1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

Yep.  I didn't realize this until a couple of weeks ago, but of course not surprised.  I was speaking to a friend from law school for the first time in a while who is to the right of Hitler.   After all these years we have learned to avoid political discussions for the most part but then out of the blue she went on a rant about electric cars which seemed to be well scripted.  It doesn't matter what it is...if it is "Change" the far right (really the right as a whole) is against "whatever"  just as a matter of principal.  Change scares the hell out of them.

 

 

Yep. Ironically, highways/freeways themselves were scary things to far-right GOPers in the 1940s and 50s. In Ohio, they fought like h3ll against Interstates here, which is why the Pennsylvania Turnpike ended at Beaver Falls throughout the 1940s and was extended up to the Ohio state line in the early 1950s when it appeared the Ohio Turnpike was going to happen. But the pavement ending at the state line was an enduring image to finally get Ohio off the dime, which finally happened in 1955. And it would be another 10-20 years for other major interstates to be completed across Ohio.

 

Point is -- change is not welcomed by conservatives and especially by Ohio conservatives. So it's no surprise that electric cars have become a boogeyman.

1 hour ago, taestell said:

I clicked on a tweet a from a local TV news account in another city about some brownouts occurring due to high demand on the power grid from unusually high temperatures. The replies were full of people saying "and BRANDON wants us to switch to ELECTRIC CARS??!!?!" I was really hoping that electric cars were not going to become a partisan issue but apparently it's happening.

 

Fortunately, the comments on a news article are generally not a representative sample of public opinion.  There will be a durable partisan lean on this issue, but not as big of a partisan divide as you're probably fearing.  Remember, before Tesla, even liberals were iffy on support for electric cars.  The conversation has changed now to affordability rather than technological feasibility.  Electric cars are now seen as a higher-income indulgence, whereas before they were seen as laughingstocks driven by eco-friendly gadflies.  That's actually an improvement.

 

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

Some of my MAGA lite friends are at an awkward crossroads between continuing to fellate Elon for everything he does and calling anyone driving an electric car a soy boy 

 

Not going too far down this road without switching to the Elon Musk thread, but even as a Tesla driver, the Elon Musk hero-worship is cringe.  Musk and Tesla have accomplished both some great goods and some great goofs.

 

34 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

Electric vehicles have gotten the MAGA chuds in a tizzy. I have seen some TikToks replying to right wingers who think that an electric truck can't tow. It's the same attitude they had when Prius came out. 

 

Maybe, but I also know at least one MAGA pair of parents at my kids' school who is really interested in them.  He has a landscaping company so needs a truck, not just for vanity but for real work.  Tesla doesn't offer that at the moment, but there are electric vehicle makers definitely looking at getting into that space.  Still going to be a while before mass production so the conversation was more theoretical but he's taking it seriously, even while posting LGB memes on his Facebook profile.

 

26 minutes ago, STRIVE2THRIVE said:

How sustainable is lithium and cobalt mining? What do we do with all the batteries when they no longer hold a proper charge? Hydrogen is said to provide more power and is the most abundant element. Just food for thought.

 

Toyota is a big supporter of hydrogen, but I don't see it.  Raw hydrogen is plentiful in the universe but it's almost all bound up in other materials (water, plants, animals, etc.).  The cost is not in the hydrogen itself but in obtaining it, and storing it.  That said, Toyota has real skin in the game and I don't, and if their technology out-competes BEVs, so be it.

 

We do have significant global reserves of lithium and cobalt.  Extracting them is a dirty business, as mining tends to be (I'm not sure there is even any metal that has a "clean" mining process).  I'm not some naive utopian claiming that there's no downside to mining those metals at scale.  But is it so unreasonable to say that reducing air pollution at the cost of increasing land pollution could be a worthwhile tradeoff, especially if the air pollution reduced was a significant quantity of air pollutants that posed a significant danger?  Land pollution is more localized, more easily contained, and these mines tend to be in very out-of-the-way places (the largest U.S. mines are in Nevada and Utah, which is one reason Tesla located its first Gigafactory for battery production in Nevada, basically on the railway from the mines to its California assembly plant).

I have a 2013 Ford C-Max hybrid which I love for driving in Wash DC's traffic; but it's almost nine and a half years old with its main battery way over its predicted life expectancy. Time for something new, I figured.  Went to look at leasing a new Chevy Bolt - I figured lease because I expect big improvements in the next three years.  Dealer said all cars are presold - we don't offer test drives. I walked out.

 

Isn't this the approach that got US domestic car dealers despised by average folk? It breaks my midwestern heart to buy foreign, but I may have to.

 

 

1 hour ago, taestell said:

A friend said that his mom has suddenly started posting a bunch of anti-electric car stuff on the face book, clearly the same talking points that right wing media are trying to push. One of her recent posts was "electric cars don't pay gas tax so if everyone drives electric cars, how will we pay for roads." I was debating whether to reply to her with "actually, the majority of the cost of building and maintaining highways and roads is not covered by federal gas tax, which has been set at a fixed rate of 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993 and has not been adjusted for inflation in the last three decades" or "Brandon's gunna put GPS trackers in electric vehicles and charge a fee per mile driven."

