care equipment, and it happens with big machines too. Things like towing, digging, harvesting, transporting people/goods over long distances, etc. Some of those more difficult duty cycles also come in weight sensitive applications (airplanes, over the road trucks, etc). Some of those more difficult duty cycles occur in places with minimal or no opportunity to recharge (earth moving, air travel, agriculture, etc).
Seems that the makers of large scale equipment are developing electric versions.
https://www.komatsu.com/en/products/trucks/electric-drive-mining-trucks/?filters=54598B80-3647-4B22-BA6D-3E01C9E47182
https://www.caterpillar.com/en/news/corporate-press-releases/h/caterpillar-succesfully-demonstrates-first-battery-electric-large-mining-truck.html
Worldwide demand is expected to peak around 2028 due to growth in non-OECD economies. But China will make things interesting. China's market share in EV's is more than twice the US, and growing much faster. It hasn't put a dent in emissions or demand yet, as their economy is growing much faster. But the higher EV market share combined with China's rapidly aging population may create a much steeper demand decline when it starts happening.
China has also been meeting its power needs with a significant number of new coal plants. (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-2023-coal-power-approvals-rose-putting-climate-targets-risk-2024-02-22/#:~:text=China%20has%20approved%20218%20GW,in%202022%2C%20the%20analysis%20said.) One step forward, two steps back.
An ICE and a coal powered EV emit similar amounts of CO2 per mile. So one step forward but only one step back.
Ignoring the possibility of the EV being powered by renewables later in its lifespan, the health benefits of doing combustion away from population centers, etc
China is also intalling more solar power per year than the rest of the world combined. And they plan to stop building new coal power plants before 2030. And by that I mean finishing them, not planning.Worldwide demand is expected to peak around 2028 due to growth in non-OECD economies. But China will make things interesting. China's market share in EV's is more than twice the US, and growing much faster. It hasn't put a dent in emissions or demand yet, as their economy is growing much faster. But the higher EV market share combined with China's rapidly aging population may create a much steeper demand decline when it starts happening.
China has also been meeting its power needs with a significant number of new coal plants. (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-2023-coal-power-approvals-rose-putting-climate-targets-risk-2024-02-22/#:~:text=China%20has%20approved%20218%20GW,in%202022%2C%20the%20analysis%20said.) One step forward, two steps back.
Don't forget that China is a massive country that started the industrial revolution 100 years later than Europe and the US and is now having a lot of energy needing industry there that we have moved out of our countries. Because their coal was cheaper.
Personally I see less troubles with Chinas path than with that of the US.
I had a conversation with one guy I would call aggressively skeptical of EV's, but he also had genuine curiosity. He wanted to know how it would perform when it was -27 in Wyoming, and I didn't have a confident answer to that one.
I am excited to see more cars like fiat 500e. While it is not practical nor cheap, I like the direction. Smaller and hopefully cheaper electric cars in future in US.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/04/the-2024-fiat-500e-is-a-34k-ev-that-appeals-to-emotion-not-logic/
WTF you say it's not practical? Not practical are those monster pickups. They are also even less cheap I think?
I am excited to see more cars like fiat 500e. While it is not practical nor cheap, I like the direction. Smaller and hopefully cheaper electric cars in future in US.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/04/the-2024-fiat-500e-is-a-34k-ev-that-appeals-to-emotion-not-logic/
The electric Mini is also a cool looking car. Sadly, the early models didn't get good reviews.
What the rental car companies really need to include is a “quick start” placemat. How to do the basics, especially charging, but seat and mirror changes (seat controls in this car were on the door), if Apple CarPlay or the Google equivalent is available and how to connect (or how to conjure the nav system). Basically anything that’s unusual.
I think all you folks with the electric cars have got the oil and gas industry more than a mite nervous. Did the buggy whip manufacturers do something similar when the Model T came out?
I think all you folks with the electric cars have got the oil and gas industry more than a mite nervous. Did the buggy whip manufacturers do something similar when the Model T came out?
They wanted to, but they got sued by the Luddites who patented the idea a century earlier.
I think all you folks with the electric cars have got the oil and gas industry more than a mite nervous. Did the buggy whip manufacturers do something similar when the Model T came out?
They wanted to, but they got sued by the Luddites who patented the idea a century earlier.
Funny enough, the carriage manufacturers all started making car bodies. Some companies dead ended, some simply transitioned.
