Electric Cars: Can they finally become popular in the United States?

[NorCal]

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

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. 

[pecunia]

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

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/

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.

[Posthumane]

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.

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.

[pecunia]

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.

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.

Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) sure has stuck to anything with the nuclear label.

I think of hydroelectric facilities.  Few people seem to have fear of them.  They trust the engineering.  Yet some of the worst disasters in United States history have happened due to the breaching of dams.  The Johnstown flood killed over 2200 people.  Yet many more dams were built after it.  Perhaps it was because it happened in a time where instant sensational news did not exist.  It could have been because people had day to day worries that were greater such as being kicked by a horse, catching Cholera from the water or Tuberculosis from any friendly encounter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood

Chemicals and chemical plants certainly have toxins which can spread into the country side.  The Bhopal disaster in 1984 killed 2259 and yet people still seem to accept the old motto of "Better Living Through Chemistry."  Perhaps more fear would have been generated if the accident had occurred somewhere other than India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

Both of these accidents killed multiples of the deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima combined.  The apparent fear is not there.  I guess it's the word nuclear.  They should start calling nuclear plants "soft pillow" or some other similar phrase.

OK Sorry back to electric cars.

[NorCal]

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

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/

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/

[pecunia]

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

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/

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/

Yes - Wiki has a list of what's been built in the world.  I'm not sure I trust that the German entry is accurate any more.  It's described as being paired with a nuke plant.   Molten salt, Compressed air and various types of batteries are used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_energy_storage_power_plants

Perhaps capacitors will also be used in future installations.  This article discusses their use in electric cars.

https://interestingengineering.com/science/could-ultracapacitors-replace-batteries-in-future-electric-vehicles

I brought us back to the main topic.

[neo von retorch]

What happened to EVs?
The sudden slowdown in electric car sales is a symptom of a much uglier problem.

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.

[LD_TAndK]

Boy everyone is so eager to shit on electric vehicles and act like they're failing. Ridiculous headlines on business insider there, "Auto Execs are coming clean: Ev's aren't working", yada yada.

Look at the graph a bit down in this article:
https://www.businessinsider.com/automakers-over-estimated-electric-vehicle-demand-early-adopters-2023-10

The reality is 9% of new vehicle sales are already EVs and will continue to capture more of the market at an accelerating pace.

I don't know if these pessimistic articles just get clicks from the "EVs will never work!" crowd or if there's a coordinated effort going on to discourage adoption.

[Paper Chaser]

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.

[2sk22]

What happened to EVs?
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.

[nereo]

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.

True. I also think there’s a great deal of “recency bias” creeping into the headlines lately. Consider the very first post of this thread, which described “just under a quarter million EVs sold” in the US…. All the way back in 2018. The overwhelming majority were Teslas. Optimistic predictions 5 years ago were that we might break 5% of total vehicle sales sometime around 2025.

Now we are at ~9% of all new car sold and the chatter is all about diminishing growth a market penetration and the overtaxed, under developed charging network (a direct result of so many new cars needing to charge). More talk about the limited number of service centers that specialize in EV repairs…

I see typical growing pains for anything that expands so quickly in such a short time period. The charging network buildout continues at an impressive pace, with more high speed chargers added in 2023 than the previous three years combined, and an even greater number planned for 2024.

[NorCal]

What happened to EVs?
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. 

[GilesMM]

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/

[pecunia]

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/

Yes - I was quite happy when I did my weekly fillup and bought a total of $3.50 worth of gasoline.  Higher gas prices will bring electric car envy or maybe sell a lot of electric bikes.

[neo von retorch]

Now we are at ~9% of all new car sold...

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/electric-vehicles-EVs-new-car-sales-2023/700799/

Trying to find other sources, but at least this one includes plug-in hybrids in the 7.3% in 2022, 9% projected figure for 2023.

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.