 

Many states (Ohio included) have just started tacking on a flat fee for EVs or hybrids, as a way to recoup that "lost" gas tax revenue.

6 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Fortunately, the comments on a news article are generally not a representative sample of public opinion.

 

I just find it suspicious that after paying attention to this topic for several years and barely encountering any politically-motivated opposition to electric vehicles, we're suddenly seeing these politically motivated anti-EV talking points popping up. I think we're probably only a year or two away from an MTG type politician saying that liberals only want you to drive EVs because they make your kids gay.

1 hour ago, taestell said:

 

or "Brandon's gunna put GPS trackers in electric vehicles and charge a fee per mile driven."

If she thinks that any new vehicle hasn’t had a GPS tracker for a good few years now, then I’ve got news for her…

1 hour ago, STRIVE2THRIVE said:

How sustainable is lithium and cobalt mining? What do we do with all the batteries when they no longer hold a proper charge? Hydrogen is said to provide more power and is the most abundant element. Just food for thought.

Batteries that have degraded to the point that they no longer provide enough range for vehicles are still usable.  This is one instance of using early generation Nissan Leaf batteries to improve grid reliability:

 

 

Battery technology is also improving to the point that batteries will hopefully not need to be replaced nearly as often.  LFP batteries are supposed to be able to withstand tons and tons of cycles with minimal degradation.

 

Also, battery recycling is picking up steam.  Although usable capacity may decrease over time, the raw materials of the battery (like lithium) are still reusable.  Redwood Materials is probably the biggest name in battery recycling.  There are also incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act to encourage battery recycling, which will probably give it a bit of a boost

1 hour ago, acd said:

Battery technology is also improving to the point that batteries will hopefully not need to be replaced nearly as often.  LFP batteries are supposed to be able to withstand tons and tons of cycles with minimal degradation.

 

Also, battery recycling is picking up steam.  Although usable capacity may decrease over time, the raw materials of the battery (like lithium) are still reusable.  Redwood Materials is probably the biggest name in battery recycling.  There are also incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act to encourage battery recycling, which will probably give it a bit of a boost

And with the size of car batteries, there is going to be a lot more interest in recycling (much more lucrative than recycling AA batteries!)

2 hours ago, taestell said:

 

I just find it suspicious that after paying attention to this topic for several years and barely encountering any politically-motivated opposition to electric vehicles, we're suddenly seeing these politically motivated anti-EV talking points popping up.

 

Nobody is better than Russia at getting conservatives riled up about nothing, and Russia is an oil state...

 

(Just a hunch based on no research - even the automakers are finally starting to get on board.)

18 hours ago, mrCharlie said:

 

Nobody is better than Russia at getting conservatives riled up about nothing, and Russia is an oil state...

 

(Just a hunch based on no research - even the automakers are finally starting to get on board.)

William of Ockham likes this. 

^ we drove to Chicago last weekend and a relative tried to follow us who had an EV. it took them around 7 hours to get there where we got there in 5 because they had to stop to charge up. 

 

I do not want to get an EV anytime soon and I think it is a mistake to push the country toward EV's before we are ready. personally, I think EV's are not the future and there are better energy sources out there than a battery that will deteriorate over time and will be too expensive to fix and cant be recycled very well. 

On 11/12/2022 at 7:13 PM, LifeLongClevelander said:

Based upon historical cycles, we are overdue for a recession.

 

This is not really true, btw. We had one in 2020. The cycle is on average every 4 to 5 years. If you only consider the last 40 years, the cycle is every 8 to 9 years.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ we drove to Chicago last weekend and a relative tried to follow us who had an EV. it took them around 7 hours to get there where we got there in 5 because they had to stop to charge up. 

 

I do not want to get an EV anytime soon and I think it is a mistake to push the country toward EV's before we are ready. personally, I think EV's are not the future and there are better energy sources out there than a battery that will deteriorate over time and will be too expensive to fix and cant be recycled very well. 

If you have two cars, one (the one you use locally) can be electric.  That has been my wife's and my solution.  Meanwhile, there really is great research going on in the battery world.  I think the price of batteries and the use of exotic ( Chinese mined or refined) materials will be drastically reduced fairly soon (2-3 years?).  Zinc, cheap and mined in the US, may be the next lithium in the battery world. A Cleveland company (Octet) is doing zinc research.

Wouldn't it make more sense to push the country to hybrid vehicles as a first step?

 

This conversation should probably be continued in Electric Cars thread.

 

Edited November 21, 20222 yr by LibertyBlvd

@LibertyBlvdContinued from US Economy thread ....

 

Hybrid sales have been doing pretty well:  

 

Graph from Bureau of Transportation Statistics

 

Oops, I clipped off the years. They are 2000-2021.

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Dougal said:

If you have two cars, one (the one you use locally) can be electric.  That has been my wife's and my solution.  Meanwhile, there really is great research going on in the battery world.  I think the price of batteries and the use of exotic ( Chinese mined or refined) materials will be drastically reduced fairly soon (2-3 years?).  Zinc, cheap and mined in the US, may be the next lithium in the battery world. A Cleveland company (Octet) is doing zinc research.

I dont doubt there will continue to be gains. Although batteries have limitations and they also get weaker over time and do not hold a charge as long. Locally, an electric CAN make sense, but even then, not always, depending on how much you need to drive during the day.  