I think all you folks with the electric cars have got the oil and gas industry more than a mite nervous. Did the buggy whip manufacturers do something similar when the Model T came out?
They wanted to, but they got sued by the Luddites who patented the idea a century earlier.
Funny enough, the carriage manufacturers all started making car bodies. Some companies dead ended, some simply transitioned.
I bet it was tough for street cleaners though. Transitioning from knee high shit to small bits of rubber dust would have radically changed the industry.
I used to do a lot of traveling for work. I used to get poor meals at truck stops. At the time they were proclaiming that self driving trucks were soon to be upon us. I thought about all the drivers and the people in the truck stops. A lot of jobs would be eliminated. This may still happen as trucks evolve.
I used to do a lot of traveling for work. I used to get poor meals at truck stops. At the time they were proclaiming that self driving trucks were soon to be upon us. I thought about all the drivers and the people in the truck stops. A lot of jobs would be eliminated. This may still happen as trucks evolve.
Trucking is in a hiring crisis. In 2018, the industry was short 50,000 drivers. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/employment-trends/2018/05/30/shortage-us-needs-50-000-truck-drivers-avoid-shipping-squeeze/654893002/) In 2023, that is now 80,000 (https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/new-study-shows-u-s-is-facing-truck-driver-shortage/#:~:text=You%20may%20not%20be%20able,of%20Western%20Pacific%20Truck%20School.), on its way to 160,000 by 2030.
In a lot of ways, trucking is an undesirable job. Lots of monotony on the road, and days away from family. The interesting thing is that long highway stretches are the easiest to automate. What could come about is that human drivers become like harbor pilots are to ships: an autonomous truck drives 24 hours a day between delivery yards on urban outskirts, and the humans stay local, delivering different goods tomdifferent points in their locality.
It could end up making the position a lot more efficient, and a lot more desirable to do.
...
Trucking is in a hiring crisis. In 2018, the industry was short 50,000 drivers. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/employment-trends/2018/05/30/shortage-us-needs-50-000-truck-drivers-avoid-shipping-squeeze/654893002/) In 2023, that is now 80,000 (https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/new-study-shows-u-s-is-facing-truck-driver-shortage/#:~:text=You%20may%20not%20be%20able,of%20Western%20Pacific%20Truck%20School.), on its way to 160,000 by 2030.
...
...
Trucking is in a hiring crisis. In 2018, the industry was short 50,000 drivers. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/employment-trends/2018/05/30/shortage-us-needs-50-000-truck-drivers-avoid-shipping-squeeze/654893002/) In 2023, that is now 80,000 (https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/new-study-shows-u-s-is-facing-truck-driver-shortage/#:~:text=You%20may%20not%20be%20able,of%20Western%20Pacific%20Truck%20School.), on its way to 160,000 by 2030.
...
"Employers learn one crazy trick to solve staffing crisis!!! Pay more and provide better working conditions!"
...
Trucking is in a hiring crisis. In 2018, the industry was short 50,000 drivers. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/employment-trends/2018/05/30/shortage-us-needs-50-000-truck-drivers-avoid-shipping-squeeze/654893002/) In 2023, that is now 80,000 (https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/new-study-shows-u-s-is-facing-truck-driver-shortage/#:~:text=You%20may%20not%20be%20able,of%20Western%20Pacific%20Truck%20School.), on its way to 160,000 by 2030.
...
"Employers learn one crazy trick to solve staffing crisis!!! Pay more and provide better working conditions!"
...
Trucking is in a hiring crisis. In 2018, the industry was short 50,000 drivers. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/employment-trends/2018/05/30/shortage-us-needs-50-000-truck-drivers-avoid-shipping-squeeze/654893002/) In 2023, that is now 80,000 (https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/new-study-shows-u-s-is-facing-truck-driver-shortage/#:~:text=You%20may%20not%20be%20able,of%20Western%20Pacific%20Truck%20School.), on its way to 160,000 by 2030.
...
"Employers learn one crazy trick to solve staffing crisis!!! Pay more and provide better working conditions!"
To me, pay doesn’t seem to be what’s preventing this shortage. A bigger issue seems to be that it’s a dangerous profession that is terrible on your body and requires the driver to be away from their home frequently and working when most people want to sleep.
...
