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

[Posthumane]

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.

[Tyson]

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?

[GilesMM]

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.

Oil sands are an insignificant fraction of global oil production.  Alberta is the king of oil sands and produces less than 4% of the world's total daily oil production.  Oil sands extraction is not only an environmental disaster, it is an extremely expensive (the MOST expensive) way to extract oil with breakeven prices over $80/barrel.  I wonder if Alberta gets some sort of government subsidy for production.

[Just Joe]

What is in the water though? I've always wondered that.

There were fish there.

Can't all be bad then. How many eyeballs did they have? ;)

[ATtiny85]

Caught this story on the news last night. There are lots of articles about it, but I grabbed one.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/biden-administration-relax-ev-rule-tailpipe-emissions-ny-times-2024-02-18/

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?

[nereo]

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.

[pecunia]

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.

[Tyson]

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.

[StashingAway]

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.

[nereo]

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.

That question really gets to how localized the pollution you are trying to control is and how widely disbursed the impacts are ("point source"), and how measurable the impacts are both in time and space.   

Areas where "market forces" have been effective all seem to involve fairly localized impacts from discrete, point-source inputs that are easily measured.  For example, if a particular manufacturing process results in a solid, toxic byproduct which is easily traceable, then "market forces" can help that industry find ways to reduce this toxic byproduct because 1) its measurable and 2) it comes at great cost (storage, removal) and 3) creates a large liability to that company. 

Even then, "market forces" frequently requires some basic legislation.  For example, we prohibit dumping coal ash into waterways, so it builds up in toxic containment pits (at significant cost) until "market forces" discovers it can be blended/sequestered into building concrete.

...but when it's a substance that's being produced by thousands of sources and makes us all sicker but just gradually over many decades (like the fumes from ICE vehicles)... yeah, it's almost impossible to rely on "market forces" to change anything. It's a problem called "the tragedy of the commons"

[LennStar]

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"

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.

[AlanStache]

LennStar - I am sorry but I am not following what point you are trying to make.  Can you elaborate? 

[nereo]

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?

[pecunia]

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"

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.

[Tyson]

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.

[RWD]

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%.

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.

[tj]

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"

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.

California has already decided that electric will be the only option at some point...

[Tyson]

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%.

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.

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.

[StashingAway]

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.

[GilesMM]

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%.

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.

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.

The challenge is not only population growth but economic advancement.  A few billion people in emerging and developing economies are expected to ramp up their economic standing and their energy usage for heating, cooling, transportation, electronics, etc.  The forecast for global energy consumption is staggering; conserving in the West will be offset by greater demand elsewhere.  By 2050 the equivalent of a second U.S. will be consumed in terms of energy.  Making it affordable and green is a tremendous challenge.  We'll never do it (go really green) by 2030, but 2040 is possible.

[Tyson]

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.

Again, I think we mostly agree here.  I also think living in local, walkable neighborhoods and building cities around local livability is a much better approach than the straod based setup we have now.  "Not Just Bikes" on youtube has a ton of practical information about how we can do it.

[LennStar]

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?

"Tragedy of the Commons" is an article name written by Garret Hardin.

In there he talks about how a pasture get's overgrazed because everyone puts on more sheeps. (no cost of the commons pasture, only profit if you use).

But what he describes it not a commons (and their failure), but a lack of commons (of commoning). Or in other words, he describes the unrestricted market.

In a commons there is always some sort of commoning (the people involved with the resource decide together) going on, precisely to prevent things like overgrazing, overusage of water or wealth concentration.

If you want to know more about the different forms of commons, I suggest the book "Commons" by Silke Helfrich, since you can get a pdf or epaper for free, including in English. (This is the book, but only German on the website? https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-2835-7/commons/?number=978-3-8394-2835-1)

[joe189man]

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.

[NorCal]

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.

Absolutely.

It's also important to distinguish between abatable emissions and non-abatable emissions.

The emissions related to mining and metal refining are largely due to the energy intensive nature of the process  A lot of battery materials are currently mined in places like Indonesia where coal still makes up a huge part of the energy mix.  There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to reducing emissions from mining.  Mining can theoretically become a nearly zero-emissions industry. 

Building devices that continue to burn hydrocarbons is impossible to decarbonize, absent technological developments with Direct Air Capture.  And it's nearly impossible to see a path for DAC to scale. 

[Paper Chaser]

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

[dandarc]

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.

[JLee]

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.

[Paper Chaser]

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.

[Paper Chaser]

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.

Yeah. I'm still sticking with over 12 mo before they're in customer hands. It takes a long time to fully engineer and test a vehicle, then bring it up to production. They can bleed a whole lot of money in the mean time, assuming rates don't return to their historic lows that fostered all of this EV growth.