 

We are such a spread out country as is right now, electric just does not seem like a great solution. It takes 6-8 hours for a charge now and a DC fast charger can charge in 30-60 minutes but these chargers are bad for the battery life of your vehicle. Not great to be travelling long distances and every time I need a charge, it will slowly destroy my battery life (as the salesman who was trying to sell me a DC charger for my business told me last week).

 

15 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to push the country to hybrid vehicles as a first step?

 

This conversation should probably be continued in Electric Cars thread.

 

Exactly. I think alternative energy is important, but we should not force it upon people, let the market determine when we change over. When battery life is superior, then make the switch. Banning combustion engines on arbitrary deadlines before the infrastructure is capable of handling it is a recipe for disaster. 

I put a graph of EV, hybrid, and plug-in sales in "Electric Cars" Topic.

Moved this discussion to Electric Cars.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ we drove to Chicago last weekend and a relative tried to follow us who had an EV. it took them around 7 hours to get there where we got there in 5 because they had to stop to charge up. 

 

I do not want to get an EV anytime soon and I think it is a mistake to push the country toward EV's before we are ready. personally, I think EV's are not the future and there are better energy sources out there than a battery that will deteriorate over time and will be too expensive to fix and cant be recycled very well. 

 

"I don't want an EV because there isn't charging infrastructure to satisfy me and top 1% (in the world) lifestyle...and also, I don't think we should invest in said infrastructure to satisfy me and my top 1% lifestyle."

 

EV advocates have long lamented this chicken/egg dilemma.  Reality is, EVs (and even PHEVs) have enough range for 98% of trips - people's normal daily commutes.

Edited November 21, 20222 yr by DarkandStormy

1 minute ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

"I don't want an EV because there isn't charging infrastructure to satisfy me and top 1% (in the world) lifestyle...and also, I don't think we should invest in said infrastructure to satisfy me and my top 1% lifestyle."

 

EV advocates have long lamented this chicken/egg dilemma.  Reality is, EVs (and even PHEVs) have enough range for 98% of trips - people's normal daily commutes.

That is a very flawed statement. EV advocates may complain about chicken v egg dilemma, but the problem is that the technology for the eV infrastructure is not there yet. For trips, or those who need to drive a lot, it does not make sense to own an EV. 

 

What you are trying to say is that, we know EV's are inferior products and not quite up to the task, so lets race to the bottom and force it upon everyone, because you personally like EV's better than gas vehicles. 

 

I am all for owning an EV when it makes economic sense and there is appropriate infrastructure to support it. Right now, outside of the cities there is not. Even in the cities and locally, a 6-8 hour charge to drive your vehicle 300 miles is not economically feasible either. The goal is to create efficiencies and get people and products to places quicker, not slow things down. 

21 minutes ago, Dougal said:

@LibertyBlvdContinued from US Economy thread ....

 

Hybrid sales have been doing pretty well:  

 

Graph from Bureau of Transportation Statistics

 

 

 

Full year forecasts for '22 put EVs (classified as BEVs, PHEVs, and FCEVs) at nearly 10.6m globally.  In 2021, this number was 6.6m, and in 2020 just 3m.  Fwiw, the split is usually about 70% BEVs (battery electric vehicles - vehicles powered only by electricity) / 30% PHEVs (Plug-in hybrid vehicles - vehicles that can be powered for short (ish) distances by electricity but also have a traditional hybrid powertrain), with minimal, almost immaterial FCEVs sales (fuel-cell vehicles - typically hydrogen-powered, which have struggled to gain traction).

 

In '19, the EV market share of global light vehicle sales was 2.5%.

In '20, it was 4.1%.

And in '21, it was nearly 9%.

In '22, it will be well above 12%, perhaps over 13%.

 

Anyone discussing "transitioning to hybrids first" is missing the point (if they're talking about a traditional hybrid, like a Prius) - we're already transitioning to EVs.  It's the one segment of vehicles that has grown rapidly in a struggling area of the market - almost every other vehicle type is down in sales.

Edited November 21, 20222 yr by DarkandStormy

6 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

 

Full year forecasts for '22 put EVs (classified as BEVs, PHEVs, and FCEVs) at nearly 10.6m globally.  In 2021, this number was 6.6m, and in 2020 just 3m.  Fwiw, the split is usually about 70% BEVs (battery electric vehicles - vehicles powered only by electricity) / 30% PHEVs (Plug-in hybrid vehicles - vehicles that can be powered for short (ish) distances by electricity but also have a traditional hybrid powertrain), with minimal, almost immaterial FCEVs sales (fuel-cell vehicles - typically hydrogen-powered, which have struggled to gain traction).

 

In '19, the EV market share of global light vehicle sales was 2.5%.

In '20, it was 4.1%.

And in '21, it was nearly 9%.

In '22, it will be well above 12%, perhaps over 13%.

 

Anyone discussing "transitioning to hybrids first" is missing the point (if they're talking about a traditional hybrid, like a Prius) - we're already transitioning to EVs.  It's the one segment of vehicles that has grown rapidly in a struggling area of the market - almost every other vehicle type is down in sales.