Trucking is in a hiring crisis. In 2018, the industry was short 50,000 drivers. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/employment-trends/2018/05/30/shortage-us-needs-50-000-truck-drivers-avoid-shipping-squeeze/654893002/) In 2023, that is now 80,000 (https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/new-study-shows-u-s-is-facing-truck-driver-shortage/#:~:text=You%20may%20not%20be%20able,of%20Western%20Pacific%20Truck%20School.), on its way to 160,000 by 2030.
...
"Employers learn one crazy trick to solve staffing crisis!!! Pay more and provide better working conditions!"
To me, pay doesn’t seem to be what’s preventing this shortage. A bigger issue seems to be that it’s a dangerous profession that is terrible on your body and requires the driver to be away from their home frequently and working when most people want to sleep.
...
Trucking is in a hiring crisis. In 2018, the industry was short 50,000 drivers. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/employment-trends/2018/05/30/shortage-us-needs-50-000-truck-drivers-avoid-shipping-squeeze/654893002/) In 2023, that is now 80,000 (https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/new-study-shows-u-s-is-facing-truck-driver-shortage/#:~:text=You%20may%20not%20be%20able,of%20Western%20Pacific%20Truck%20School.), on its way to 160,000 by 2030.
...
"Employers learn one crazy trick to solve staffing crisis!!! Pay more and provide better working conditions!"
To me, pay doesn’t seem to be what’s preventing this shortage. A bigger issue seems to be that it’s a dangerous profession that is terrible on your body and requires the driver to be away from their home frequently and working when most people want to sleep.
Pay is a part of it. I knew several owner operators, and cheating on the federal 8 hour / day drive limit was common. The guy who moved my wife's grandmother's things drove straight from Florida to our house in Indiana--nonstop. And, he was continuing to Michigan. That guy said he pulled in $250k a year. In 2000.
After 9/11, though, trucks began to get wired for communications and positioning, in the name of security. With that came electronic logging, so no more cheating. Pay is capped at what is advertised.
The conditions also suck. Not many aspire to it, they settle for it.
...
Trucking is in a hiring crisis. In 2018, the industry was short 50,000 drivers. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/employment-trends/2018/05/30/shortage-us-needs-50-000-truck-drivers-avoid-shipping-squeeze/654893002/) In 2023, that is now 80,000 (https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/new-study-shows-u-s-is-facing-truck-driver-shortage/#:~:text=You%20may%20not%20be%20able,of%20Western%20Pacific%20Truck%20School.), on its way to 160,000 by 2030.
...
"Employers learn one crazy trick to solve staffing crisis!!! Pay more and provide better working conditions!"
To me, pay doesn’t seem to be what’s preventing this shortage. A bigger issue seems to be that it’s a dangerous profession that is terrible on your body and requires the driver to be away from their home frequently and working when most people want to sleep.
Pay is a part of it. I knew several owner operators, and cheating on the federal 8 hour / day drive limit was common. The guy who moved my wife's grandmother's things drove straight from Florida to our house in Indiana--nonstop. And, he was continuing to Michigan. That guy said he pulled in $250k a year. In 2000.
After 9/11, though, trucks began to get wired for communications and positioning, in the name of security. With that came electronic logging, so no more cheating. Pay is capped at what is advertised.
The conditions also suck. Not many aspire to it, they settle for it.
Based on my time at truck stops the last couple years (I love Love's!), most of the big rig drivers are immigrants. In fact, more and more truck stops are now offering Indian and Pakistani food in addition to hot dogs and pizza.
...
Trucking is in a hiring crisis. In 2018, the industry was short 50,000 drivers. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/employment-trends/2018/05/30/shortage-us-needs-50-000-truck-drivers-avoid-shipping-squeeze/654893002/) In 2023, that is now 80,000 (https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/new-study-shows-u-s-is-facing-truck-driver-shortage/#:~:text=You%20may%20not%20be%20able,of%20Western%20Pacific%20Truck%20School.), on its way to 160,000 by 2030.
...
"Employers learn one crazy trick to solve staffing crisis!!! Pay more and provide better working conditions!"
To me, pay doesn’t seem to be what’s preventing this shortage. A bigger issue seems to be that it’s a dangerous profession that is terrible on your body and requires the driver to be away from their home frequently and working when most people want to sleep.
