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

[pecunia]

Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair.  Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher. 

Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident.  Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair.  I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity. 

Tesla offers insurance and your rates are determined by your driving behavior.  Speaking only for myself, the real time feedback on my driving actually has made me a safer driver as I am mostly a very safe driver, but I had some bad habits that were hard to break.  Mostly following too close with in-town driving.  The feedback, plus my insurance rates going up as a result gave me a kick in the pants to clean up that one bad habit.

Thanks for changing.  I hate tailgaters.

You're welcome, and apologies if I ever tailgated you. 

I never drove 'right on people's ass', but mostly followed about 1.5 to 2 car lengths behind.  Just like pretty much everybody else here in Denver (and in Houston and Austin, where I lived before).  It seemed fine but I now realize it's much safer to keep distance to at least 3 cars lengths at low speeds.  It means a lot more people cut in front of me, mostly because very few other drivers around here leave any room at all, especially during traffic. 

The biggest thing I've learned is to simply give more time to get where I'm going.  Then I never feel like I'm in a hurry.  That was actually a big change.

Follow distance should not be measured as a fixed physical distance (like car lengths) but instead as a time interval so that the distance scales as your speed increases. You should be around 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of you (and any more than 4 seconds is usually excessive). At 70 mph you're going 103 feet/second so 3 car lengths would be less than half a second of follow distance (basically right on dat ass). Please give yourself more than 3 car lengths at highway speeds.

Yup. Also, remember your physics - stopping distances increases with the square of the speed. Its not linear.  When your speed increases by 20% (say, from 55mph to 66mph) then your stopping distance increases by 44%.

Also, if you notice that people are constantly tailgating you . . . stop and check if you're driving twenty below the limit in the passing lane.  :P

No, I get in and out of the passing lane quickly.  I've been something worse than a tailgater.  Years ago I often made the trip on I-35 from the Twin Cities to Duluth.  I noted there were people who tail gated and wouldn't pass.  They were tailgating me.  I sped up and they sped up.  I slowed down and they slowed down.  So,......I slowed down to 35 miles per hour sometimes before they would pass.  It wasn't that the passing lane was busy.  It's just the way they drove.  So after they passed me I'd catch up with them in a few miles.  Invariably, they'd be dogging someone else's rear end.  I guess some people are just natural born followers.

I do not think electric car drivers will do that.  I bet all the electronics will warn if they follow too close.

[neo von retorch]

Pretty sad all the software issues the Blazer EV (and likely other GM Ultium cars) are having. So bad GM put a freeze on selling the Blazer EV. Ugh.

[LennStar]

Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair.  Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher. 

Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident.  Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair.  I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity. 

Doesn't the insurance of the one responsible pays for damage in the US? That is how it's done here.
If it is doen that way, than costs are indeed an indicator for behavior. Because they scale with the fault.

[bacchi]

Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair.  Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher. 

Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident.  Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair.  I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity. 

Doesn't the insurance of the one responsible pays for damage in the US? That is how it's done here.
If it is doen that way, than costs are indeed an indicator for behavior. Because they scale with the fault.

It depends on the state but that's usually the case. A few states are "no fault" states where you can ram a car and both drivers pay for the costs.

[nereo]

Insurance quotes are a result of accident frequency and cost to repair.  Since Tesla's are still new tech (you need high voltage equipment and processes in the repair shop) they are expensive for 3rd party shops to fix and insurance will be higher. 

Based on premiums, it could be that Tesla drivers are more likely to get into an accident.  Or it could be that it's more expensive to repair.  I also think that EVs are more likely to be totalled due to being very, very cautious about battery integrity. 

Doesn't the insurance of the one responsible pays for damage in the US? That is how it's done here.
If it is doen that way, than costs are indeed an indicator for behavior. Because they scale with the fault.

It depends on the state but that's usually the case. A few states are "no fault" states where you can ram a car and both drivers pay for the costs.

Insurance anyways considers the risk to the insurer. If you drive a vehicle with high repair costs it will cost more to insure than the same driver in an easier to repair vehicle. Likewise, if you drive in a region with high theft, a high percentage of uninsured drivers is in areas of “no fault” the insurance will reflect this.

[rocketpj]

Follow distance should not be measured as a fixed physical distance (like car lengths) but instead as a time interval so that the distance scales as your speed increases. You should be around 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of you (and any more than 4 seconds is usually excessive). At 70 mph you're going 103 feet/second so 3 car lengths would be less than half a second of follow distance (basically right on dat ass). Please give yourself more than 3 car lengths at highway speeds.