But you also have a lot of tax incentives to try and grease the skids. Furthermore, some of this is large fleet sales as local governments subject to the "green gospel" race, sometimes against their best interests, to electrify their fleet. 

It will be interesting to see if EV's would still grow at the same pace if you removed a lot of the gov incentives to grease the skids and as some states start charging EV registration fees to make up for the lost gas taxes they would otherwise receive from a gas powered vehicle. 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

That is a very flawed statement. EV advocates may complain about chicken v egg dilemma, but the problem is that the technology for the eV infrastructure is not there yet. For trips, or those who need to drive a lot, it does not make sense to own an EV. 

 

What you are trying to say is that, we know EV's are inferior products and not quite up to the task, so lets race to the bottom and force it upon everyone, because you personally like EV's better than gas vehicles. 

 

I am all for owning an EV when it makes economic sense and there is appropriate infrastructure to support it. Right now, outside of the cities there is not. Even in the cities and locally, a 6-8 hour charge to drive your vehicle 300 miles is not economically feasible either. The goal is to create efficiencies and get people and products to places quicker, not slow things down. 

Is your commute less than 300 miles?  Are there 6-8 hours a day that you're not driving?  If so, it sounds like EV's are suitable.  That describes a huge proportion of the population, especially if you're a 2 car household that also has an ICE car for road trips.  I got an EV a few months ago and it has not been a burden in any scenario.  We still have an ICE if we need to take a long drive somewhere without charging.  It's not complicated at all.  EV's cost about 1/3 to 1/4 as much as ICE's to refuel, so I'm not sure how it's not economically feasible.

 

59 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But you also have a lot of tax incentives to try and grease the skids. Furthermore, some of this is large fleet sales as local governments subject to the "green gospel" race, sometimes against their best interests, to electrify their fleet. 

It will be interesting to see if EV's would still grow at the same pace if you removed a lot of the gov incentives to grease the skids and as some states start charging EV registration fees to make up for the lost gas taxes they would otherwise receive from a gas powered vehicle. 

This experiment occurred naturally when Tesla's incentives expired after they hit 200,000 vehicles sold.  Demand has remained extremely high for years since this happened and they've even continued to raise prices substantially.  Several other carmakers (Hyundai and Kia for example) just lost their incentives due to the IRA and they're still selling out no problem.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

we know EV's are inferior products and not quite up to the task

 

The weight of the long-range batteries is ridiculous.  The GMC Hummer is a 9,000lb vehicle.  3,000 of that is the battery:

https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2022-gmc-hummer-ev-range-battery-pack-and-weight-revealed.html#:~:text=Just like the old Hummer%2C it isn't small&text=The Ultium battery pack weighs,lightest car%2C the Chevrolet Spark.

 

The battery literally weighs more than a Chevy Spark.  

 

When the incentive for electric cars was written into law, the thought was that electric cars were going to be small and efficient, like the Chevy Spark.  Instead, they're vain monsters.  

 

The Honda Fit and Ford Fiesta have disappeared.  The market continues to demand big, preposterous vehicles, EV or otherwise.  

 

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 20222 yr by Lazarus

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But you also have a lot of tax incentives to try and grease the skids. Furthermore, some of this is large fleet sales as local governments subject to the "green gospel" race, sometimes against their best interests, to electrify their fleet. 

It will be interesting to see if EV's would still grow at the same pace if you removed a lot of the gov incentives to grease the skids and as some states start charging EV registration fees to make up for the lost gas taxes they would otherwise receive from a gas powered vehicle. 

 

Are you going to acknowledge the oil & gas subsidies when talking about "evening the playing field" or nah?

 

As usual, you only present one side of an argument and then state it as if it's fact.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

That is a very flawed statement. EV advocates may complain about chicken v egg dilemma, but the problem is that the technology for the eV infrastructure is not there yet. For trips, or those who need to drive a lot, it does not make sense to own an EV. 

 

What you are trying to say is that, we know EV's are inferior products and not quite up to the task, so lets race to the bottom and force it upon everyone, because you personally like EV's better than gas vehicles. 

 

I am all for owning an EV when it makes economic sense and there is appropriate infrastructure to support it. Right now, outside of the cities there is not. Even in the cities and locally, a 6-8 hour charge to drive your vehicle 300 miles is not economically feasible either. The goal is to create efficiencies and get people and products to places quicker, not slow things down. 

 

Lol.  Your posts remain hilarious.  Well done.

 

"We know EVs are inferior products" - I mean, if your goal is to drive 1,000 miles without stopping to re-fuel...I guess?  Good one, you got me.

 

Every 3rd party analysis out there says EVs require less maintenance which is less money to spend over the lifetime of ownership.  They cost less to re-fuel than an ICE vehicle.  The breakeven cost is estimated to be around 5-6 years -> that is, the slightly extra money spent to buy an EV is saved by the 5th or 6th year due to much less money spent on maintenance and fuel.

 

Anyway, the rest of your post is just right-wing, incoherent babble about being told how to live or some weirdo nonsense, not really worth addressing (especially as this isn't in the current events section anymore). 

4 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

"We know EVs are inferior products" - I mean, if your goal is to drive 1,000 miles without stopping to re-fuel...I guess?  Good one, you got me

You are welcome to drive your EV. I have no issue with it. You seem to have an issue with the fact I like my gas car. Otherwise, why would you care to try and encourage laws to ban them? Let the market decide. When the market has the infrastructure to demand it, then great everyone can co-exist. When the technology becomes better, then let's talk. Right now it is not there. 