But all that is to say, while I'm not crazy about this article, it has nuggets of interest that I at least personally agree with. We shouldn't think of them or expect them to be 1 to 1 replacements for gas. In both positive and negative ways. We shouldn't expect 5 minute fill-ups that give us 400 miles of range, but we should expect to have a full tank every morning if we live somewhere with convenient plug-ins available. We should expect $25k EVs to match the range of something like a (sadly no longer imported) Honda Fit / Jazz. Tiny 9 gallon tank but ~32-36 mpg would easily give you 300 miles (more like 270 before the fuel light scared you into refilling. And yes, careful driving could get you closer to 40 mpg / 360 mile range!) But we shouldn't be expecting tow/haul on massive SUVs to have 450 mile range while being anything remotely affordable. Which, at least in my opinion, means we're not ready for full-size pickups and SUVs... except for the early adopter / luxury buyers.

We saw this in Tesla' road map though - start with a big price premium and limited quantities. Work their way down to less expensive, less flashy, but much higher volume mainstream models. The Model 3 kind of did that, and since new car prices skyrocketed over the past 5 years, they are pretty much there now. I'll just revisit my original premise... lets have variety! Lets have 25 small, efficient electric vehicles under $25k $30k $35k so people can go out and pick what they like, instead of being stuck with one maker who might not be incentivized to have the best software, etc. if there's no competition.

And we shouldn't treat EVs as the panacea of solving fossil fuel and having inefficient personal transportation either. Obviously many of us don't, and change will be painful and slow. But the big OEMs (GM, Ford, VW) don't seem to have the best strategy, at least not yet. Or at least not the best execution of strategy.

[mizzourah2006]

I think a lot of this depends on the cars use too. For many people charging at home isn't an option. If that's the case charging is actually pretty expensive. The current cost of gas near me is ~$2.60/gallon. This time of year my Tesla is running around ~300-350 watts/mile, so let's say 3 miles per kilowatt. Charging stations near me are $0.36 per kilowatt, which would mean my car would get approximately ~22 MPG. So there is potential problem 1 with mass adoption.

Problem 2 is chargers aren't abundant and outside of Tesla superchargers they actually take a while to charge, so long trips can become pretty cumbersome. We made a 350 mile trip home for Christmas in ours and we were lucky that we didn't have to wait at each of the stops. But people showed up shortly after us and there were 2-3 cars waiting in line, couple that with slower charging in cold weather and you can get a backlog of 20-30 minutes of waiting and 20-30 minutes to charge when the chargers are only pushing 65-75 kwH per hour because of the cold and the number of cars charging.

Don't get me wrong I like our EV, but it's definitely not at a state for mass adoption at this point. I mean in the middle of Missouri there was a 30 minute wait to charge.

[waltworks]

We pay around $0.15/kWh for power at home, which is where 95% of our charging happens. I think we could sign up to pay less to charge at off peak times or something but its too complicated for me to bother. Our Bolt gets about 4 miles/kW so it's costing $.04/mile to run.

If we got a similarly small ICE car that got 35-40mpg and paid $2.50/gal for gas, we'd be at $.06 per mile, so 50% more even at current gas prices.

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.

-W

[neo von retorch]

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.

Trying to think about this practically - we just paid $29k for a brand new Mazda CX-5. We get ~27 mpg, currently ~$3.30/gallon around here. While this won't be forever, we currently drive ~300 miles in a day pretty frequently while house shopping (or visiting family. After we move, a one-way trip to visit other family will be ~150 miles). So it looks like the best option for an equivalent vehicle is something like the Hyundai Ioniq 5 which is about $47-48k with the 300 mile range. So $17k we need to make up for with savings. $0.12 / mile on gas. Let's call it $250 every 7500 miles for ICE maintenance which adds $0.033 / mile. Rounding up to $0.16 so by around 106,000 miles we've broken even, assuming we didn't let that $17k sit in VTI over the 10 years it took to make it up. (That's assuming FREE electricity...)

We just need 300 mile range SUVs to drop $15k in price and then it's a much, much easier value proposition.