My parents had a driver training school when I was a kid, so I had it drilled into me for years to keep 3 seconds minimum behind the vehicle in front of me.  TBH I don't even do it consciously, and I get downright uncomfortable if the distance is less.  It does mean I get a steady stream of impatient people who pass me and then settle in behind the car in front, as if it's going to make any difference on arrival time.

When I am paying closer attention I might adjust for the vehicle in front of me.  A motorcycle I'll usually give 4-5 seconds, because they can stop a lot faster than me.  A tractor-trailer I can follow a bit closer, because their stopping distance is longer than mine.

I absolutely hate having some moron, usually in a ginormous truck, with his grill taking up my entire rear view mirror.  I know in my bones that if I have to brake for any reason that doofus is going to roll right over me and possibly get me killed.

[GilesMM]

Follow distance should not be measured as a fixed physical distance (like car lengths) but instead as a time interval so that the distance scales as your speed increases. You should be around 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of you (and any more than 4 seconds is usually excessive). At 70 mph you're going 103 feet/second so 3 car lengths would be less than half a second of follow distance (basically right on dat ass). Please give yourself more than 3 car lengths at highway speeds.

My parents had a driver training school when I was a kid, so I had it drilled into me for years to keep 3 seconds minimum behind the vehicle in front of me.  TBH I don't even do it consciously, and I get downright uncomfortable if the distance is less.  It does mean I get a steady stream of impatient people who pass me and then settle in behind the car in front, as if it's going to make any difference on arrival time.

When I am paying closer attention I might adjust for the vehicle in front of me.  A motorcycle I'll usually give 4-5 seconds, because they can stop a lot faster than me.  A tractor-trailer I can follow a bit closer, because their stopping distance is longer than mine.

I absolutely hate having some moron, usually in a ginormous truck, with his grill taking up my entire rear view mirror.  I know in my bones that if I have to brake for any reason that doofus is going to roll right over me and possibly get me killed.

Most state driving manuals (remember those) recommend 4 seconds at freeway speeds. Of course, on a busy freeway this usually means people will be constantly moving into the gap in front you, causing you to slow down to maintain distance, and gradually forcing you "upstream" in the flow of vehicles.

[TomTX]

Either because they bad drivers or the cars are unsafe, Tesla drivers have a lot more accidents than drivers of other cars.  Buyer beware.


https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html

That is an absolutely shit "study."

Example: Someone who crashed their 1993 Honda and decide to buy a new Tesla get a quote for new insurance from LendingTree (or wherever LT is scraping data from). They're counted as crashing a Tesla. Ridiculous. Plenty of other flaws, but there's no point in analyzing further.

[Just Joe]

Understand that our daily driver is 24 years old now. Still meeting our needs as well as the day we bought it new.

While I appreciate the frugality, there have been a LOT of safety improvements in 24 years. So much so that they've had to recalibrate the star rating many times (5 star safety in 1999 is probably 1 star safety in 2023)

I own several vintage cars as well. They are about as safe as a motorcycle - which I also ride though I don't own one right now.

If I was driving in heavy metro traffic on a daily basis - perhaps safety would be higher on my priorities but I don't. I don't feel unsafe in our old vehicles at all. It is a risk as you detailed but I don't worry about it too much b/c of where we live (small town, low speeds).

When we visit the big metro area we drive our ten year old mid-size vehicle.

I know some choose to avoid owning a car at all - and develop their life around those choices. I like that. Our choices feature less driving, lower speeds so we have built a life in a smaller town. If we needed to live in a metro area I think we'd try to live close to work. We both detest driving in metro traffic.

As much as I like the automobile, the quicker they become a weekend toy and are replaced by trains, NEV, bikes and walking the better.

[Cranky]

I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?

[JLee]

I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?

There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.

[nereo]

I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?

There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.

It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.

I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside?  Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.

No

[NorCal]

I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?

There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.

It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.

I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside?  Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.

No

I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian.  I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.

I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed.  I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online.  It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.

Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's.  I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA.  I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging.  It's much better than constant fast-food. 

On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown.  Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes.  The rural charging situation was actually the easy part.  Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output. 

[pecunia]

I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?

There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.

It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.

I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside?  Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.

No

I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian.  I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.

I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed.  I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online.  It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.

Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's.  I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA.  I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging.  It's much better than constant fast-food. 

On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown.  Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes.  The rural charging situation was actually the easy part.  Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.

Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers.  Is this more than just a different shaped plug?

Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck.  There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine.  Am I ashamed?  Nope.  You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.

