January 12, 20232 yr Good article on hydrogen for transportation, and what the Feds see happening with it. https://www.theautopian.com/hydrogen-cars-seem-like-the-big-loser-in-bidens-plan-to-curb-emissions/ Basically, they don't see it as an option for private vehicles. It however does seem to be a viable option for long-haul trucks, where the battery technology is going to be challenging for a long time (think of how large of a battery it would take for a loaded semi, how long that would take to charge, and how many cars could be made instead with the limited availability of batteries at the moment). Much easier to build out hydrogen infrastructure for trucks as well, versus private vehicles with less-planned routing and the expectation to be able to fill up whenever and wherever (which EVs will change, at least a little).
January 12, 20232 yr I listened to the latest episode of Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast this morning and one of the guests mentioned that there is currently a pent up demand for about 6-7 million EVs. This is a because there is more demand for EVs than manufacturers can produce, and those the majority of those customers are not going to buy an ICE vehicle instead. That's exactly the situation that I am in, because as someone who typically owns vehicles for a long time, I'm going to buy an ICE vehicle and be stuck with it for the next decade. Instead I'm going to hope that my current vehicle holds up for another year or two and that EV production has ramped up by then.
January 24, 20232 yr https://www.wsj.com/articles/evs-made-up-10-of-all-new-cars-sold-last-year-11673818385 Quote Worldwide, sales of electric vehicles crossed a key milestone last year, achieving around 10% market share for the first time. Global sales of fully electric vehicles totaled around 7.8 million units, an increase of as much as 68% from the previous year, according to preliminary research from LMC Automotive and EV-Volumes.com, research groups that track automotive sales. 10.5m vehicles in 2022 had an electric component - a roughly 70/30 split between BEVs and PHEVs. Very Stable Genius
March 17, 20232 yr Workhorse is not doing well. Its stock is in the toilet. This article aims to attract casual investors to the stock: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/03/17/workhorse-ceo-rick-dauch-has-plan-to-turn.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_6&cx_artPos=3#cxrecs_s
April 18, 20232 yr We picked up our first EV yesterday, a BMW i4 eDrive35. We lived with one car (hybrid Toyota Venza) for 13 months and it mostly worked since I'm fully remote. We can do a fair amount in Granville on foot/bike, but we were increasingly running into situations where one car was a problem, like my wife and I passing up work travel opportunities or our son getting sick at school. The biggest scare was when the sunroof and windshield on our Venza took a rock on the highway, taking months to get fully resolved - though to car was drivable, it served as a constant reminder we are frustratingly car-dependent. As mentioned elsewhere on here, Elon's antics were the final straw and we didn't even consider a Tesla - the BMW is nicer inside and out anyway, and built quality is excellent. The 260-mile range (the i4 has an option for more) is average-ish by modern EV standards but felt right to us, long enough for occasional trips but not hauling around or spending for more battery than we need. Another interesting compromise on the i4 is it shares 90% of body panels with the ICE 4-series, so we have a vestigial transmission tunnel which is filled with batteries. While a dedicated EV platform would be more space efficient, I find this interesting from a manufacturing perspective since it allows BMW to flex their line between EV/ICE models depending on demand (FWIW, the demand seems to be all-EV). If that's what it takes for companies to mitigate risk to offer more EVs and keep costs down, that seems like a win. One other surprise - we leased the car, something we've never even considered doing. First, it seemed like a good way to low-risk tiptoe into the EV world - there will be a lot of exciting options in 3 years, and we'll know by then if we got enough range or the right features. The big reason though is leasing the car felt like a pretty good deal. It's German made, so it doesn't qualify for the $7500 federal EV tax credit. However, I learned about the "leasing loophole" while researching the car - essentially any commercial company leasing a EV to a consumer gets the $7500 EV credit, without the country of manufacturing restrictions, and has the option to pass it along to consumers. In our case BMW took $7500 off the capitalized cost- if we decide to buy the car at the end of our lease, we'll effectively end up saving $7500 overall versus if we bought it outright. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/10/7500-new-ev-tax-credit-workarounds-to-irs-rules.html https://leasehackr.com/blog/2023/2/18/list-of-every-ev-that-gets-a-7500-credit-on-leases Now we just need to get a charger installed.
April 18, 20232 yr 34 minutes ago, mrCharlie said: We picked up our first EV yesterday, a BMW i4 eDrive35. We lived with one car (hybrid Toyota Venza) for 13 months and it mostly worked since I'm fully remote. We can do a fair amount in Granville on foot/bike, but we were increasingly running into situations where one car was a problem, like my wife and I passing up work travel opportunities or our son getting sick at school. The biggest scare was when the sunroof and windshield on our Venza took a rock on the highway, taking months to get fully resolved - though to car was drivable, it served as a constant reminder we are frustratingly car-dependent. As mentioned elsewhere on here, Elon's antics were the final straw and we didn't even consider a Tesla - the BMW is nicer inside and out anyway, and built quality is excellent. The 260-mile range (the i4 has an option for more) is average-ish by modern EV standards but felt right to us, long enough for occasional trips but not hauling around or spending for more battery than we need. Another interesting compromise on the i4 is it shares 90% of body panels with the ICE 4-series, so we have a vestigial transmission tunnel which is filled with batteries. While a dedicated EV platform would be more space efficient, I find this interesting from a manufacturing perspective since it allows BMW to flex their line between EV/ICE models depending on demand (FWIW, the demand seems to be all-EV). If that's what it takes for companies to mitigate risk to offer more EVs and keep costs down, that seems like a win. One other surprise - we leased the car, something we've never even considered doing. First, it seemed like a good way to low-risk tiptoe into the EV world - there will be a lot of exciting options in 3 years, and we'll know by then if we got enough range or the right features. The big reason though is leasing the car felt like a pretty good deal. It's German made, so it doesn't qualify for the $7500 federal EV tax credit. However, I learned about the "leasing loophole" while researching the car - essentially any commercial company leasing a EV to a consumer gets the $7500 EV credit, without the country of manufacturing restrictions, and has the option to pass it along to consumers. In our case BMW took $7500 off the capitalized cost- if we decide to buy the car at the end of our lease, we'll effectively end up saving $7500 overall versus if we bought it outright. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/10/7500-new-ev-tax-credit-workarounds-to-irs-rules.html https://leasehackr.com/blog/2023/2/18/list-of-every-ev-that-gets-a-7500-credit-on-leases Now we just need to get a charger installed. Congrats! I've been very happy with my Emporia EV charger. It can be hardwired or plugged into a NEMA 14-50 outlet, you can adjust the charging amperage and look at real-time and historical usage in their app, and it's actually a little cheaper than similar UL-listed chargers.