Pay is a part of it. I knew several owner operators, and cheating on the federal 8 hour / day drive limit was common. The guy who moved my wife's grandmother's things drove straight from Florida to our house in Indiana--nonstop. And, he was continuing to Michigan. That guy said he pulled in $250k a year. In 2000.
After 9/11, though, trucks began to get wired for communications and positioning, in the name of security. With that came electronic logging, so no more cheating. Pay is capped at what is advertised.
The conditions also suck. Not many aspire to it, they settle for it.
Based on my time at truck stops the last couple years (I love Love's!), most of the big rig drivers are immigrants. In fact, more and more truck stops are now offering Indian and Pakistani food in addition to hot dogs and pizza.
Based on my time at truck stops the last couple years (I love Love's!), most of the big rig drivers are immigrants. In fact, more and more truck stops are now offering Indian and Pakistani food in addition to hot dogs and pizza.
It seems to me that it takes longer for an electric charge than it does to gas up. Are these truck stops beginning to put in charging stations? The longer time the customer stays at the truck stop gives an opportunity for the Truck Stop to sell food, knick-knacks and services to a captive clientele.
Based on my time at truck stops the last couple years (I love Love's!), most of the big rig drivers are immigrants. In fact, more and more truck stops are now offering Indian and Pakistani food in addition to hot dogs and pizza.
It seems to me that it takes longer for an electric charge than it does to gas up. Are these truck stops beginning to put in charging stations? The longer time the customer stays at the truck stop gives an opportunity for the Truck Stop to sell food, knick-knacks and services to a captive clientele.
Love's is putting your tax dollars to work electrifying! I had a coffee at one on I-5 today, U-Haul in tow.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/loves-ev-chargers
And their gas station food looks more interesting that our's. Lots of Circle K and 7/11 gas stations and chargers which was surprising. (we have that brand locally here).
@Just Joe - the quiet of an EV is my favourite part and why I will never own an ICE vehicle again.
how cool is that?@Just Joe - the quiet of an EV is my favourite part and why I will never own an ICE vehicle again.
Oh yes. Everytime I ride or drive an EV the quiet is a huge treat. Also a favorite part of my ebike. I can pedal along with assist and sneak up on all sorts of wildlife. Was able to get several minutes of time near a big owl one evening.
@Just Joe - the quiet of an EV is my favourite part and why I will never own an ICE vehicle again.
Oh yes. Everytime I ride or drive an EV the quiet is a huge treat. Also a favorite part of my ebike. I can pedal along with assist and sneak up on all sorts of wildlife. Was able to get several minutes of time near a big owl one evening.
I've been watching many of Njorn Nyland's roadtrip videos from Norway.
https://youtu.be/VxeRwYcO5wM
Looks like most gas stations have 6-12 chargers - that he films anyhow. Multiple networks. Some exposed, some covered which is good in such a snowy place.
And their gas station food looks more interesting that our's. Lots of Circle K and 7/11 gas stations and chargers which was surprising. (we have that brand locally here).
In other news our future used EV might be a Kona rather than a Leaf. Leaf still meets our needs but the Kona allows for road trips. As a couple on the cusp of empty nest status, it might be nice to choose the smaller vehicle rather than our 3-row vehicle for road trips. It'll just be DW, myself and our pooch. Only concern is interior noise. We have a noisy 1st gen CRV now. It's fine for local use but noisy on the interstate. Much of that is age. A test drive would reveal that detail.
-I was able to adjust the charging schedule to match my kids need to get out and wiggle. I was less tempted to drive through it, which kept the whole family in a better mood.
-I was able to adjust the charging schedule to match my kids need to get out and wiggle. I was less tempted to drive through it, which kept the whole family in a better mood.
Charging stations at playgrounds! Brilliant! Of course, there's no sponsor there to make it free, but wouldn't that be an amazing sign of EV use by families?
I really would like to see more DCFC sponsored by local downtowns, or at least located near a downtown area.
They do exist, but they’re not as common, and frequently lower-quality chargers. The truck stop chains have the capital and customer service mindset to install good chargers and keep them maintained. Which I do greatly appreciate. But I’d like to see more small local businesses thrive too.
That small local diner I stopped at was in Green River Utah. The chargers were at a closed local coffee shop, and we had a nice sit-down meal at the diner across the street. We weren’t rushed, and we had some good family time. There was a playground a block down too.
How many gas cars passing through Green River even acknowledge the existence of more than a truck stop there?