[GilesMM]

I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?

There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.

It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.

I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside?  Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.

No

I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian.  I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.

I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed.  I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online.  It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.

Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's.  I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA.  I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging.  It's much better than constant fast-food. 

On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown.  Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes.  The rural charging situation was actually the easy part.  Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.

Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers.  Is this more than just a different shaped plug?

Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck.  There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine.  Am I ashamed?  Nope.  You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.

If you are truly frugal and don't drive more than the bare minimum (use your bike and public transportation), you could well be doing more for the planet with the new ICE car.  BEVs start life with a massive environmental deficit which can only be compensated by driving the daylights out of them vs an ICE.

[Tyson]

I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?

There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.

It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.

I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside?  Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.

No

I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian.  I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.

I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed.  I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online.  It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.

Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's.  I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA.  I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging.  It's much better than constant fast-food. 

On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown.  Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes.  The rural charging situation was actually the easy part.  Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.

Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers.  Is this more than just a different shaped plug?

Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck.  There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine.  Am I ashamed?  Nope.  You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.

If you are truly frugal and don't drive more than the bare minimum (use your bike and public transportation), you could well be doing more for the planet with the new ICE car.  BEVs start life with a massive environmental deficit which can only be compensated by driving the daylights out of them vs an ICE.

Not really true anymore:

[nereo]

I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?

There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.

It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.

I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside?  Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.

No

I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian.  I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.

I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed.  I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online.  It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.

Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's.  I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA.  I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging.  It's much better than constant fast-food. 

On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown.  Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes.  The rural charging situation was actually the easy part.  Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.

Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers.  Is this more than just a different shaped plug?

Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck.  There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine.  Am I ashamed?  Nope.  You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.

If you are truly frugal and don't drive more than the bare minimum (use your bike and public transportation), you could well be doing more for the planet with the new ICE car.  BEVs start life with a massive environmental deficit which can only be compensated by driving the daylights out of them vs an ICE.

Not really true anymore:

Yeah, @GilesMM assertions rely on outdated assumptions about the embodied energy of battery packs and the “dirtiness” of the grid used both to produce the batteries and to recharge them.

[pecunia]

I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?

There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.

It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.

I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside?  Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.

No

I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian.  I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.

I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed.  I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online.  It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.

Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's.  I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA.  I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging.  It's much better than constant fast-food. 

On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown.  Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes.  The rural charging situation was actually the easy part.  Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.

Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers.  Is this more than just a different shaped plug?

Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck.  There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine.  Am I ashamed?  Nope.  You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.

If you are truly frugal and don't drive more than the bare minimum (use your bike and public transportation), you could well be doing more for the planet with the new ICE car.  BEVs start life with a massive environmental deficit which can only be compensated by driving the daylights out of them vs an ICE.

Not really true anymore:

How about 2019?  I have had the car for 4 years and put less than 18,000 miles on it.    Was it still true then?  If not,.......oh well.  I have yet to see my carbon footprints even when I walk through yellow snow.

On the other hand, this Winter has been extraordinary mild so far.  Maybe I am seeing it in a way.

It seems like every week there are news stories of "breakthroughs" of some sort with some battery chemistry I barely understand.  I should be able to make up for this one with the next one.  By that time all of the generating sources used to charge its batteries will be emission free.

Are there plug adapters to make any of these work with a Tesla charger?

[NorCal]

I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?

There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.

It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.

I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside?  Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.

No

I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian.  I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.

I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed.  I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online.  It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.

Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's.  I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA.  I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging.  It's much better than constant fast-food. 

On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown.  Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes.  The rural charging situation was actually the easy part.  Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.

Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers.  Is this more than just a different shaped plug?

Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck.  There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine.  Am I ashamed?  Nope.  You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.

Current Rivian owners will get an adapter and access to the Tesla network in 2024.  Rivian will fully switch the the NACS/Tesla port in 2025.  Most other automakers will switch around the same time. 

Rivian is also building out their own charging network similar to Tesla's.  It's still relatively small, but I was able to use it in Grand Junction, Las Vegas, and Barstow.  That was roughly half my charging needs on the trip.  Electrify America is pretty well built out through Utah and the rest of I70 in Colorado.  I was happy enough with the charging experience that I don't think I'd go out of my way to use the Tesla network.  But it will be nice to have it available. 

[GilesMM]

I saw a Rivian pick up at the charger at the grocery store this morning! I’ve never see one IRL before (and every third car seems to be a Tesla around here.) It had Christmas lights on the bar thickest in the back, so maybe there’s a convenient outlet back there?