April 18, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, acd said: Congrats! I've been very happy with my Emporia EV charger. It can be hardwired or plugged into a NEMA 14-50 outlet, you can adjust the charging amperage and look at real-time and historical usage in their app, and it's actually a little cheaper than similar UL-listed chargers. Glad to hear, that's exactly the charger I had open to buy!
July 4, 20231 yr I may be behind the times on this, but I actually saw two Amazon Rivian vans being transported on a flatbed north on I-71 this past weekend on my way back from Columbus to Akron. So at least I can say that they're actually happening: https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/amazon-introduces-fleet-of-electric-vans-ohio-prepares-for-widespread-adoption-of-evs Though apparently in nowhere near the volume that Rivian hoped when they signed their exclusivity deal with Amazon: https://www.ttnews.com/articles/amazon-rivian-ev-van-deal https://www.motorbiscuit.com/rivian-revisits-exclusivity-agreement-amazon/ Quote The two companies entered into an agreement in 2019 for Amazon to buy 100,000 delivery vans from Rivian by 2030, providing the Irvine, Calif.-based startup a big name and stable customer. But Amazon only plans to buy roughly 10,000 EV vans this year, which is at the low end of a range previously provided to Rivian, according to the Journal. They did apparently exceed production goals for the recently-ended second quarter, but still, the overall numbers make them a niche manufacturer. They haven't achieved volume in the sense of something that can move the needle in terms of the larger American car market yet: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/rivian-exceeds-wall-street-s-expectations-with-q2-2023-deliveries-and-production-figures-217461.html The company's goal is to manufacture a total of 50,000 vehicles this year, divided between their van, truck, and SUV models. Meanwhile, Amazon apparently has first rights to the first 100,000 vans produced.
July 5, 20231 yr Another reason electric cars won't save us: road damage. Note: I'm not against electric cars. I just think we need to be realistic about them: Electric cars 'cause TWICE as much road damage as petrol equivalents': Why Britain's pothole crisis could be worsened by the rise of EVs https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/electriccars/article-12237529/Britains-pothole-crisis-worse-electric-cars.html
July 5, 20231 yr 37 minutes ago, gildone said: Another reason electric cars won't save us: road damage. Note: I'm not against electric cars. I just think we need to be realistic about them: No kidding. The longer-range batteries alone often weigh more than the equivalent complete gasoline or diesel automobile. Gasoline weighs less than water, meaning a full 13-gallon tank usually weighs less than an additional passenger and so barely alters the performance of the car. But an electric with a long-range battery has poorer performance - all of the time - than the same car with a sub-100 mile battery.
July 5, 20231 yr 54 minutes ago, gildone said: Another reason electric cars won't save us: road damage. Note: I'm not against electric cars. I just think we need to be realistic about them: Electric cars 'cause TWICE as much road damage as petrol equivalents': Why Britain's pothole crisis could be worsened by the rise of EVs https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/electriccars/article-12237529/Britains-pothole-crisis-worse-electric-cars.html "Save us" from what, specifically, though? Agreed they won't save us from road damage. But I would argue that road damage is an acceptable price to pay for the kinds of benefits we do get from electric cars. (Maybe we can even find a way to build more durable roads someday ...) Just like, even just within the privatized sphere of the car itself, the substantially greater wear on tires and suspension (for similar reasons--weight) is well worth the benefits of needing no gas, oil, or transmission fluid, and having a vastly simplified drivetrain. In my old Altima, the last several repairs on it before I traded it in were the alternator, distributor, and transmission. Those don't even exist on the two EVs I've driven since then. Also, the weight differential isn't that extreme. My dual-motor Tesla (and the dual motor is substantially heavier than the single-motor variant, for obvious reasons) has a curb weight around 4,000 lbs, about the same as a regular (not extended cab or Super Cab) F-150. A Honda Accord would be about 3,300. A barebones Ford Explorer will be around 4,300.
July 5, 20231 yr 15 minutes ago, Gramarye said: "Save us" from what, specifically, though? Agreed they won't save us from road damage. But I would argue that road damage is an acceptable price to pay for the kinds of benefits we do get from electric cars. (Maybe we can even find a way to build more durable roads someday ...) Just like, even just within the privatized sphere of the car itself, the substantially greater wear on tires and suspension (for similar reasons--weight) is well worth the benefits of needing no gas, oil, or transmission fluid, and having a vastly simplified drivetrain. In my old Altima, the last several repairs on it before I traded it in were the alternator, distributor, and transmission. Those don't even exist on the two EVs I've driven since then. Also, the weight differential isn't that extreme. My dual-motor Tesla (and the dual motor is substantially heavier than the single-motor variant, for obvious reasons) has a curb weight around 4,000 lbs, about the same as a regular (not extended cab or Super Cab) F-150. A Honda Accord would be about 3,300. A barebones Ford Explorer will be around 4,300. People aren't replacing their F-150s with Tesla Model 3. They are replacing F-150s with the F-150 Lightning. So they are increasing the weight from 4,000 to 6,500 lbs. Hatchbacks and sedans are going from 3,000 to 4,000 lbs. every single vehicle will weigh more, which puts more wear and tear on the roads. The individual vehicle isn't the problem with weight in that regard, it's the cumulative impact of every vehicles weighting 30-40% more. In addition, the added weight creates more dangerous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians who are struck, and the added weight wears down the tires faster, which creates particulates in the air. Finally, the overarching problem with cars is that this does nothing to decrease actual miles driven, which increases the suburbanization (you can hold off on the scenario where no one owns a car and then rent communal cars, because I don't think that's going to catch on in suburbs). There was a glimmer of hope in my mind that as gas got more expensive, more people would value living downtown and in denser communities where you could walk to neighborhood business districts. But eliminating the choke point of gas prices makes that less likely to encourage densifying our communities. No tailpipe emissions is a small victory in the whole conversation.