The problem for me is that the L2 chargers are just too slow. The free ones around here only offer about 6kWh, so my 45 minutes at the library nets me... 20 miles?
I really would like to see more DCFC sponsored by local downtowns, or at least located near a downtown area.
They do exist, but they’re not as common, and frequently lower-quality chargers. The truck stop chains have the capital and customer service mindset to install good chargers and keep them maintained. Which I do greatly appreciate. But I’d like to see more small local businesses thrive too.
That small local diner I stopped at was in Green River Utah. The chargers were at a closed local coffee shop, and we had a nice sit-down meal at the diner across the street. We weren’t rushed, and we had some good family time. There was a playground a block down too.
How many gas cars passing through Green River even acknowledge the existence of more than a truck stop there?
So I'm on the environmental adaptation committee of my local town (~9k people) with a commercial downtown area. In the last three years we've installed 18 public use L2 chargers, and spent a lot o time debating whether to put in an DCFC. Ultimately we went against it, for a couple reason:
- The chargers themselves were about 10x the cost of a branched L2 (two whips)
- it was going to cost an additional 5k+ to upgrade the service from the utility line
- we ultimately decided we would rather encourage people who were going to stay for up to 2 hours by giving them free power over prioritizing fast power-ups where a driver might only stick around for 20 minutes and would be less likely to shop or eat at one of our restaurants
The cost of offering free L2 power is pretty negligible (10.9¢/kw*h, so < $1/hr), particularly when you balance that against having visitors who *want* to spend time (and money) in your downtown area. At ~48¢/kw fro DCFC + a sizable idle fee (billed to the customer via POS) drivers tend to want to get going as soon they charge up
There is an L2 charger that provides free electricity about 300 meters from our house, which means if we are planning a longer trip I park there overnight and start the day with a full charge. For most day-to-day we just plug into 120 at our house.
Here in BC there has been a lot of charging infrastructure built out. I basically ignore L2 chargers when I'm on a road trip (unless we're staying overnight), and I find the many L3 chargers. Stop for 35-40 minutes, get another 3-400 km range. At which point I'm ready for another stop anyway.
There is an L2 charger that provides free electricity about 300 meters from our house, which means if we are planning a longer trip I park there overnight and start the day with a full charge. For most day-to-day we just plug into 120 at our house.
Here in BC there has been a lot of charging infrastructure built out. I basically ignore L2 chargers when I'm on a road trip (unless we're staying overnight), and I find the many L3 chargers. Stop for 35-40 minutes, get another 3-400 km range. At which point I'm ready for another stop anyway.
Damn -nobody ever gives free gas.
Canoo might be in danger of bankruptcy...
https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/01/canoo-spent-double-its-annual-revenue-on-the-ceos-private-jet-in-2023/ (https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/01/canoo-spent-double-its-annual-revenue-on-the-ceos-private-jet-in-2023/)
https://electrek.co/2024/04/04/canoo-spent-twice-its-annual-revenue-on-its-ceos-private-jets-last-year/ (https://electrek.co/2024/04/04/canoo-spent-twice-its-annual-revenue-on-its-ceos-private-jets-last-year/)
One WSJ video I watched suggested that they may run out of funding sometime this year.
Its a shame b/c I like their basic concept.
Canoo might be in danger of bankruptcy...
https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/01/canoo-spent-double-its-annual-revenue-on-the-ceos-private-jet-in-2023/ (https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/01/canoo-spent-double-its-annual-revenue-on-the-ceos-private-jet-in-2023/)
https://electrek.co/2024/04/04/canoo-spent-twice-its-annual-revenue-on-its-ceos-private-jets-last-year/ (https://electrek.co/2024/04/04/canoo-spent-twice-its-annual-revenue-on-its-ceos-private-jets-last-year/)
One WSJ video I watched suggested that they may run out of funding sometime this year.
Its a shame b/c I like their basic concept.
Fisker is on the ropes, Rivian is struggling, Lucid production is down, Ford interrupted Lightning production, Tesla is laying off 10%, everyone is slashing prices to stoke demand, etc, etc.
I've been running trip scenarios using ABTP and travel by Kona is not bad. A couple of charges over several hundred miles.
And the charge stops aren't even always that long as EV owners know well. 20 minutes here, 30 minutes there. Sometimes not even 20 minutes if the trip ends at our house and we're not that far away.