 

6 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Every 3rd party analysis out there says EVs require less maintenance which is less money to spend over the lifetime of ownership.  They cost less to re-fuel than an ICE vehicle.  The breakeven cost is estimated to be around 5-6 years -> that is, the slightly extra money spent to buy an EV is saved by the 5th or 6th year due to much less money spent on maintenance and fuel.

That is cherrypicking your info. Also, pretty much all these studies fail to take into account taxes and road usage costs. As gas taxes no longer offer the revenue to repair the roads you have to start to factor in the rising burden EV's will need to pay at that point. Most of the current studies do not account for that. 

There are also a number of studies that show EV ownership is not cheaper. You may dispute them, that is fine, but to say that there is no study out there is false.

 

8 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Anyway, the rest of your post is just right-wing, incoherent babble about being told how to live or some weirdo nonsense, not really worth addressing (especially as this isn't in the current events section anymore)

It is pretty comical how anytime someone attacks your worldview your first line is to shoot the messenger. You are very predictable. 

 

My post was simply how the technology was not there yet, and somehow you feel the need to try and turn it into a personal attack. I get it, that is all you got. 

56 minutes ago, acd said:

s your commute less than 300 miles?  Are there 6-8 hours a day that you're not driving?  If so, it sounds like EV's are suitable.  That describes a huge proportion of the population, especially if you're a 2 car household that also has an ICE car for road trips.  I got an EV a few months ago and it has not been a burden in any scenario.  We still have an ICE if we need to take a long drive somewhere without charging.  It's not complicated at all.  EV's cost about 1/3 to 1/4 as much as ICE's to refuel, so I'm not sure how it's not economically feasible.

If you drive locally and can charge your car at night you are fine. But that is also not realistic for many people and could place people in a bind in many cases if they have to drive over long distances frequently. If you drive 12 hours on a trip, it is going to be a challenge for people and that is the blindspot that a lot of the EV proponents are forgetting about.  In 10 years CA and a couple other states will ban the sale of ICE vehicles. The trickle down is that it will pretty much force everyone into an EV even those for whom an EV would not make sense.  

Based on the limitations on the EV batteries, that a solution has not been invented to overcome them, it really makes no sense to embrace the technology to the extreme that some of the politicians in CA and NY have by completely banning ICE vehicles in their states. When the technology is strong enough, you will not need to pass such a law because the public will already be there. 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I dont doubt there will continue to be gains. Although batteries have limitations and they also get weaker over time and do not hold a charge as long. Locally, an electric CAN make sense, but even then, not always, depending on how much you need to drive during the day.  

 

We are such a spread out country as is right now, electric just does not seem like a great solution. It takes 6-8 hours for a charge now and a DC fast charger can charge in 30-60 minutes but these chargers are bad for the battery life of your vehicle. Not great to be travelling long distances and every time I need a charge, it will slowly destroy my battery life (as the salesman who was trying to sell me a DC charger for my business told me last week).

 

Exactly. I think alternative energy is important, but we should not force it upon people, let the market determine when we change over. When battery life is superior, then make the switch. Banning combustion engines on arbitrary deadlines before the infrastructure is capable of handling it is a recipe for disaster. 

 

There are a vanishingly few number of people who drive so many miles in a day on such tight timetables that EVs don't make sense.  I know because I spoke to one, a medical device sales rep with territories spanning from Erie to Columbus who frequently drove 8,000 miles per month and was required to scrub in sometimes when surgeons were using medical devices manufactured by her company--even though she wasn't a doctor herself, the doctors considered her presence essential and so she needed to be available quickly across a large territory.

 

Most people's daily lives are nothing like that.

 

And if the worst thing about owning an electric car is that it takes you 7 hours instead of 5 to get to Chicago on your maybe-once-a-year trip there, I'd say they've come a long way.

I think I've mentioned it here before, but something like a nationwide version of Amtrak's AutoTrain aimed at EV owners would probably make a difference. Include charging infrastructure on-board, arrive at your destination with your own vehicle fully charged.

 

We got our first hybrid (Toyota Venza) last summer. Great car at everything, easily hits the 37 mpg EPA combined average with tanks into the mid 40's. I regret not going with a hybrid sooner, but until the last few years most hybrids were on the weird side or made some pretty big performance/comfort sacrifices in the name of efficiency. Now, most very-normal Toyota models (as well as many other brands) have a reasonable hybrid option which works pretty much like the ICE-only version, often even being the quicker drivetrain. 

 

The point being, hybrids are probably becoming a lot more popular now that they are moving past the early-adopter/enthusiast stage. I could easily see my in-laws getting a hybrid for their next vehicle, because there are plenty of normal-car options that don't take any more thought or effort than what they are used to. I'm not sure how to win that group over on a full EV without some big technological leaps in charging times (solid state?). But even with existing battery technology, more "normal" PHEVs - something like a RAV4 Prime - could be a good stopgap way to normalize the idea of plugging a car in, while providing a safety net for most people.

8 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Most people's daily lives are nothing like that.