July 5, 20231 yr 19 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: 42 minutes ago, Gramarye said: 1 hour ago, gildone said: Another reason electric cars won't save us: road damage. Note: I'm not against electric cars. I just think we need to be realistic about them: "Save us" from what, specifically, though? Agreed they won't save us from road damage. But I would argue that road damage is an acceptable price to pay for the kinds of benefits we do get from electric cars. (Maybe we can even find a way to build more durable roads someday ...) Just like, even just within the privatized sphere of the car itself, the substantially greater wear on tires and suspension (for similar reasons--weight) is well worth the benefits of needing no gas, oil, or transmission fluid, and having a vastly simplified drivetrain. In my old Altima, the last several repairs on it before I traded it in were the alternator, distributor, and transmission. Those don't even exist on the two EVs I've driven since then. Also, the weight differential isn't that extreme. My dual-motor Tesla (and the dual motor is substantially heavier than the single-motor variant, for obvious reasons) has a curb weight around 4,000 lbs, about the same as a regular (not extended cab or Super Cab) F-150. A Honda Accord would be about 3,300. A barebones Ford Explorer will be around 4,300. People aren't replacing their F-150s with Tesla Model 3. They are replacing F-150s with the F-150 Lightning. So they are increasing the weight from 4,000 to 6,500 lbs. Hatchbacks and sedans are going from 3,000 to 4,000 lbs. every single vehicle will weigh more, which puts more wear and tear on the roads. The individual vehicle isn't the problem with weight in that regard, it's the cumulative impact of every vehicles weighting 30-40% more. In addition, the added weight creates more dangerous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians who are struck, and the added weight wears down the tires faster, which creates particulates in the air. Finally, the overarching problem with cars is that this does nothing to decrease actual miles driven, which increases the suburbanization (you can hold off on the scenario where no one owns a car and then rent communal cars, because I don't think that's going to catch on in suburbs). There was a glimmer of hope in my mind that as gas got more expensive, more people would value living downtown and in denser communities where you could walk to neighborhood business districts. But eliminating the choke point of gas prices makes that less likely to encourage densifying our communities. No tailpipe emissions is a small victory in the whole conversation. Well, you're at least correct that the EV revolution will not decrease miles driven, or at least I'm certainly not arguing that they will--just the opposite. To the extent that that's your metric of success (the answer to my "save us from what?" question above), then that's justified. In fact, I've said earlier on these forums that the EV revolution is likely to be a Jevons Paradox for vehicle-miles traveled: make something cheaper and you tend to get more of it. And even with the more expensive suspension, tire, and road damage costs (which I'm sure will be internalized to drivers in some form or another), it's still cheaper than gas and all the other fluids and maintenance on an ICE vehicle. The kicker at the moment is still the moderately higher up-front costs of the car itself. But even if the costs were similar, I'd concede, just based on my own anecdotal experience, that EVs will likely increase vehicle-miles-traveled, simply because of how much more fun they make driving. I never really enjoyed driving until I had my EV. (And, full disclosure and full circle, it's not as subjectively amazing as it was then the car was new, admittedly.) I'm less concerned with the tire particulate concern--that's a really new thing and has struck me as really contrived so far, particularly vis-a-vis aerial particulates (as opposed to solid particles left behind on roads themselves).
July 12, 20231 yr 1 hour ago, gildone said: Worth noting: Also worth noting: lots of people are aware of that and think it is problematic. So there is a lot of research into batteries that are more energy dense (requiring less material) and that use more abundant materials than cobalt or lithium. Quote Most battery-powered devices, from smartphones and tablets to electric vehicles and energy storage systems, rely on lithium-ion battery technology. Because lithium-ion batteries are able to store a significant amount of energy in such a small package, charge quickly and last long, they became the battery of choice for new devices. But new battery technologies are being researched and developed to rival lithium-ion batteries in terms of efficiency, cost and sustainability. New Battery Technologies Solid-state batteries Lithium-sulfur batteries Cobalt-free lithium-ion batteries Sodium-ion batteries Iron-air batteries Zinc-based batteries Many of these new battery technologies aren’t necessarily reinventing the wheel when it comes to powering devices or storing energy. They work much like lithium-ion batteries do, just with different materials. https://builtin.com/hardware/new-battery-technologies
July 12, 20231 yr 58 minutes ago, Foraker said: Also worth noting: lots of people are aware of that and think it is problematic. So there is a lot of research into batteries that are more energy dense (requiring less material) and that use more abundant materials than cobalt or lithium. https://builtin.com/hardware/new-battery-technologies Lithium is actually very abundant. Regardless, the massive amount of mining necessary is problematic. It doesn't matter if there is research into other alternatives. They will require lots of mining and therefore lots of energy to make. The energy return on investment may be a little bit better than with lithium batteries, but it is unlikely to improve significantly. Net energy issues are not going to go away. The reality that is all too often avoided is that the only viable path forward civilization has is learning to get by with less total energy. In the 1960s we got by just fine and without sacrifice using 40% less energy than we do today. Edited July 12, 20231 yr by gildone
July 12, 20231 yr 24 minutes ago, gildone said: The reality that is all too often avoided is that the only viable path forward civilization has is learning to get by with less total energy. In the 1960s we got by just fine and without sacrifice using 40% less energy than we do today. No it isn't and no we didn't. The only viable path forward for civilization is to find ways of increasing energy availability that have the minimum adverse impact per unit of energy harvested. "Learning to get by" is an adaptation forced by scarcity, not a goal in itself. And waxing nostalgic for bygone times requires some serious rose-tinted glasses.