Is the Tesla and the Tesla network the superior tool compared to a Kona or Leaf? Surely.
First there is Elon. Nope. Not at this time. Then there's the fact that I'm not prepared to go that financially deep into buying a new or used EV right now. I could delay another year but then I can't gift our ancient Honda to our eldest who wants it and kind of needs it now.
So the contest remains between a low mileage Leaf Plus or a Kona. I think for the money, a used Kona (or a Niro) gets us into a low mile capable EV at around $20K. Then we can cash flow our youngest through college w/o college loans.
Doesn't matter which one we choose. As a second car it will seldom leave the county. When it does, it won't likely go more than one fast charge in any direction. Unless the novelty of EV travel really captures our hearts.
TLDR:Kona vs Leaf Plus vs nothing at all for reasons of cost and utility. And nope on Elon for the foreseeable future.
A call to DH at home to ask how - wtf. He did a quick search. The car had locked itself to the charger. All I had to do was turn the car off, and unlock it before unplugging it. We have had the car for a year and a half and didn't know about this feature.
A call to DH at home to ask how - wtf. He did a quick search. The car had locked itself to the charger. All I had to do was turn the car off, and unlock it before unplugging it. We have had the car for a year and a half and didn't know about this feature.
Yeah, that surprised us as well, but is one of those "It's a feature, not a bug"...
Since cars are left plugged in for extended periods of time, owners wanted to keep others from unplugging their car and plugging in their own. So now you can lock the charging cable to the car.
ours has three 'modes' : Never lock charger, Lock until Charging is Complete or Always Lock (need key and car off to unlock).
There has been a number of things like that which surprised us.
Be aware if those aren't equipped with heat pumps, in the cold you will lose 1/3rd of your range to the heating system. Mostly for the battery but also for the cabin. Heated seats (ideally both rows) and steering wheel are key to longer ranges in the winter, because they're even more efficient than a heat pump, by heating you directly.
At 20k you should also be seeing bolts and mach es. Probably others too soon. Telsa price drops have been hammering the whole used ev market, which is good if you're a buyer.
The car had locked itself to the charger. All I had to do was turn the car off, and unlock it before unplugging it. We have had the car for a year and a half and didn't know about this feature.
Be aware if those aren't equipped with heat pumps, in the cold you will lose 1/3rd of your range to the heating system.
I'm really glad you brought this up. I went reading and it looks like the EU versions have heat pumps in the newer models but perhaps not the USA....
I've been watching EV videos for the EU versions and didn't consider that the USA version might not have a heat pump.
So... I'll visit the Kona forums. A heat pump is a key piece of equipment for me. The lack of one wouldn't hurt our around town usage but I want the efficiency and range of a heat pump equipped vehicle.
I'm really glad you brought this up. I went reading and it looks like the EU versions have heat pumps in the newer models but perhaps not the USA....
I've been watching EV videos for the EU versions and didn't consider that the USA version might not have a heat pump.
So... I'll visit the Kona forums. A heat pump is a key piece of equipment for me. The lack of one wouldn't hurt our around town usage but I want the efficiency and range of a heat pump equipped vehicle.
Yeah it is silly there's such a push for heat pumps in the residential space (water heaters, hvac) but most of the non-tesla EVs don't have them and a lot of brands don't even offer them.
Higher tier Hyundai/Kia did, at least back in the EV6/Ioniq 5 were new era, I think? But I don't know if that holds to new models, or to the non-flagship models.
Note also that seat heaters are still more efficient than the heat pump. If you have any regularity of 2nd row usage, try to get something with rear seat heaters. We tried add-ins this winter and they work but are... not great. Lots less heat than the builtin ones and you have to deal with the power cable which is a pain for carpooling to school.
I'm really glad you brought this up. I went reading and it looks like the EU versions have heat pumps in the newer models but perhaps not the USA....
I've been watching EV videos for the EU versions and didn't consider that the USA version might not have a heat pump.
So... I'll visit the Kona forums. A heat pump is a key piece of equipment for me. The lack of one wouldn't hurt our around town usage but I want the efficiency and range of a heat pump equipped vehicle.
Yeah it is silly there's such a push for heat pumps in the residential space (water heaters, hvac) but most of the non-tesla EVs don't have them and a lot of brands don't even offer them.
Higher tier Hyundai/Kia did, at least back in the EV6/Ioniq 5 were new era, I think? But I don't know if that holds to new models, or to the non-flagship models.