 

And if the worst thing about owning an electric car is that it takes you 7 hours instead of 5 to get to Chicago on your maybe-once-a-year trip there, I'd say they've come a long way.

There are also a lot of trucks that should be considered in this. As you mentioned, there are a lot of medical device reps out there who may be on call and need to drive 90 minutes to their surgery when the doctor is available. 

 

When you take the summer trip and you can no longer do the 12 hour drive in a day because the charging time (or risk using the DC charger and hurting the battery life on your car)

 

There are a lot of good things EV's can do, but it should be acknowledged that they should not be thrust on everyone yet as the only option. 

 

Many people do not drive as much as me in a given week. From my own personal standpoint, there are sometimes where I need to drive 3 hours round trip in a day, there are times where i do not have time to plan my trip a week in advance and have to get in the car and go. There are a decent amount of people like this and should be part of the equation when mandating the end of the ICE. 

I have family and friends with Teslas and they like them, but they are not for everyone. We need to keep that in mind. 

49 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

If you drive locally and can charge your car at night you are fine. But that is also not realistic for many people and could place people in a bind in many cases if they have to drive over long distances frequently. If you drive 12 hours on a trip, it is going to be a challenge for people and that is the blindspot that a lot of the EV proponents are forgetting about.  In 10 years CA and a couple other states will ban the sale of ICE vehicles. The trickle down is that it will pretty much force everyone into an EV even those for whom an EV would not make sense.  

Based on the limitations on the EV batteries, that a solution has not been invented to overcome them, it really makes no sense to embrace the technology to the extreme that some of the politicians in CA and NY have by completely banning ICE vehicles in their states. When the technology is strong enough, you will not need to pass such a law because the public will already be there. 

EV proponents do not forget that at all.  They all want better infrastructure for fast charging on trips and slow charging for people without garages.  California has great EV infrastructure already and 10 years to continue improving it before the ICE ban.  EV's already make up about 20% of new sales there.  There's a huge push for more charging nationwide that will hopefully ease the burden on those whose use case isn't there right now.  In the meantime, there are plenty of people that can transition now and there lives will be easier for it.

 

You're right though, the law will be basically unnecessary based on the current rate of adoption.  EV's will already be the dominant choice by then.  It also wouldn't force anyone into an EV.  Used cars will still exist, which is what most people buy anyway.

Again, the weight of the batteries necessary for long-range and heavy duty operations (city buses, big rigs, etc.) means the batteries have to be bigger.  Again, the bigger the battery, the more battery you need to offset the weight of the bigger battery.

 

Even the humble Chevy Bolt weighs 3,600lbs - 500-800 pounds more than gasoline vehicles in its same class.  A full tank of 12.5 gallons of gasoline weight about 70-80 pounds.  

 

The battery weight means everything else on the car must be heavier or at least heavier-duty (frame + shocks/struts, etc.) - almost truck-like.  

 

[...]

 

Amtrak's east coast Auto Train is inhibited by the notorious tunnel in Baltimore.  When the replacement tunnel opens they'll probably be able to extend its northern reach to Philly and maybe the NYC area.  

 

I believe that there used to be an Auto Train that aimed to serve the Chicago market but couldn't cross the river and dead-ended at Louisville due to some clearance issue with a bridge.  Musk could fix that in a week!  

 

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

 

The weight of the long-range batteries is ridiculous.  The GMC Hummer is a 9,000lb vehicle.  3,000 of that is the battery:

https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2022-gmc-hummer-ev-range-battery-pack-and-weight-revealed.html#:~:text=Just like the old Hummer%2C it isn't small&text=The Ultium battery pack weighs,lightest car%2C the Chevrolet Spark.

 

The battery literally weighs more than a Chevy Spark.  

 

When the incentive for electric cars was written into law, the thought was that electric cars were going to be small and efficient, like the Chevy Spark.  Instead, they're vain monsters.  

 

The Honda Fit and Ford Fiesta have disappeared.  The market continues to demand big, preposterous vehicles, EV or otherwise.  

 

 

 

 

 

The primary market consumer of automobiles used to include a lot more different types of people. Now it's pretty much just Boomers, Karens and engineers. Everybody else is told to buy a used car.

25 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

The primary market consumer of automobiles used to include a lot more different types of people. Now it's pretty much just Boomers, Karens and engineers. Everybody else is told to buy a used car.

 

Will lesbians automatically go for Subaru's new EV?:

https://www.subaru.com/vehicles/solterra/gallery.html

 

Scroll down a bit on the right to see the little rear-tire step stool innovation.  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You are welcome to drive your EV. I have no issue with it. You seem to have an issue with the fact I like my gas car. Otherwise, why would you care to try and encourage laws to ban them? Let the market decide. When the market has the infrastructure to demand it, then great everyone can co-exist. When the technology becomes better, then let's talk. Right now it is not there. 

 

That is cherrypicking your info. Also, pretty much all these studies fail to take into account taxes and road usage costs. As gas taxes no longer offer the revenue to repair the roads you have to start to factor in the rising burden EV's will need to pay at that point. Most of the current studies do not account for that. 

There are also a number of studies that show EV ownership is not cheaper. You may dispute them, that is fine, but to say that there is no study out there is false.