July 12, 20231 yr 38 minutes ago, gildone said: The reality that is all too often avoided is that the only viable path forward civilization has is learning to get by with less total energy. In the 1960s we got by just fine and without sacrifice using 40% less energy than we do today. 5 minutes ago, Gramarye said: The only viable path forward for civilization is to find ways of increasing energy availability that have the minimum adverse impact per unit of energy harvested. "Learning to get by" is an adaptation forced by scarcity, not a goal in itself. And waxing nostalgic for bygone times requires some serious rose-tinted glasses. If we could predict the future we'd all be rich (or at least the wealth would be more evenly distributed than it is with the current 1%). As I see it, our near-complete-reliance on personal vehicles that weigh thousands of pounds is a truly wasteful use of energy and materials, and I don't see it as being sustainable. But the US will continue on that path until it can't. We will continue to use more and more energy, no matter how stupid or wasteful that is, and we will continue to assume that technology will solve our problems (I remain skeptical of the promises of fusion power, and I am skeptical of nuclear power being helpful in a far warmer world than our nuclear plants were built for). Europe and Asia will continue to outpace us in energy efficiency and most Americans will continue not to care as long as THEIR lifestyle doesn't have to change. That will likely mean that great investments that should have happened two decades ago (Brightline in Florida, greater reliance on rail) will be underwater or melted in the heat the American failure to understand climate change is going to be hugely expensive (thankfully we have a huge economy but it's going to hurt). Europe and Asia will likely fair better (and worse, particularly in less wealthy countries that will struggle to adapt). We'll see -- Norway, a big oil producer, has really gone all-in on electric vehicles and big on wind power -- how will that work out for them?
July 12, 20231 yr 2 hours ago, gildone said: Lithium is actually very abundant. Regardless, the massive amount of mining necessary is problematic. It doesn't matter if there is research into other alternatives. They will require lots of mining and therefore lots of energy to make. The energy return on investment may be a little bit better than with lithium batteries, but it is unlikely to improve significantly. Net energy issues are not going to go away. The reality that is all too often avoided is that the only viable path forward civilization has is learning to get by with less total energy. In the 1960s we got by just fine and without sacrifice using 40% less energy than we do today. Switching to lithium from fossil fuels does reduce the total amount of energy being used because EV's are so much more efficient than ICE cars. Even if the grid is entirely coal-powered, there's a ~30% energy savings. There's also a huge mining savings because the mining to produce fossil fuels is endless, as the product is constantly being burned up, while lithium can be recycled and its batteries recharged (ie you're not injecting new lithium every refuel like you are with gasoline). There's also more than just research into alternatives. BYD (Chinese EV maker) is coming out with the Seagull model this year, which is available with Sodium Ion batteries. There are excellent alternatives to Cobalt already. LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate) is very popular now, uses no Cobalt, and has no risk of thermal runaway. Form Energy is building a plant to manufacture Iron-air batteries for grid storage, which would greatly reduce demand for lithium in these applications.
July 12, 20231 yr 55 minutes ago, Foraker said: If we could predict the future we'd all be rich (or at least the wealth would be more evenly distributed than it is with the current 1%). As I see it, our near-complete-reliance on personal vehicles that weigh thousands of pounds is a truly wasteful use of energy and materials, and I don't see it as being sustainable. But the US will continue on that path until it can't. We will continue to use more and more energy, no matter how stupid or wasteful that is, and we will continue to assume that technology will solve our problems (I remain skeptical of the promises of fusion power, and I am skeptical of nuclear power being helpful in a far warmer world than our nuclear plants were built for). Europe and Asia will continue to outpace us in energy efficiency and most Americans will continue not to care as long as THEIR lifestyle doesn't have to change. That will likely mean that great investments that should have happened two decades ago (Brightline in Florida, greater reliance on rail) will be underwater or melted in the heat the American failure to understand climate change is going to be hugely expensive (thankfully we have a huge economy but it's going to hurt). Europe and Asia will likely fair better (and worse, particularly in less wealthy countries that will struggle to adapt). We'll see -- Norway, a big oil producer, has really gone all-in on electric vehicles and big on wind power -- how will that work out for them? Are you implying that you're skeptical that wind power and EVs will work out for them, because the only thing that matters is the ultimate sin that they're cars at all, no matter the powertrain? If so, why does it matter whether Norway is also a major oil producer? Wouldn't you be saying the same thing if it were oil-poor Japan? As for relying on technology: There are some problems that cannot be solved by technology. But energy isn't one of them. How far back in energy technological evolution do you want to drag us? Coal? Wood? Oxen? It is the technological developments of the last 20 years that have made both EVs viable and sustainable generation of the amounts of power necessary for them feasible. Why should we assume anything other than that both of those technological development curves (energy and vehicles) have a good deal of life left? The internal-combustion engine might be nearing maturity, but the modern generation of electric motors hasn't. Likewise on the generation side: You can go back to the late 2000s even on these boards and find threads about how prohibitively expensive and inefficient solar power was. A great deal has changed in the last 15 years, and while we might not have similarly exponential price-performance improvements over the next 15, that curve still has life left as well. I get the feeling that 50,000 years from now, we'll be building a Dyson sphere around the Sun and you'll still be here on these boards talking about how technology won't solve our energy problems.
July 12, 20231 yr So people walking, living closer to work, school and shopping and using transit like they did in the '60s is "going backward"? Forward is even more sitting behind windshields? Awesome, sign me up.
July 12, 20231 yr 2 hours ago, gildone said: In the 1960s we got by just fine and without sacrifice using 40% less energy than we do today. Source? Or is this just not per Capita? We have 65% more people than 1965 (and 77% from 1960), consumption per Capita looks to be about flat from the mid 1960's and has been on a consistent downward trend this millennium. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&time=earliest..2021&country=~USA https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
July 12, 20231 yr 12 minutes ago, GCrites said: So people walking, living closer to work, school and shopping and using transit like they did in the '60s is "going backward"? Forward is even more sitting behind windshields? Awesome, sign me up. I'm shopping on Amazon on my other monitor as I read this. (It's Prime Day!) My commute to shopping barely involves turning my head. I'm all for "walking, living closer to work, school, and shopping (especially online shopping!) and using transit." But we were talking more broadly about energy utilization. The question isn't whether we could save energy by walking, living closer to work, etc. It's whether we would still use that energy, and more, to do other things. And there is a very high historic correlation between civilizational energy use and living standards, notwithstanding the chart that @Ethan just posted.