[Tyson]

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. 

[pecunia]

Then there's bicycles - https://www.statista.com/statistics/674381/size-global-market-electric-bicycles/

I bet they grow a lot faster than electric cars.

[JLee]

Then there's 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?

[Paper Chaser]

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.

[Tyson]

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.

BYD and CATL are in a price war, that's the main thing driving prices down.  The Chinese market is moving to EV's at a rapid clip.  The rest of the world benefits from their scale and internal competition.  It's also why solar panels are so cheap now.  China is driving a lot of scale/volume and the rest of the world is a beneficiary of that. 

I do agree that high interest rates puts a drag on all kinds of things.  Car sales seem to be affected more than most.  I have no doubt this is creating serious headwinds for growth.  I think you're right, for bigger players, they will have squeezed margins and that smaller players will be forced out. 

[GilesMM]

...

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?

[Tyson]

...

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.

[LennStar]

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.

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.

[NorCal]

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.

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.

Agreed.

Scale is probably the most important thing for any EV automaker in the coming years. It’s not so obvious today because no one makes money on EV’s yet outside of companies like Tesla and BYD.

But in a few years time, scale in EV’s will be the determining factor in which companies are generating the capital needed to invest in EV R&D. Things like faster charging speed, more efficient hvac, better routing software, and V2G technology will create real technological differentiation that can only come from lots of invested capital.

While I don’t know the exact numbers, I suspect minimum scale for success will be in the neighborhood of 1m vehicles delivered per year. Either companies will scale to this size or they will be out of business.

[Just Joe]

...

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?

[RWD]

...

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?

There were some being used as taxis a decade ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_e6

[Tyson]

BYD is in the process of setting up a factory in Mexico to get around the US tariffs.

[LennStar]

BYD even being sold in the USA?

AFAIK not. Europe a few. But they just finished their first own roll on roll off ship to transport cars and the second is due to shortly. Maybe then prices in EU will not be double that of China.


Look at it that way: Tesla sells the same amount worldwide as BYD in China alone.
Still my BYD stocks are down 30% froma  year ago :( Insane if you compare to Tesla.

[pecunia]

Then there's 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?

Electric bicycle sales seem to be increasing almost exponentially.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1321-december-18-2023-e-bike-sales-united-states-exceeded-one-million

Here's some stats, but I couldn't find 2023 figures.

https://theroundup.org/ebike-statistics/

I guess the pattern matches that for electric cars.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/electric-car-sales-2016-2023

Neither an electric bicycle nor an electric car is now seen as out of the ordinary.  This change is certainly of less impact than when horseless carriages were first introduced.

[Just Joe]

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.

In other news our ancient Honda hiccuped and stalled the other day in traffic. Did this to our elder offspring a week before and then misfired once on the way home yesterday. I did start shopping EVs for giggles that night. $15K buys a very clean 4-5 year old Leaf SL Plus with ~25K miles right now in my part of the country. DW and I did discuss it at length.

Due to financial responsibilities related to our younger offspring starting college this fall, we decided to repair the Honda and keep going. Its mostly used for local trips only these days. $50 later I had the ignition module ordered. I'm confident that this is the problem. It isn't the fuel pump although I did order a fuel pump relay. $100 towards not riding the flatbed tow truck home for a price perhaps higher than the replacement Honda parts.

[RWD]

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.

[Tyson]

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.

EV motors are also far more efficient than combustion engines.  EV's are 80-90% efficient, while gas cars are 12-30% efficient. 

This is a big reason why EV's are faaaaaaar cheaper to run that gas cars.  I did the math, comparing my old Acura MDX to my Model Y and it cost literally 5x more to drive my MDX around, just in fuel costs.  5X!!  Crazy.

[PathtoFIRE]

I understood the efficiency of trickle/wall/Level 1 charging to be about 75%. This seems to hold up, charging overnight bumps my hourly KWh draw by about 1.4KWh, and I get about 1.1KWh of charge. This was the same whether it was my old Leaf, and or my current Tesla M3. I understood Level 2/3 to be over 90% efficient, but haven't tested that directly.

[NorCal]

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 theoretically have the tools to measure this with a home energy monitor, but I've been too lazy to merge the datasets from the monitor and the cars.

A rule of thumb is about a 10% loss between the conversion from AC to DC in the charging process as well as running the electronics.

Other parts of the process are harder to compare.  For example, you can pre-condition the battery and warm up the car from home electricity before you drive.  Or the car will use the battery for these same tasks once you start driving. 

[bill1827]

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.

[Tyson]

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?