Note also that seat heaters are still more efficient than the heat pump. If you have any regularity of 2nd row usage, try to get something with rear seat heaters. We tried add-ins this winter and they work but are... not great. Lots less heat than the builtin ones and you have to deal with the power cable which is a pain for carpooling to school.
Is the heat pump assembly in a car much more complex than the air conditioner. Is there a way the air conditioner can be reversed like a heat pump in a home?
I suspect this is mostly an issue in the automotive supply chain. The companies that supply parts for the major automakers have been making ever cheaper and ever more efficient AC’s for the past ~50 years. They make a lot of them cheaply and with good quality.
No one has asked them to design a heat-pump for automotive purposes until a few years ago. An automaker that wants a heat pump needs to put scarce R&D dollars into developing their own.
I’m no engineer, but the little bit I’ve researched indicates the underlying heat transfer stuff is much more complicated than simply having a heat pump. There’s heat that needs to be added or subtracted from the battery, motors, and cabin. There are occasions where one might be cooled and one might need heat at the same time. It’s suspected that some models generate heat by using the motors in a slightly inefficient way, and then transferring that heat to the battery or cabin. It’s all fascinating, and above my head. I’d pay more attention to real world reviews than simply looking for a heat pump on the options list.
Also, a home heat pump exchanges heat with a relatively steady, underground temperature environment, which helps it be efficient in either direction.
Is the heat pump assembly in a car much more complex than the air conditioner. Is there a way the air conditioner can be reversed like a heat pump in a home?
I do believe you are right if they are the more expensive geothermal heat pumps. However, the internet gives this description:
"An air-source or air-to-air heat pump can provide both heating and cooling.
In the winter, a heat pump extracts heat from outside air and delivers it indoors.
On hot summer days, it works in reverse, extracting heat from room air and pumping it outdoors to cool the house."
In my climate, I think I'd need the geothermal type.
It’s suspected that some models generate heat by using the motors in a slightly inefficient way, and then transferring that heat to the battery or cabin. It’s all fascinating, and above my head. I’d pay more attention to real world reviews than simply looking for a heat pump on the options list.
Even with that, they put in heated seats for all passengers and a heated steering wheel for the driver because heating the body directly is far more efficient than heating the air.
There is a conventional heated air / ac defrost and heat blower as well. They don't need to run on high when your butt and hands are toasty.Even with that, they put in heated seats for all passengers and a heated steering wheel for the driver because heating the body directly is far more efficient than heating the air.
How does that work with defrosting? Hot air coming out of people hitting cold windows quickly makes an opaque layer of frost. Even if you've got a front window heater blowing directly on the main windscreen, all the side windows are going to frost over from the moisture from passenger breath without a warm enough cabin.
There is a conventional heated air / ac defrost and heat blower as well. They don't need to run on high when your butt and hands are toasty.Even with that, they put in heated seats for all passengers and a heated steering wheel for the driver because heating the body directly is far more efficient than heating the air.
How does that work with defrosting? Hot air coming out of people hitting cold windows quickly makes an opaque layer of frost. Even if you've got a front window heater blowing directly on the main windscreen, all the side windows are going to frost over from the moisture from passenger breath without a warm enough cabin.
There is a conventional heated air / ac defrost and heat blower as well. They don't need to run on high when your butt and hands are toasty.Even with that, they put in heated seats for all passengers and a heated steering wheel for the driver because heating the body directly is far more efficient than heating the air.
How does that work with defrosting? Hot air coming out of people hitting cold windows quickly makes an opaque layer of frost. Even if you've got a front window heater blowing directly on the main windscreen, all the side windows are going to frost over from the moisture from passenger breath without a warm enough cabin.
Also, a minor benefit of EV's is that the defrost works crazy fast. An ICE car requires you to turn on the engine and burn gas for ~5-10 minutes to warm it up. An EV heats the air directly. I can get to a fully defrosted windshield on an icy morning in 1-2 minutes.
Link #1 is a by-model survey of how much range EV's lose in the winter. It's actually more than I expected based on my experience, although my model isn't listed.
https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/winter-ev-range-loss (https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/winter-ev-range-loss)
My winter efficiency runs at 2mi/kWh. My summer efficiency runs at 2.25mi/kWh. This factors in the combination of cold weather, less efficient snow tires, and I generally make a higher percentage of low-mileage (less efficient) trips in the winter. This is an 11% efficiency drop on average, although individual trips obviously fall on either side of that range. I've seen numbers like 33% range loss for Ford's, but I expect this is an extreme extreme scenario, and not a day-to-day scenario.