July 12, 20231 yr 40 minutes ago, Gramarye said: I'm shopping on Amazon on my other monitor as I read this. (It's Prime Day!) My commute to shopping barely involves turning my head. I'm all for "walking, living closer to work, school, and shopping (especially online shopping!) and using transit." But we were talking more broadly about energy utilization. The question isn't whether we could save energy by walking, living closer to work, etc. It's whether we would still use that energy, and more, to do other things. And there is a very high historic correlation between civilizational energy use and living standards, notwithstanding the chart that @Ethan just posted. NYTimes has a podcast about one of my favorite places as an example of sustainability. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/20/podcasts/the-daily/uruguay-sustainable-living.html?smid=url-share. I fell in love with Uruguay when I visited last year. Part of their sustainability is their use of renewables and more natural agriculture, but another part of that sustainability is their less materialistic culture. I felt that culture when I was there. There was definitely as sense that people valued human interaction more than flash and status (the foreigners of Punta aside). The parks were always busy with people drinking maté and enjoying each others company. My feeling is that even if we do all the right things regarding our energy production, we won't really be able to sustain our living standards unless we take a hard look at what we value. Buying a brand new car might improve your happiness for a week or maybe a month, but it soon becomes just a car after those first few weeks. A bigger house might be a dream, but lots of big houses are mostly empty with seldom used spaces. Two people living in a 4500 sq' house might actually occupy only 1500 sq' on a regular basis. Is having more than we use a real benefit or does having more than we need just make us all poorer. I'm always amused when I hear about the number of people with six figure incomes who live paycheck to paycheck (outside CA/NY). How much stuff does it take to be happy? Is there a better way?
July 12, 20231 yr 1 hour ago, Gramarye said: Are you implying that you're skeptical that wind power and EVs will work out for them, because the only thing that matters is the ultimate sin that they're cars at all, no matter the powertrain? If so, why does it matter whether Norway is also a major oil producer? Wouldn't you be saying the same thing if it were oil-poor Japan? As for relying on technology: There are some problems that cannot be solved by technology. But energy isn't one of them. How far back in energy technological evolution do you want to drag us? Coal? Wood? Oxen? It is the technological developments of the last 20 years that have made both EVs viable and sustainable generation of the amounts of power necessary for them feasible. Why should we assume anything other than that both of those technological development curves (energy and vehicles) have a good deal of life left? The internal-combustion engine might be nearing maturity, but the modern generation of electric motors hasn't. Likewise on the generation side: You can go back to the late 2000s even on these boards and find threads about how prohibitively expensive and inefficient solar power was. A great deal has changed in the last 15 years, and while we might not have similarly exponential price-performance improvements over the next 15, that curve still has life left as well. I get the feeling that 50,000 years from now, we'll be building a Dyson sphere around the Sun and you'll still be here on these boards talking about how technology won't solve our energy problems. I think you're mixing my comments with someone else's. I'm not saying that we need to go back to burning wood for energy, and I wouldn't want to. In fact, I think energy use is going to continue to increase (probably at a slower rate for the US than for the developing world). And solar and wind aren't going to fill even the current need for a long time -- at least not in the US where we are resisting adoption. (We're giving Europe a big leg up by letting them transition most of their energy needs away from fossil fuels first.) I'm not saying we should ban cars or that EVs are not a great technological improvement. Rather, I'm saying that everyone needing a car for every trip from home in the US's car-centered transportation system is very energy inefficient -- from the energy used to produce and operate so many cars to the wear on our roads that we have to maintain. We know that streetcars are more efficient than cars -- but rather than run a system of streetcars around the core of the 3Cs we worry about whether there's enough parking (and yeah, it makes no sense to build a streetcar out to Huntington, Ohio any time soon) -- or whether apartment owners should be required to have EV-charging hookups. We should both embrace EVs, encourage their improvement, and find ways to reduce the need for individual vehicles in dense urban areas -- to make the most efficient use of our transportation energy budget. That energy would be put to better use in other ways, and cities in Asia and Europe have demonstrated that you can have a high quality of life without everyone needing to have a car for every trip. Those lessons might not apply to every place in the US, but there are certainly lessons to be learned for our dense urban cores. Cars still have their place, and EVs are the future of cars and getting better all the time (thank you technology!) Lighter would be better, and that may come over time. My comment also was meant to convey that Americans never seem to think that there could be better ways to live their lives than in a car-dependent lifestyle. In part because so few Americans get out and see the world. As for relying on technology, my point was that most Americans are content to sit back and wait for someone else to solve their problems so that they don't have to change how they live their lives. 120F temperatures? Surely some engineer will come up with an A/C solution so I can still live here in the desert and continue to grill on my back patio, right? I'm not an anti-technology luddite, I just don't see the US adopting different forms of energy fast enough for climate change to not devastate large parts of the US. I don't see fusion energy as a near-term success story, and last summer's shutdown of many of France's nuclear plants due to high water temperatures seemed to validate my concerns about our current nuclear plants. I do foresee better cars, better A/C units, better communication networks, better insulation, better robotics for all kinds of things, better solar and other electrical generation and storage solutions (distributed storage will be important for renewables and I'm a proponent of home-based or neighborhood-based energy storage (flow cells are an interesting technology) -- no more widespread blackouts!), better wind energy and wave energy and on an on -- technology has done a lot to improve our quality of life and will continue to do so. Mostly slowly, incrementally, over a long time horizon. But sometimes quickly, as computers and the internet have done in my lifetime (although development of the computer was pretty slow pre-1990). Sadly, none of us will live long enough to live in the dyson sphere. That would be cool.
July 19, 20231 yr Ohio announced 27 new EV chargers along highways: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/07/17/state-officials-announce-27-ev-charging-stations-along-ohio-freeways/?fbclid=IwAR1sQNVwgGmA3WJvE--RfoN-Q5KoRkipSU58NoYrPamBwPU_IkxCgdqQOro Glad to see this happening, especially along I-71. While our EV will easily make the the monthly trek from Granville to Cincinnati, it's still makes us a bit nervous knowing we have to rely on two Electrify America stations to make it back home the same day. Having more options is nice, especially long trips. Now West Virginia needs to get its act together. There are several 62kW chargers along US 33 in Ohio - while okay, some higher-powered options would be nice. West Virginia by comparison has a total of THREE non-Tesla 62kW chargers in central/western parts of the state - and nothing faster than that. We considered taking the EV to Asheville earlier this year, the only way to make it would have been via Cincinnati. If we take the EV to Washington next month, it will have to be via Pennsylvania.