There is indeed - 120v outlets in the bed, another outlet in the gear tunnel, and another one (or two, I forget) in the cab.

It quite possibly could have been plugged into the 120v outlet in the bed, but battery-powered Christmas lights for cars has become a thing. Since LEDs draw so little power it’s pretty easy and cheap to power them with a small battery (either a few AAs or a rechargeable lithium). You can buy them on Amazon for under $20.

I’ve seen a number of (non-Rivian) cars driving around with a fully illuminated Christmas tree on the roof rack this year. First time I saw it I did a double take, because who puts lights on their tree before bringing it inside?  Then I realized it was just for fun. My daughter absolutely loves spotting them when we are out in the car.

No

I shamefully admit to making the face-puch worthy decision to buy a Rivian.  I feel like that disqualifies me from further participation in this forum.

I pretty much guarantee it was using the 120V outlet in the bed.  I've seen a number of people show off their Rivian Christmas lights online.  It would actually be harder to use 12V lights based on the locations of the various plugs.

Having easy access to 120V power is an underrated benefit of (some) EV's.  I just returned from a holiday road trip Denver to LA.  I'd just pull out my induction cooktop and make lunch for the family while charging.  It's much better than constant fast-food. 

On a positive note, I can confirm that the concerns about charging infrastructure are way overblown.  Relying on non-Tesla charging for ~2,500 miles resulting in a couple minor inconveniences, but nothing that couldn't be resolved within a few minutes.  The rural charging situation was actually the easy part.  Los Angeles had a high concentration of chargers that just couldn't provide their rated output.

Are there adapters that allow Rivians to use the Tesla chargers.  Is this more than just a different shaped plug?

Don't be ashamed of buying an electric truck.  There are some of us when faced with the choice of a new vehicle opted to stay with the internal combustion engine.  Am I ashamed?  Nope.  You are probably doing better for the planet than my little gas burning SUV.

If you are truly frugal and don't drive more than the bare minimum (use your bike and public transportation), you could well be doing more for the planet with the new ICE car.  BEVs start life with a massive environmental deficit which can only be compensated by driving the daylights out of them vs an ICE.

Not really true anymore:

Hoekstra and Steinbruch's work has been widely criticized and discredited. It was commissioned by the German Green party.  A less biased analysis found that even when driving 10,000 miles per year (far from frugal), the ICE lifetime emissions is about equal to a BEV.  H&G assume am unrealistically greed grid about 50% greener than the US grid.  Canada (where most MMM readers live?) is far greener.

[alsoknownasDean]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[GilesMM]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It is a very nice analysis.  The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.

[nereo]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It is a very nice analysis.  The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.

No it isnt.

[EchoStache]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It is a very nice analysis.  The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last by the oil and gas industry propaganda machine that want people to keep driving pickups and spend $100,000 on gas

Fixed it for ya. Bolded is mine.

Oil and gas propaganda machines claim you have to drive an EV for 40 years fueled only by pure solar power at 25,000 miles per year to match the environmental friendliness of an 8 liter V-10 suburban.

Volvo's analysis has also been widely criticized as wildly inaccurate.  The truth may be somewhere in between.  One thing for sure that the estimates usually get wrong is attributing the mining cost of the battery to one car.  The reality is that the battery will be recycled and reused over and over many times for decades. 

As electricity production continues to get cleaner, the CO2 advantage of EV's will continue to improve.  There's just WAY too much money to be made from oil and gas for them to not go down swinging.

[EchoStache]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It is a very nice analysis.  The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.

I haven't researched it extensively, but I've seen reports that the ICE Volvo used in the comparison also had its fuel efficiency exaggerated by 40%.  The CO2 impact of burning fuel over its operating lifetime is a huge percentage of total emissions.

https://insideevs.com/news/458458/legacy-automakers-backed-study-against-evs-debunked/

[Tyson]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It is a very nice analysis.  The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.

Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy.  I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now.  Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV. 

It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings.  I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas. 

[GilesMM]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It is a very nice analysis.  The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.

Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy.  I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now.  Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV. 

It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings.  I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.

Have they built out enough that every energy user in Colorado can choose 100% renewables?

[Tyson]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It is a very nice analysis.  The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.

Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy.  I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now.  Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV. 

It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings.  I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.

Have they built out enough that every energy user in Colorado can choose 100% renewables?

Not yet.  But we are moving rapidly in that direction.  Based on what I read, I would estimate that anyone with an EV could go 100% renewables, easy. 