I don't know what point you're trying to make about gas taxes because gas taxes haven't covered the cost of road maintenance for DECADES.  Your income taxes have been backfilling for the gas tax deficiencies long before any electric car was in mass production.  We might as well ditch gas taxes altogether and charge more for vehicle registration to pay for roadway maintenance -- vehicle-miles-traveled and/or vehicle weight are more relevant to wear and tear on the roads and would be a better basis for allocating those costs anyway.

 

We've built out the country in such a way that many people NEED a car, and we have enjoyed the privilege of being able to just hop in our car and drive wherever and whenever and however far we want at any time.  We "like our cars" and we expect to keep living the same way we always have.  "No planning ahead required" could be an American motto!  We've built for the personal car and allowed alternative (competitive) mass transit options to whither.

 

You're also absolutely correct that a 100% conversion to electric vehicles is not currently practical for most people.  It's not just the inconvenience of charging. While on a road trip you have to take rest stops, so charging really isn't that much different and we could adapt quickly.  But look at the number of cars at any rest stop and compare that to the number of available chargers at a charging station.  We're not there yet.  And as most of Cuyahoga County makes less than $40k per year they can't afford to or lack the authority to add car charging to their homes/apartments, much less buy a $40k+ car!

 

At the same time, if we don't phase out gas cars and go all-in on electric (and probably greatly improve our mass transit networks), there is no way for the US to meet the 1.5C target for preventing worse effects from climate change.  "The market" won't solve that problem.  "I like my gas car" is partly the result of the "market" not caring about climate change (and in many cases actively marketing against even acknowledging climate change). 

 

Given the choice between fewer extreme weather events (hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, floods, higher tides, freak storms, etc.) and the personal gas car, the US has chosen the gas car and more frequent extreme weather events.  I'm sure the rest of the world will be as grateful as Ron DeSantis was in accepting federal disaster assistance.

1 hour ago, acd said:

  Used cars will still exist, which is what most people buy anyway

Except the service stations carrying the gas may no longer be viable to operate.

15 minutes ago, Foraker said:

(and probably greatly improve our mass transit networks)

 

The scrapping of trolleybus systems in the 1960s/70s left the door wide open for the false hope of battery-powered city buses.  Unbelievably heavy batteries + batteries are much less efficient than drawing power from overhead wires.  

 

Unfortunately, overhead catenary systems are very expensive to build, partly because of the regularly-spaced transformers.  Seattle has studied the establishment of new fully-electric bus lines that would interline with existing sections of their overhead catenary, but the costs for new branches or cross-towns are cost-prohibitive, since the busiest and hilliest electric lines were the ones that were spared from the 60s/70s bloodshed. 

 

Existing all-electric systems (like Dayton) are motivating a new type of bus that will recharge on the overhead wire sections and then travel by battery power outside the wire network.  Again, the flaw is the weight of the batteries, the complexity of duel-mode buses, and then the environmental problems that surround the batteries.   

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Existing all-electric systems (like Dayton) are motivating a new type of bus that will recharge on the overhead wire sections and then travel by battery power outside the wire network.  Again, the flaw is the weight of the batteries, the complexity of duel-mode buses, and then the environmental problems that surround the batteries.  

Capacitors may be lighter, fewer batteries needed.

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

 

8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There are also a lot of trucks that should be considered in this. As you mentioned, there are a lot of medical device reps out there who may be on call and need to drive 90 minutes to their surgery when the doctor is available. 

 

When you take the summer trip and you can no longer do the 12 hour drive in a day because the charging time (or risk using the DC charger and hurting the battery life on your car)

 

There are a lot of good things EV's can do, but it should be acknowledged that they should not be thrust on everyone yet as the only option. 

 

Many people do not drive as much as me in a given week. From my own personal standpoint, there are sometimes where I need to drive 3 hours round trip in a day, there are times where i do not have time to plan my trip a week in advance and have to get in the car and go. There are a decent amount of people like this and should be part of the equation when mandating the end of the ICE. 

I have family and friends with Teslas and they like them, but they are not for everyone. We need to keep that in mind. 

 

The DC charger does not impact battery life if you are only using it occasionally.  I use the Superchargers in Dublin, Polaris, and Mt. Gilead all the time when I do my trips from Akron to Columbus once a month to visit my family down there, and I never for a moment thought to worry about Supercharging twice in one day on my trip to Boston earlier this year (or again on the way home a few days later).  And yes, I did that all in a single day, despite 2 stops to charge each time; it increased a 10-hour drive to 12 but realistically, I couldn't have driven constantly in an ICE vehicle, either.

 

High-voltage, high-amperage DC charging should not be used for daily charging.  It's generally cheaper on a per-kWh basis to charge at home, anyway.

 

I don't know about "thrust on everyone yet as the only option."  I wasn't part of whatever discussion on whatever thread before these posts got moved here.  But EVs are an objectively superior technology already and are improving far more quickly than ICE vehicles at this point (which are a mature technology at best and a legacy one at worst).  Public policy should definitely be oriented around the premise that far more people should be driving BEVs than currently are, and far more people will indeed be doing so over the next decade, and that this is almost a universally positive development for the country.  Many more people than currently realize it are currently driving the last ICE vehicle they will ever own.  Objections like "what about the one time every year or two when I want the extra range and faster fill speed of an ICE car" basically just emphasize how trivial and niche the continued case for reliance on the internal-combustion engine for the commuter fleet of 2022 is.