July 19, 20231 yr My thoughts exactly on I-71 and West Virginia. I was thinking of traveling from Cleveland to Cincinnati in a few weeks and was surprised how little charging was available between Cincinnati and Columbus on I-71. West Virginia likewise ruins traveling anywhere South in my EV. Maybe the new charger south of Cambridge on I-77 will help a bit, but I think getting NACS compatibility in my Mach-E next year will be the quickest solution to traveling through or to WV.
July 19, 20231 yr 44 minutes ago, Dev said: I cynically predicted this years ago: That conservatives would come around to embrace EVs just as progressives were finding ways sour on them. I try to resist the even further level of cynicism that would ask me to believe that the two are causally connected. 26 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: Instead of going all in on EV's they really need to push the hybrids more. Hard pass on that. Hybrids give you all the moving parts (and thus all the mechanical inefficiencies and maintenance headaches of an ICE vehicle) without giving you a particularly good EV to go with it. Two mediocre cars occupying the same physical space do not make one good car. 2 hours ago, mrCharlie said: Ohio announced 27 new EV chargers along highways: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/07/17/state-officials-announce-27-ev-charging-stations-along-ohio-freeways/?fbclid=IwAR1sQNVwgGmA3WJvE--RfoN-Q5KoRkipSU58NoYrPamBwPU_IkxCgdqQOro Glad to see this happening, especially along I-71. While our EV will easily make the the monthly trek from Granville to Cincinnati, it's still makes us a bit nervous knowing we have to rely on two Electrify America stations to make it back home the same day. Having more options is nice, especially long trips. Now West Virginia needs to get its act together. There are several 62kW chargers along US 33 in Ohio - while okay, some higher-powered options would be nice. West Virginia by comparison has a total of THREE non-Tesla 62kW chargers in central/western parts of the state - and nothing faster than that. We considered taking the EV to Asheville earlier this year, the only way to make it would have been via Cincinnati. If we take the EV to Washington next month, it will have to be via Pennsylvania. Glad to see this happening as well, along both I-71 and I-70 (though I respect that I-77 and I-75 are getting even more love, just because they were a bit behind the curve and need to catch up). Also, found a better list of the stations: https://www.scribd.com/document/658909982/Ohio-announces-locations-for-interstate-electric-vehicle-charging-stations# Still having trouble processing that the "Pilot" stations are actually Flying J half the time or more, even though that merger was a long time ago now. Can't believe that my old Flying J in Kirkersville is one of the stops! That's some major cognitive dissonance there, NGL. Interesting tidbit from the article relevant to an idea I'd been harboring for a long while: Quote Although the Ohio Turnpike has begun building out EV charging infrastructure at its rest stops, DeWine explained federal limits on privatization bar the state from doing something similar along the interstate. “Maybe Congress could look at that,” DeWine said. This bothers me because already-existing rest stops seem like an obvious place to add EV charging infrastructure on the highway. I wonder where this prohibition is actually squirreled away.
July 19, 20231 yr 13 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: Instead of going all in on EV's they really need to push the hybrids more. We have both (had the hybrid first), its a perfect two-car garages since both are great at different things. The real shame is that plug-in hybrids aren't more popular. Something with about 40 miles of range would be sufficient for most people's daily needs, with the ability to travel indefinitely on gasoline for long trips. These also help with constrained battery manufacturing capacity, since the batteries in one EV can make several plug-ins. On the other hand, a conventional hybrid is lighter and generally better to drive. That lightness also gets you a few more MPG on long trips, once the battery is depleted. A standard hybrid or plug-in also has the same maintenance needs as any ICE car. It's a very weird feeling with our i4 knowing the only maintenance is rotating the tires ever 10k miles, and charging the brake fluid every two years. We spend around $12/month charging so far.
July 19, 20231 yr 7 minutes ago, Gramarye said: I cynically predicted this years ago: That conservatives would come around to embrace EVs just as progressives were finding ways sour on them. I try to resist the even further level of cynicism that would ask me to believe that the two are causally connected. I've said for awhile that there are certain types of politicians and activists whose gripe is not with ICE, but with private transportation, since it allows individuals to ignore and evade social controls. On the other hand, a liberal FB friend recently announced she is trading in her "MAGA mobile" for a different brand of EV. I didn't bother pointing out that Elon is more of a DeSantis backer, the only thing he really has in common with annoying orange is they both love to troll. I do wonder if the increasing conservative embrace of EVs has anything to do with the maker of the best of them's political evolution.
July 19, 20231 yr 5 minutes ago, mrCharlie said: We have both (had the hybrid first), its a perfect two-car garages since both are great at different things. The real shame is that plug-in hybrids aren't more popular. Something with about 40 miles of range would be sufficient for most people's daily needs, with the ability to travel indefinitely on gasoline for long trips. These also help with constrained battery manufacturing capacity, since the batteries in one EV can make several plug-ins. On the other hand, a conventional hybrid is lighter and generally better to drive. That lightness also gets you a few more MPG on long trips, once the battery is depleted. A standard hybrid or plug-in also has the same maintenance needs as any ICE car. It's a very weird feeling with our i4 knowing the only maintenance is rotating the tires ever 10k miles, and charging the brake fluid every two years. We spend around $12/month charging so far. Instead of going all in on EV, if they really pushed hybrids, it would allow the EV infrastructure to be built up more before going all EV. People with hybrids would install the chargers and it would create more demand for them at places and still allow people the freedom to take long trips without fear of not being able to charge their battery. It would offer a good bridge
July 19, 20231 yr 52 minutes ago, mrCharlie said: The real shame is that plug-in hybrids aren't more popular. Something with about 40 miles of range would be sufficient for most people's daily needs, with the ability to travel indefinitely on gasoline for long trips. These also help with constrained battery manufacturing capacity, since the batteries in one EV can make several plug-ins. On the other hand, a conventional hybrid is lighter and generally better to drive. That lightness also gets you a few more MPG on long trips, once the battery is depleted. A standard hybrid or plug-in also has the same maintenance needs as any ICE car. It's a very weird feeling with our i4 knowing the only maintenance is rotating the tires ever 10k miles, and charging the brake fluid every two years. We spend around $12/month charging so far. Good to hear some positive experiences. If "something with about 40 miles of range" is sufficient, just think how useful a vehicle with say, 80 miles of range would be -- lighter, cheaper, and you should still get 40m of range even in the winter for many years even as the cold saps the battery and the capacity drops with age. The drive to "match" ICE ranges really drives up the weight and the cost and just isn't necessary.