[Psychstache]

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 sources I quickly scanned rated Texas as 12th, 20th, 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/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/630090/states-with-the-average-electricity-price-for-the-residential-sector-in-the-us

[nereo]

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/

That report is so comically off with their estimates for “at home charging” rates and so contrary to every other credible analysis that I can’t help but wonder if it was deliberately misleading or written by a hallucinogenic AI.

See Walt’s comments below. I’m currently paying 12.9˘/kwh for at home charging, and between 3.6 and 3.8 miles/kw.  Only in Hawaii (+40˘/kWh) does the equation even start to approach the numbers given, and that is with driving a much less efficient EV (eg F150 lightning). But then of course you must compare with a similarly inefficient ICE vehicle. The F150 twin turbo V6 gets about 19mpg overall, so at $2.50/gallon that’s $13.16 per 100 miles.

[EchoStache]

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/

You have misrepresented the article which states in the headline:

"Some Cars Cheaper to Fuel with Gas Than Electric in 2023".

Here's what you said:

"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)"

Those are two wildly different claims.

The general rule of thumb that seems to hold true, IMO is: if you pay for DC fast charging, cost is similar to burning fossil fuels.  When you don't, its generally much cheaper.  Exceptions apply.  The nice thing about using fast chargers on road trips is that your first and last fill ups are at home and or at the destination, so not DC fast charging.  So they are not only a tiny percentage of use cases(since most is daily commuting), but also only a portion of the charging done on a trip.

[NorCal]

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/

For me, charging at home works out to about $0.06-$0.07/mile.  And my EV is pretty inefficient at about 2.25mi/kWh and prices around $0.135/kWh during off-peak times.

But I just finished a 2,500 mile road trip over the holidays that cost me about $0.20/mile.  This is a blended rate of everything from free hotel charging to $0.50/kWh in Los Angeles.  I could do it a little more efficiently if I were to do it again, as I found some much cheaper chargers near the end of my stay.

The car I traded in at 22mpg would cost $0.11/mile at $2.5 gas and $0.20/mile at $4.50/gallon.

It's certainly possible for charging to cost more than gas if you weighted all of the assumptions towards DCFC and you're comparing against a relatively fuel inefficient car.  But it wouldn't be the norm.  Most people will pay significantly less for charging, with longer road trips costing a roughly comparable amount to gas for DCFC. 

[neo von retorch]

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 $0.129 / kWh!

[Psychstache]

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!

Not sure who is getting away with a penny per kWh, but my hat is off to them. =)

Currently on a fixed plan of $0.0607/kWh energy and $0.0385/kWh delivery plus a flat delivery fee of $4.23 per month.

[geekette]

In the summer, our Niro was over 4 miles per kWh, in the winter, it's just under.  Electricity is about .12/kWh, so between 3 and 4 cents/mile. 

Gas around here is just over $3/gal (and I thought that was low).  Our other car gets 25mpg, so .12/mile.  Even if we had a super efficient ICE car at 50mpg, it would be close to double the cost of the EV (plus oil changes, brakes, etc.)

It will be interesting to see about tire usage.  The tires on our ICE car were 9 years old before a nail forced replacement.

[RWD]

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.

[geekette]

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.

[GilesMM]

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.

Six years is the auto manufacturer and tire maker warranty limit.  Manufacturers often recommend replacement by ten years. 

[RWD]

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.

Tires also have a date code stamped on the sidewall (WWYY) which is the most reliable way to check your tires' age.

[Dancin'Dog]

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?

[RWD]

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.

[LD_TAndK]

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).

[bacchi]

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!"

[RWD]

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).

The EX30 is a subcompact (B-segment for Europeans), so the same size as a Bolt or Kona. I do agree those numbers are on the lower side, even for a subcompact. Though legroom measurements can vary drastically between manufacturers, I think you really can't be sure without sitting in one yourself. Pictures look reasonable, at least.

[Dancin'Dog]

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. 