It's cool to see the system dynamically changing for the better.

[2sk22]

I track fuel economy on fuelly.com. My 2021 Honda CR-V was driven 12,000 miles at a cost of 11.2 cents per mile. Fuel costs were around $1350 for the year. This is a negligible portion of our annual spend - we actually spent more for highway tolls (we live in NJ) than on gas.

My Honda and my wife’s Camry Hybrid are running well so I don’t feel any need to replace either of them in 2024. However, when my younger daughter graduates from college next year, I may give her my Honda and replace it with an EV.

I do like to keep an eye out on what is available in case I had to replace one of my cars. The baseline for me is my Honda CR-V - It meets my needs so perfectly that I want an EV that is pretty much identical in every way (ok I admit I’m boring 😀)

I spent some time studying alternatives recently and concluded that no EV currently available matches up. The nearest I can find are Kia Niro EV, Ioniq 5 and the VW ID4. But all have significant negatives. Hopefully better choices will come along in the future. I just feel grateful that I don’t have any need to buy a car now!

[NorCal]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It is a very nice analysis.  The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.

Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy.  I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now.  Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV. 

It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings.  I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.

Have they built out enough that every energy user in Colorado can choose 100% renewables?

Not yet.  But we are moving rapidly in that direction.  Based on what I read, I would estimate that anyone with an EV could go 100% renewables, easy. 

It's cool to see the system dynamically changing for the better.

I'm also in Colorado and watching this in real time.  Colorado is right around 30% renewables at the end of 2021.  It's increased in the last few years, but I don't have solid numbers.  This is pretty impressive given Colorado's history as a coal state.

But here's the thing.  XCEL just submitted their resource plan for renewables.  An expensive transmission project was just turned down, which means we'll only get to 77% renewables by 2030, instead of the ~85% they were proposing.  They're still looking at 100% emission free electricity by 2040, but haven't worked out the details.  In addition, these renewables are being used to phase out particularly dirty coal plants, so the emissions reductions will be greater than the renewables percentage implies.

So any EV purchased today in Colorado will have something like a 2/3 lower operating emissions 10 years from now than it does today.

Here's one of my favorite visualization tools if you want to see how clean your electricity is.  It's based on where power is produced and not where it is consumed, but it is still useful to view your state's emissions intensity (output emissions rate) and the total emissions at the plant level. 

https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer

[bacchi]

The Union of Concerned Scientist publishes EV vs ICE data every few years. From 2022,

* Everywhere in the United States, driving the average EV results in lower emissions than the average new gasoline vehicle.

* Over 90 percent of people in the United States live in regions where driving the average EV produces lower emissions than the most efficient gasoline vehicle on the market today (59 miles per gallon).

There's even a handy map on page 10 that shows where those 10% live (exactly the map that NorCal linked) with the lowest being a 42 mpg ICE vehicle equivalent. In other words, it's better environmentally to drive a Prius than an average EV (but not the most efficient EV) if you live in the middle of Wisconsin or southern Illinois.

Figure 6 on Page 21 (page 13) displays what we're discussing here. The breakeven point is 14.8k to 21.3k miles. For most of us, unless you set your EV on fire in the first two years of ownership, it's pretty much guaranteed to be better than an ICE environmentally.

If you buy used, and attribute all of the manufacturing costs to the original owner, then the breakeven is higher. That's getting into some funny accounting though. Since most of the environmental costs are from emissions, it's probably better to switch over to EV as quickly as possible and crush all of the current ICE passenger vehicles.

[pecunia]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It is a very nice analysis.  The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.

Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy.  I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now.  Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV. 

It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings.  I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.

Have they built out enough that every energy user in Colorado can choose 100% renewables?

Not yet.  But we are moving rapidly in that direction.  Based on what I read, I would estimate that anyone with an EV could go 100% renewables, easy. 

It's cool to see the system dynamically changing for the better.

I'm also in Colorado and watching this in real time.  Colorado is right around 30% renewables at the end of 2021.  It's increased in the last few years, but I don't have solid numbers.  This is pretty impressive given Colorado's history as a coal state.

But here's the thing.  XCEL just submitted their resource plan for renewables.  An expensive transmission project was just turned down, which means we'll only get to 77% renewables by 2030, instead of the ~85% they were proposing.  They're still looking at 100% emission free electricity by 2040, but haven't worked out the details.  In addition, these renewables are being used to phase out particularly dirty coal plants, so the emissions reductions will be greater than the renewables percentage implies.