July 19, 20231 yr 18 minutes ago, Foraker said: Good to hear some positive experiences. If "something with about 40 miles of range" is sufficient, just think how useful a vehicle with say, 80 miles of range would be -- lighter, cheaper, and you should still get 40m of range even in the winter for many years even as the cold saps the battery and the capacity drops with age. The drive to "match" ICE ranges really drives up the weight and the cost and just isn't necessary. It's not necessary for most daily drives. But that's like saying a flimsy roof is OK because it only blows off in a high wind a few times every year, and it's perfectly fine the other 360. You don't need to engineer for every possible contingency (no engineer can do that even with an infinite budget), but you engineer for a pragmatic prediction of maximum need. (If you're designing something like a bridge or a load-bearing component of a building, you engineer well beyond that.) I've had a vehicle with 90 miles of range. That was my 2013 Nissan LEAF, which I traded in in 2018 when I got my Tesla. I guarantee you that if that were still the peak of American EV capability, they would still be much less than 1% of new vehicle sales, just as they were then. You think 90 miles sounds like a lot, but counting range depletion from climate control and operating environment, and it could not reliably get from Akron to Cleveland and back on a full charge in anything but the most ideal operating environments (say maybe 60-75 degrees). And it was otherwise a really nice car. I had a lot of fun driving that thing, honestly. But my lifestyle is overwhelmingly local, and I'm married and in a family that can comfortably support two vehicles, so it wasn't that inconvenient to borrow my wife's car when I needed to go to Columbus. In the Tesla, I was able to three-hop (charging twice) going to Boston last fall to see my grandmother.
July 19, 20231 yr 12 minutes ago, Gramarye said: I've had a vehicle with 90 miles of range. That was my 2013 Nissan LEAF, which I traded in in 2018 when I got my Tesla. I guarantee you that if that were still the peak of American EV capability, they would still be much less than 1% of new vehicle sales, just as they were then. You think 90 miles sounds like a lot, but counting range depletion from climate control and operating environment, and it could not reliably get from Akron to Cleveland and back on a full charge in anything but the most ideal operating environments (say maybe 60-75 degrees). And it was otherwise a really nice car. I had a lot of fun driving that thing, honestly. But my lifestyle is overwhelmingly local, and I'm married and in a family that can comfortably support two vehicles, so it wasn't that inconvenient to borrow my wife's car when I needed to go to Columbus. In the Tesla, I was able to three-hop (charging twice) going to Boston last fall to see my grandmother. I'm not saying that we should only have 90 miles of range in every car, but particularly in 2-car families many, many people would have more than enough range at that distance. I drive about less than 20 miles per day, round trip, on my commute. Tesla's prices aren't affordable (yet) for most Americans; and I think that something "less" would be a great second car. The Leaf is still near $30k, not that much cheaper than a base Model 3 at around $38k (and both also come with a one-time expense of installing a home charger -- assuming you own a home -- not sure what you do if you're renting; petition your landlord). The median household income in Ohio is only $65k. My point is that there's not enough competition for sub-$30k EVs. I agree that the Tesla has set the standard and at that price point and this point in EV development, the Model 3 is pretty amazing. But that doesn't it make it universally affordable. And a car is near-universally "necessary" in most of Ohio.
July 19, 20231 yr 5 hours ago, mrCharlie said: Ohio announced 27 new EV chargers along highways: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/07/17/state-officials-announce-27-ev-charging-stations-along-ohio-freeways/?fbclid=IwAR1sQNVwgGmA3WJvE--RfoN-Q5KoRkipSU58NoYrPamBwPU_IkxCgdqQOro No love for South Central Ohio again. Chillicothe has 3 then SSU then I think you have to go all the way to Marshall or Benjy's Harley-Davidson in Huntington. Maybe OU-Ironton?
August 8, 20231 yr https://insideevs.com/news/680467/global-ev-sales-june2023-plugin-cars/amp/ YTD in 2023, more than 5.8m EVs have been sold. That's some 15% of the total market. In June, EVs captured some 19% market share. A lot of the "EV sales are plateauing" takes aren't aging well. Very Stable Genius
August 16, 20231 yr Vietnamese EV manufacturer VinFast is currently worth more than Ford and GM combined.
August 16, 20231 yr 6 minutes ago, GCrites said: Vietnamese EV manufacturer VinFast is currently worth more than Ford and GM combined. Company stock valuations are wild to me…
August 16, 20231 yr 20 minutes ago, GCrites said: Vietnamese EV manufacturer VinFast is currently worth more than Ford and GM combined. Ford market cap - 47.57 billion GM market cap - 45.31 billion VinFast market cap - 67.46 billion
August 16, 20231 yr 14 minutes ago, Enginerd said: Company stock valuations are wild to me… Hope Springs Eternal...