[RWD]

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.

Doug DeMuro is just over 6' 3" tall. I'd assume the driver's seat would be positioned for his height (so probably all the way back).

Our Polestar (Volvo subsidiary) has a panoramic glass roof. Heat has not been an issue in the summer (either in the Southeast or the Southwest). It is heavily tinted and I've never felt the sun on my head while driving around.

[NorCal]

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.

[pecunia]

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?

[NorCal]

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'm not saying it's more expensive.

My point is that the marginal cost of adding it to an EV is lower than the marginal cost of adding it to a gas car.  Hypothetically, maybe adding glass to the roof of a gas car might add $250 to the sticker price, but only $100 to the price of an EV.

Back when I learned about cars (many decades ago), I learned that the roof was actually a critical stability component in unibody cars.  Kinda similar to an anti-sway bar.  This required cars with sunroofs or convertibles to be designed with some additional supports throughout the body that added cost.  I don't know if this is still true, but I know EV batteries add a lot of structural stability that would change this calculation. 

[jinga nation]

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.

[sonofsven]

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.

[geekette]

I read that my metro area leads the state in Tesla miles driven, and I can certainly believe it.  I drove about 20 miles yesterday and stopped counting at 50 Teslas.  They do have a distinctive nose.  I occasionally see a Rivian, Bolt, or Mach-E, but many EVs, like our Kia Niro, look too much like their ICE or hybrid versions to pick out at a glance.

[lemonlyman]

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.

[dandarc]

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.

[waltworks]

AFAIK you have to fully discharge and then fully charge and see how many kWh you can put in. But from what I've read, even in pretty harsh driving/charging conditions you are only looking at maybe 10% degradation at 150k miles (this guys posts regular updates and describes himself as a "stress tester" due to his driving/charging habits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxby4MirUY8&ab_channel=NewsCoulomb)

There are Tesla people who claim 300k miles and such with the original battery and <15% degradation.

So basically I wouldn't worry about it.

-W

[RWD]

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.

This reddit thread suggests you can look at the estimated range and do some math on the reported miles per kWh to figure out remaining battery capacity. Or with the OBD port.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BoltEV/comments/o8a7ql/how_to_check_battery_health_of_a_used_bolt/

But the Nissan LEAF was unique in using passive battery thermal management which led to accelerated battery degradation. Your experience with shopping for a LEAF is basically non-applicable to all other EVs.

[kenmoremmm]

So basically I wouldn't worry about it.

-W

This has been my takeaway form the ChevyBolt forums as well. Drive hard. Don't worry about hill top reserve. Charge to the max.

[pecunia]

That part of used Chevy bolts going for $14,000 seems like quite the good deal.  I would think that electric cars would depreciate more slowly because they are supposed to last longer.  I do realize that often with money stuff that it doesn't follow a logical pattern.

The example given was a 2020 Bolt.  Has the technology made a great leap in electric cars prompting this depreciation?

Is my perception wrong about the Bolts being a practical long lasting car?  Previous posts seem to verify my thoughts.

You know - Some carbon fiber road bicycles are pushing into the $10,000 range and beyond.  It just makes the used Bolt price seem somehow more attractive.

If trends continue, by the time my little ICE SUV is long in the tooth, there should be a very good market for used electric cars.

[jrhampt]

Yes!  I've also started to see lots of lightly used Bolts from the 2020s in the 14-16k range, which seems like a fantastic deal.  My theory is that gas prices are low and people are still unsure about evs so while hybrids are very popular and therefore more expensive, there is less demand for evs right now and that is driving down the price.

[lemonlyman]

Part of it was lagging high interest rates on demand of interest bearing assets like vehicles and homes. When the fed aggressively cuts rates, prices may rise.

With Bolts in particular, they had a pack recall. The 2nd to last question below covers that topic. Even if most packs are fine, there's tempered interest in used or those without certified preowned.

https://www.findmyelectric.com/blog/chevy-bolt-battery-replacement-cost/