So any EV purchased today in Colorado will have something like a 2/3 lower operating emissions 10 years from now than it does today.

Here's one of my favorite visualization tools if you want to see how clean your electricity is.  It's based on where power is produced and not where it is consumed, but it is still useful to view your state's emissions intensity (output emissions rate) and the total emissions at the plant level. 

https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer

Interesting map - So Michigan, Eastern Wisconsin and Iowa look to be the worst states. Who would have predicted those?  I guess all the nukes in Chicago lighten its emissions.  The map kind of combines density of population with available energy types.  All that hydro and wind power in the West really lowers emissions.

[Tyson]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It is a very nice analysis.  The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.

Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy.  I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now.  Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV. 

It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings.  I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.

Have they built out enough that every energy user in Colorado can choose 100% renewables?

Not yet.  But we are moving rapidly in that direction.  Based on what I read, I would estimate that anyone with an EV could go 100% renewables, easy. 

It's cool to see the system dynamically changing for the better.

I'm also in Colorado and watching this in real time.  Colorado is right around 30% renewables at the end of 2021.  It's increased in the last few years, but I don't have solid numbers.  This is pretty impressive given Colorado's history as a coal state.

But here's the thing.  XCEL just submitted their resource plan for renewables.  An expensive transmission project was just turned down, which means we'll only get to 77% renewables by 2030, instead of the ~85% they were proposing.  They're still looking at 100% emission free electricity by 2040, but haven't worked out the details.  In addition, these renewables are being used to phase out particularly dirty coal plants, so the emissions reductions will be greater than the renewables percentage implies.

So any EV purchased today in Colorado will have something like a 2/3 lower operating emissions 10 years from now than it does today.

Here's one of my favorite visualization tools if you want to see how clean your electricity is.  It's based on where power is produced and not where it is consumed, but it is still useful to view your state's emissions intensity (output emissions rate) and the total emissions at the plant level. 

https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer

Interesting map - So Michigan, Eastern Wisconsin and Iowa look to be the worst states. Who would have predicted those?  I guess all the nukes in Chicago lighten its emissions.  The map kind of combines density of population with available energy types.  All that hydro and wind power in the West really lowers emissions.

These are great points that I didn't think of, thank you both.  Yeah, it's true what you say, the grid today is already cleaner to run an EV than an ICE car and is getting better and better over time.  So if you're looking to buy a car, the best time to get an EV is right now. 

And EV's are literally 5x times cheaper to run than gas cars.  I figured on the MMM forum, something that was a) cheaper to run and b) better for the environment would be a no brainer. 

Edit to add - I just looked up on Xcel's website what percentage renewable power generation we're at right now.  42%. !!!!!!!  Holy crap that's awesome.  We live in amazing times.  https://co.my.xcelenergy.com/s/energy-portfolio/power-generation/certified-renewable-percentage

[pecunia]

Volvo have themselves done a comparison between an ICE XC40 and the XC40 Recharge. It shows a breakeven point of between ~30,000 miles and ~90,000 miles depending on the grid.

Although both cars are starting from a carbon deficit compared to driving an existing car.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applications/pdpspecificationpage/my24/xc40-electric/pdp/volvo-cars-lca-report-xc40.pdf

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It is a very nice analysis.  The US grid is nowhere near the clean grid shown, so something like 60,000 miles may be the breakeven. So if you frugal and drive your ICE, say, 5,000 miles per year, you are good for a dozen years, which is longer than the BEV battery is forecast to last.

Actually, here in Colorado, Xcel Energy has already built out enough renewable energy that you can go into your Xcel account and select "100% Renewables" as your source for your energy.  I've done that, so my EV runs on renewable energy now.  Anyone can do this but I think it's the most impactful if you have an EV. 

It's a little more $$ to do it this way as solar is not quite as cheap as the baseline energy, but I figure I make up for that in gas savings.  I did the math, and even at the slightly higher rates, I'm able to run my EV for 5x less than it used to cost me to fill up my old ICE car with gas.

Have they built out enough that every energy user in Colorado can choose 100% renewables?

Not yet.  But we are moving rapidly in that direction.  Based on what I read, I would estimate that anyone with an EV could go 100% renewables, easy. 

It's cool to see the system dynamically changing for the better.

I'm also in Colorado and watching this in real time.  Colorado is right around 30% renewables at the end of 2021.  It's increased in the last few years, but I don't have solid numbers.  This is pretty impressive given Colorado's history as a coal state.