 

With gas now persistently above $3/gal and sometimes approaching $4/gal, I still fill at about an equivalent rate of $1.33/gal, and that's based on my actual driving rather than the ideal driving of the car (which is what typical ratings of mpg/mpkWh are based on), and I drive to save time, not to enjoy the view.  (I've been known to recharacterize "traffic calming" as "driver infuriating.")  More limp-souled, adrenaline-deficient drivers who don't routinely take advantage of the 4.1-second 0-60 for whatever inexplicable reason can probably get their cost equivalence down to $1.00.  I also have no oil or transmission fluid to change, and while the extra weight of my car is hell on the suspension and tires, the drivetrain also has many fewer stages and many fewer mechanical parts and stages between "withdraw energy from storage" and "turn wheel on road."

 

Teslas (or BEVs generally) are not for everyone.  But they are for a lot more people than currently drive them.

I was surprised that my Uber driver at San Diego airport was driving a Tesla.  I asked him if he just charges it at home overnight and he said he didn't have a charging station at home and he only used the public charging stations and that it takes him about 30 minutes to get to 80%.  

 

But I always question the financials of an Uber driver in an expensive car.  Does it really make sense to buy a $60k auto and pay for it by being a taxi?  Why not buy a cheaper car and drive less?

14 hours ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

But I always question the financials of an Uber driver in an expensive car.  Does it really make sense to buy a $60k auto and pay for it by being a taxi?  Why not buy a cheaper car and drive less?

Electric vehicles make up for the up-front cost in reduced maintenance -- and for a Uber driver, "maintenance" means downtime with no income.  

 

Recommending that an Uber driver should buy a cheaper car and drive less --- 😆😆😆🤦‍♂️

On 11/21/2022 at 4:08 PM, Lazarus said:

The scrapping of trolleybus systems in the 1960s/70s left the door wide open for the false hope of battery-powered city buses. 

 

The handful of American cities that still have trolleybus systems are in a good place right now. They can go electric without having to worry about the challenges of present-day battery technology.

 

For long haul trucking, there's this option:

 

 

On 11/21/2022 at 6:59 PM, Jimmy Skinner said:

But I always question the financials of an Uber driver in an expensive car.  Does it really make sense to buy a $60k auto and pay for it by being a taxi?  Why not buy a cheaper car and drive less?

 

Because people are dumb.   They exaggerate how much money they're making.  

 

I remember seeing Uber drivers on Uber driver forums back in 2014-15 posting photos of the almost-new Cadillac Escalades with leather interiors they just bought to be an Uber Black driver.  No doubt almost all of those cars ended up getting repoed.  

 

https://insideevs.com/news/629973/us-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-sales-2022q4/

 

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles appear to be struggling to catch on in the U.S. (probably because there are so few hydrogen stations).

 

https://insideevs.com/news/629918/global-plugin-car-sales-november2022/

 

Through November:

Quote

Plug-in car registrations year-to-date:

 

BEVs: about *6.1 million and 9.7% share

PHEVs: about *2.7 million and 4.3% share

Total: 8,809,018 and roughly 14% share

* estimated from the market share

 

Some 18% of global car registrations in November had a plug-in component.  For FY22, it'll probably end up near 10m units and over 14% market share (~10% BEVs & ~4% PHEVs).  For 2023, expect total units to rise as well as market share.  With bans on ICE cars on the horizon, manufacturers are having to pivot quickly.  1 out of every 5 cars sold in 2023 will likely be electrified / have a plug-in component.

Honda and Toyota were so big on hydrogen that they got behind on full electric.

I just can't see hydrogen catching on. The main advantage over electric is fast refueling, but most electric car owners are going to recharge in their garage overnight and at a supercharger for the occasional road trip. Some of the luxury EVs being sold right now have the ability to charge 300 miles of range in 20 minutes, and that capability will trickle down to lower priced EVs over time.

Even just the premise of that discussion shows how much progress has been made.  It used to be the mental block was range anxiety--that you'd run out of juice before you could reach a charger, any charger.  Now we've moved on to charging speed anxiety.

 

And even if my now-slightly-older EV might take 40 minutes to get 200-240 miles instead of 20 minutes to get 300, I don't think the advantages of hydrogen refueling on that point would get me to give up the other advantages of an EV.  I don't know what the maintenance requirements of a hydrogen drivetrain are, but I have to imagine that they're significantly more than a BEV.

Range anxiety still exists in hilly, rural areas that get cold and still have little charging infrastructure such as Kentucky. 

4 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Range anxiety still exists in hilly, rural areas that get cold and still have little charging infrastructure such as Kentucky. 

 

I got my EV relatively recently, and range anxiety is not a concern at all day-to-day, but non-Tesla fast charging infrastructure in West Virginia is still so bad that I'd probably have to take my ICE vehicle if I wanted to road trip in that direction.

 

I agree with everyone else, though, hydrogen will never catch on.  As bad as EV infrastructure is in some places, every state has a plan to fill in their gaps and federal money to help add stations, so it'll hopefully resolve in the next few years.