August 16, 20231 yr Just now, Balkmusic said: Ford market cap - 47.57 billion GM market cap - 45.31 billion VinFast market cap - 67.46 billion Based on reviews of their cars, I’d short that stock. They are not ready for prime time
August 16, 20231 yr 4 hours ago, Balkmusic said: Ford market cap - 47.57 billion GM market cap - 45.31 billion VinFast market cap - 67.46 billion Oops, I was going on yesterday's VinFast market cap of $85 billion: https://www.autonews.com/manufacturing/how-vinfasts-market-value-passed-ford-gm?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230816&utm_content=hero-headline
September 6, 20231 yr On 7/12/2023 at 1:41 PM, Ethan said: Source? Or is this just not per Capita? We have 65% more people than 1965 (and 77% from 1960), consumption per Capita looks to be about flat from the mid 1960's and has been on a consistent downward trend this millennium. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&time=earliest..2021&country=~USA https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/ Apologies for the late reply. Been busy with other things. I got it from this article that resulted from an interview with energy analyst Prof. Vaclav Smil: https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/02/27/1964-Energy-World/ . I believe he is referring to energy use at the household level. A lot of the per capita energy use decline in North America has come from things like the loss of our industrial base, more energy efficiency in the industrial sector that has remained, more efficient commercial buildings, etc. And yes, I know homes and home HVAC systems are more energy efficient now than back then, but again, I think Smil is arguing that households are using more energy overall: larger homes (avg home size in 1970: 1,500 sq ft, today 2,600 sq ft), more electronics and appliances; bigger, less fuel-efficient SUVs and trucks, more VMTs per household. Regardless, I repeat that everyone in this conversation has been ignoring net energy. As for @Gramarye, let's find more productive ways to converse with each other rather than behavior like accusing me of waxing nostalgic.
September 6, 20231 yr 3 hours ago, gildone said: Apologies for the late reply. Been busy with other things. I got it from this article that resulted from an interview with energy analyst Prof. Vaclav Smil: https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/02/27/1964-Energy-World/ . I believe he is referring to energy use at the household level. A lot of the per capita energy use decline in North America has come from things like the loss of our industrial base, more energy efficiency in the industrial sector that has remained, more efficient commercial buildings, etc. And yes, I know homes and home HVAC systems are more energy efficient now than back then, but again, I think Smil is arguing that households are using more energy overall: larger homes (avg home size in 1970: 1,500 sq ft, today 2,600 sq ft), more electronics and appliances; bigger, less fuel-efficient SUVs and trucks, more VMTs per household. Regardless, I repeat that everyone in this conversation has been ignoring net energy. As for @Gramarye, let's find more productive ways to converse with each other rather than behavior like accusing me of waxing nostalgic. Your theory seems plausible, though I'm not sure how effectively your source actually makes your point. I'm not much of one for words, here's (some of) the relevant data. As you can see US energy use per capital is decreasing. Your theory (as I understand it) is that we are off shoring our manufacturing and artificially lowering our energy use numbers. This is almost certainly happening to at least some extent, and the numbers for China definitely make it look like that's what's happening, but I don't think it accounts for the largest share of what's really happening. The other thing to consider is that energy use per capita increases as people move out of poverty. I think that's most of what's happening. For instance, I think it's interesting that per capita energy consumption in Mexico hasn't increased even though we've certainly sent some of our production down there. (It's also worth noting China was dirt poor in 1990) Here's GDP per capita over time. with the exception of the The United States. The graphs look pretty similar. You can play around with these and add more countries if you like. In general, rich countries are getting richer without increasing their energy consumption per capita (and in most cases decreasing it) while poor countries are using more energy as they get richer. While some of that is likely from outsourcing, it certainly isn't 1 to 1. A lot of what's happening is poor people getting access to temperature controlled living* and the ability to go where they want when they want. For the most part global energy consumption is going up because people are moving out of abject poverty and into the comforts of modern living. *If you doubt how much of energy use is temperature control, throw Iceland or the UAE on the graph. Density and mild temperatures (e.g. Western Europe) are great for keeping energy use comparatively low in spite of wealth. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&country=USA~OWID_WRL~CHN~MEX~IND~DEU~SAU~ISL~AUS~ARE~GBR~FIN~POL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?tab=chart
September 6, 20231 yr @EthanPer capita energy use and per household energy use are different metrics. I thought I was pretty clear that the article was talking about per household. Per capita looks at all energy use divided by population. Per household is just that. Use at the household level only. Smil was refererring to households in N. America, well, the US and Canada, really. If you have data specific to US and Canadian households over the past 50 or so years, not per capita, let's discuss. And still, the net energy issue I brought up in my original post is being avoided. I can only conclude that either no one knows what it means or no one wants to talk about it. Suffice it to say, the net energy issue means that we aren't going to be able to indefinitely run things the way we have been, including our car-based transportation system Edited September 6, 20231 yr by gildone Spelling, additional thought.
September 6, 20231 yr Just now, gildone said: @EthanPer capita energy use and per household energy use are different metrics. I thought I was pretty clear that the article was talking about per household. Per capita looks at all energy use divided by population. Per household is just that. Use at the household level only. Smil was refererring to households in N. America, well, the US and Canada, really. If you have data specific to US and Canadian households over the past 50 or so years, not per capita, let's discuss. And still, the net energy issue I brought uo in my original post is being avoided. Because you're bringing up distinctions without a difference. you're claiming household energy use is going up, while industrial is going down (due to outsourcing), and per capita is going down? Great, re read my post, because that is the theory I addressed throughout! You never backed up your claim with numbers that household energy use is going up. It isn't my job to find numbers that support your point. I found actual data (not an opinion piece article) that contradicts what you said. Find me real numbers backing your claim and we can continue discussing this. And my whole post was addressing net energy, so I don't understand your complaint. There's no more net energy than energy use of the whole world.
September 6, 20231 yr 8 minutes ago, gildone said: @EthanPer capita energy use and per household energy use are different metrics. I thought I was pretty clear that the article was talking about per household. Per capita looks at all energy use divided by population. Per household is just that. Use at the household level only. Quote The average U.S. household consumes about 11,000 kilowatthours (kWh) per year. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/electricity-use-in-homes.php Adding an electric vehicle to the mix -- Quote According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Americans drive on average, 13,476 miles per year, or 36.92 miles per day. Using the average EV’s energy consumption, a home EV charger would use around 11.81 kWh per day to charge the car to replenish the range driven. This translates to about 353.3 kWh per month and 4,310.65 kWh per year. In other words, the average EV will increase an average American household's annual electricity use by nearly 40%.
Create an account or sign in to comment