But here's the thing.  XCEL just submitted their resource plan for renewables.  An expensive transmission project was just turned down, which means we'll only get to 77% renewables by 2030, instead of the ~85% they were proposing.  They're still looking at 100% emission free electricity by 2040, but haven't worked out the details.  In addition, these renewables are being used to phase out particularly dirty coal plants, so the emissions reductions will be greater than the renewables percentage implies.

So any EV purchased today in Colorado will have something like a 2/3 lower operating emissions 10 years from now than it does today.

Here's one of my favorite visualization tools if you want to see how clean your electricity is.  It's based on where power is produced and not where it is consumed, but it is still useful to view your state's emissions intensity (output emissions rate) and the total emissions at the plant level. 

https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer

Interesting map - So Michigan, Eastern Wisconsin and Iowa look to be the worst states. Who would have predicted those?  I guess all the nukes in Chicago lighten its emissions.  The map kind of combines density of population with available energy types.  All that hydro and wind power in the West really lowers emissions.

These are great points that I didn't think of, thank you both.  Yeah, it's true what you say, the grid today is already cleaner to run an EV than an ICE car and is getting better and better over time.  So if you're looking to buy a car, the best time to get an EV is right now. 

And EV's are literally 5x times cheaper to run than gas cars.  I figured on the MMM forum, something that was a) cheaper to run and b) better for the environment would be a no brainer. 

Edit to add - I just looked up on Xcel's website what percentage renewable power generation we're at right now.  42%. !!!!!!!  Holy crap that's awesome.  We live in amazing times.  https://co.my.xcelenergy.com/s/energy-portfolio/power-generation/certified-renewable-percentage

I wonder if that includes their two nukes in Minnesota.  Monticello has 647 MW and Prairie Island has Prairie Island has 1041 MW.   The green people use the word renewable rather than emission free so you don't always know.

[EchoStache]

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?

[nereo]

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.

[EchoStache]

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 nuclear was a good decision?  I mean, the things you mention all sound like massively significant hurdles/issues. 

Regarding EV's and CO2 footprint/clean electricity, I feel pretty good about our situation:  We had solar installed this year.

For the most part, it covers all the electricity needed for a household of 5 adults and 3 EV's that are used for full time commutes to work of 138 round trip daily miles(total), plus whatever other driving is done.

[nereo]

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

[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,

[GilesMM]

The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy.  What are we moving away from it, anyone know?  Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?

While you are Googling, search for "Fukushima", then "Chernobyl".

[EchoStache]

The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy.  What are we moving away from it, anyone know?  Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?

Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
There’s a massive problem with NIMBYism, with funding (new plants are multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects), with the duration to build a new plant from scratch (no plant in 50 years as been build in under a decade from groundbreaking to decommissioning anywhere in the western hemisphere, and many have been scuttled mid-project after billions in sunk costs).

There’s only a handful of companies which can actually undertake such projects. There’s no national repository for spent fuel, and current regulations require reactor sites to budget both the ultimate decomissioning and fuel storage (out to 99 years) in their annual budget.
all older (Gen II/III) and most newer designs require a large source of water, meaning they need to be on a coast, predictable river or large (sometimes man made) lake.

And of course there are both the security and safety concerns. National security threats means the plants must be built like super-max prisons in reverse. Safety means designing in the biggest threats of 100year events plus a huge margin.

Do you think moving away from solar was a good decision?  I mean, the things you mention all sound like massively significant hurdles/issues.

What makes you think we are in any way “moving away from solar”?
The amount of solar-generated electricity continues to increase at a rather substantial rate. We are just now seeing larger scale wind projects take off those two things are not contradictory

Sorry, typo.  I meant nuclear. 

[nereo]

The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy.  What are we moving away from it, anyone know?  Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?

Lord, I could write pages on why we moved away from nuclear, as well as its advantages and advantages.
There’s a massive problem with NIMBYism, with funding (new plants are multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects), with the duration to build a new plant from scratch (no plant in 50 years as been build in under a decade from groundbreaking to decommissioning anywhere in the western hemisphere, and many have been scuttled mid-project after billions in sunk costs).

There’s only a handful of companies which can actually undertake such projects. There’s no national repository for spent fuel, and current regulations require reactor sites to budget both the ultimate decomissioning and fuel storage (out to 99 years) in their annual budget.
all older (Gen II/III) and most newer designs require a large source of water, meaning they need to be on a coast, predictable river or large (sometimes man made) lake.

And of course there are both the security and safety concerns. National security threats means the plants must be built like super-max prisons in reverse. Safety means designing in the biggest threats of 100year events plus a huge margin.