I've got 120+ mile stretches with a bank of 4 EA chargers on each end, eg Rockford to Bloomington IL. I've done that a few times in both directions. In the summer, fine no biggie. In the winter? Scary. 88kWh usable, 80%->10%, 2.2mi/kWh -> 135 miles. Not a lot of room for error and certainly not enough power to get to the next charger that's 30 miles away. Could I charge to 90%? Sure. Adds a lot of time at busy chargers that have had a line most times I've been there, so that's not great.I've done that exact leg both directions. About 129 miles, according to my records. Used 52% of our battery going North, then 63% going South (maybe I was driving faster?). That was in the summer. Winter definitely would be stretching it, though our Polestar 2 does have a heat pump at least. We haven't done enough cold weather driving to get a good sense of the range penalty (thanks mostly to living in warmer climates). Maybe 20-30% for our Polestar?
However, give me more buttons and less touchscreen.
The midwest charger situation sounds like the same problem here in the south. The big cities and the larger market towns have the fast chargers. The smaller towns might have a L2 charger but that isn't that useful. Its 100+ miles over the mtns in one direction to the metro, 100+ miles in the other direction, and 70+ miles in the other direction from us. The fourth direction isn't even an option (no interstate, no market towns, no fast chargers) for 125+ miles.
It can be done but a person has to be strategic.
If we leave our small town with 80% we ought to be able to reach one of the fast chargers in the metros in any EV with 60 KWH or more. I've done two of the directions in a 40 KWH Leaf but in warm weather. I had just enough range. If the Tesla network was available to us then the longest distances are cut down to half. 50 miles -> 50 miles -> 60 miles.
Even in the metro where our families live, there are few fast chargers. Its weird since this is one of the largest cities in the (red) state. Our families live in the suburbs, the chargers that exist are downtown (~15 miles), or all the way on the other side of the county near the big mall (~20 miles). Its not just the distance but the traffic too.
If we drive an EV to visit family we'll definitely need to charge off their dryer socket overnight - or make a shopping trip to the mall for some reason. ;)
Had a conversation with my father about EVs over the weekend. He confirmed that they will never own an EV b/c there are too many technological hurdles for them. Touchscreens. They won't rely on GPS to find a charger. They won't open charger network accounts. They won't do the mental exercises to guess whether they can depart and return home on one charge. They avoid using GPS in general. They want to stop at a gas station when the tank is low and put gas in the tank and pay with cash. They just can't be bothered. They are very much of their generation.
Meanwhile I can't wait to charge at home and avoid gas stations. And the app/GPS part of the experience is not a problem. However, give me more buttons and less touchscreen.
I've driven the Ford F150 (and towed with it) and I drove the Mustang too. Both were super nice vehicles. The F150 is the nicest truck I've ever driven.
I'm definitely buying used b/c I don't want to spend new car money on a second car.
The only other problem is both the Ford's have very big touchscreens and they are touchscreen intensive. I'm really drawn to the buttons found in a few remaining EVs these days.
I want more of a "starter EV". Simpler. Less plush. Less tech. Hard plastics wear well b/c I keep cars forever. Whatever I buy will replace a 25 year old CRV we bought new. That's how long I keep cars. Doesn't need to be plush for short trips back and forth across town. Typically I'll drive this future EV about 90 minutes in any direction when it even leaves the county.
Thank you for the thoughtful guidance.
I've driven the Ford F150 (and towed with it) and I drove the Mustang too. Both were super nice vehicles. The F150 is the nicest truck I've ever driven.
I'm not convinced touchscreens are here to stay. Maybe? We'll see what the consumer reaction is in 10+ years when you can't get a replacement touchscreen.
I'm not convinced touchscreens are here to stay. Maybe? We'll see what the consumer reaction is in 10+ years when you can't get a replacement touchscreen.
I don't think it will take that long. Tesla says they were only mean to last 5-6 years. (https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39065/tesla-claims-failing-touchscreens-in-nhtsa-recall-were-only-meant-to-last-5-6-years-anyway) And cost $1,500 to replace.