Do you think moving away from solar was a good decision?  I mean, the things you mention all sound like massively significant hurdles/issues.

What makes you think we are in any way “moving away from solar”?
The amount of solar-generated electricity continues to increase at a rather substantial rate. We are just now seeing larger scale wind projects take off those two things are not contradictory

Sorry, typo.  I meant nuclear.

Gotcha. I was very confused how anyone could conclude we were moving away from solar when in fact we are installing more now than ever before (certainly in NA).

[Tyson]

The 30 seconds I've spent researching it indicates that nuclear is the, or one of the, cleanest and safest sources of energy.  What are we moving away from it, anyone know?  Is the clean, safe, characterization not true?

While you are Googling, search for "Fukushima", then "Chernobyl".

Also nuclear is super expensive, 4 times more expensive than solar or wind:

[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.

[bill1827]

Not to mention the large number of people killed in fossil fuel extraction and the lives shortened by the pollution that they create.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy show the death rate from coal use is 1230 times that of nuclear and oil 600 times.

[LennStar]

The green people use the word renewable rather than emission free so you don't always know.

No, it's not the "green people" mixing things up, it's you mixing things together.
Nuclear power is not renewable. Which is one reason why "everything go nuclear" is so stupid. If all electricity todaywould be generated by nuclear we would be out of fuel in a single generation.

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?

To all the problems with storing the waste for a million years, what to do if someone flies an airliner into the reactor, problematic cooling (not everyone has a tsunami-free coastline with big cold water flows) and so on:
They are simply more expensive.
Of course you will find calculations from pro-nuclear groups that this is not the case, but all those (I know of) are calculating with 60 years or even more run time (current ones are build for 40 years) and very optimistic cost projections.

Are you saying we should be wringing our hands over the zero people that died directly as a result of the Fukushima disaster? Not to downplay the negative effects that did come out of that (loss of land, people having to leave behind their homes), the deaths per energy produced from nuclear power are lower than any other form of electricity generation.

It is true that e.g. coal constantly kills (as do cars), while nuclear tends to be one big event thing. That is why I - "anti-nuclear" - would have been okay with letting the German ones run a few years longer if it meant shutting down coal earlier.

But the problem is in details. As with coal the most death are indirect, and that is true for Fukishima too. How many thousand lives that cost and will continue to cost nobody can really say (what e.g. with the lives lost due to money not spend on health care but cleaning up?).
What I can say is that it was very very close to being hundreds of thousands, of not more.
There was one reactor they managed to prevent exploding. That was number 3, the one with the Plutonium. If that had exploded and wind would have been like most time, the stuff would have rained down on the Tokyo area.
35 million people who would have to be avacuated basically naked and basically right now, because Plutonium inhaled can kill you in doses you can't even see.
You don't need to be a genius to imagine that this is not possible.
Also the Plutonium would have created a death zone in the center of the county, splitting Japan in halfs.
In other words: If this would have happened, that single accident would have "bombed" Japan into a 3rd world country.

[GilesMM]

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???

[nereo]

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

[pecunia]

The green people use the word renewable rather than emission free so you don't always know.

No, it's not the "green people" mixing things up, it's you mixing things together.
Nuclear power is not renewable. Which is one reason why "everything go nuclear" is so stupid. If all electricity todaywould be generated by nuclear we would be out of fuel in a single generation.

You know - I think most people don't care what it's called.  I, for example, don't care if it's renewable as long as it works to solve the global warming problem. 

We are not running out of nuclear fuel.  There are a lot of fuel rods that can be recycled, but it's cheaper to buy new fuel.  I'm sure there are a lot of ore deposits in the world yet to be exploited.  There will be methods to be developed to refine rock that isn't considered viable ore today.  Some people even talk about extracting it from sea water.  Then there is Thorium  There is 3 to 4X the amount of this metal in known deposits in the world.  It too can be used in reactors.

A few years back when I was paying what seemed high gas prices, I was a disciple in the belief of "peak" oil.  Last year the US had record oil production.  They found more.  They found different ways to get it out of the ground.  I'm now pretty confident that we'll have enough of the stuff to last as we wean off of it.

The newer reactors use passive safety systems.  As men build machinery, they get better at it.  They learn from mistakes.  For example, I am sure the diesel engines built in Germany use less fuel for watt of work than the ones built by Otto Diesel.  The same is true of nuclear power.  Progress is more evolutionary rather than revolutionary. 

I'm sure the world won't have 3X the amount of nuclear power by 2050, but there will be more.

[GilesMM]

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.