@Ethan You are trying to contradict my point by using a different metric that doesn't measure what's being discussed. It is possible for household use to go up while per capita use goes down because of other overall changes in energy use in the economy, only some of which I mentioned.

 

 Smil's point is that household energy use has gone up since 1964.  Smil is a respected energy analyst, so that's the reference we have for the moment until someone can come up with specific per household data over time.  @Foraker provided current household use in the US, so we are part way there. I've tried to find historical household use and will look some more, but I am also willing to concede to Smil, because, unlike us  he actually has expertise. 

 

As for net energy, let me explain.  The net energy concept has to do with how much energy we are expending to get usable energy and what's left over for use in the economy after that happens. Net energy, or energy returned on energy invested,  in this respect has been declining for decades.  Example: In the 1930s oil wells returned 100X the energy it took to get the oil out of the ground.  It's now down to 17:1 to 30:1 depending on the source you read.   The same thing has happened with natural gas and coal. 

 

Right now we are using fossil fuel energy to build up renewable energy, but the ongoing net energy decline combined with coming global oil production declines is going to overtake aggregate energy production, unless we figure out fusion (if that happens, we're in good shape). This is the problem that is not going to go away and why electric cars aren't going to do much for us in the long run. 

 

 

Edited September 6, 20231 yr by gildone
Clarity, account for another post before this one

1 hour ago, gildone said:

@Ethan You are trying to contradict my point by using a different metric that doesn't measure what's being discussed. It is possible for household use to go up while per capita use goes down because of other overall changes in energy use in the economy, only some of which I mentioned.

 

 Smil's point is that household energy use has gone up since 1964.  Smil is a respected energy analyst, so that's the reference we have for the moment until someone can come up with specific per household data over time.  @Foraker provided current household use in the US, so we are part way there. I've tried to find historical household use and will look some more, but I am also willing to concede to Smil, because, unlike us  he actually has expertise. 

 

As for net energy, let me explain.  The net energy concept has to do with how much energy we are expending to get usable energy and what's left over for use in the economy after that happens. Net energy, or energy returned on energy invested,  in this respect has been declining for decades.  Example: In the 1930s oil wells returned 100X the energy it took to get the oil out of the ground.  It's now down to 17:1 to 30:1 depending on the source you read.   The same thing has happened with natural gas and coal. 

 

Right now we are using fossil fuel energy to build up renewable energy, but the ongoing net energy decline combined with coming global oil production declines is going to overtake aggregate energy production, unless we figure out fusion (if that happens, we're in good shape). This is the problem that is not going to go away and why electric cars aren't going to do much for us in the long run. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure I follow the importance of net energy when talking about renewable energy.  There is plenty of energy resource available with the sun, wind, geothermal, etc. and it's far more important to avoid burning fossil fuels than to maximize energy returned per energy used.

 

Energy consumption per household has dropped from over 100 million BTU per household per year to under 80 million BTU per household per year in the last 30 years (It took some digging through here to find that info: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/index.php?view=consumption).  I don't believe any of that data includes vehicle energy, which I believe is relatively constant, with increases in VMT and vehicle size cancelled out by an increase in fuel efficiency.  But it does include all household energy, which is lost in looking at just electrical usage.

 

Electrification will further bring down usage per household because electrical technologies are inherently more efficient.  heat pump heating/cooling, water heating, and clothes washing are all much more efficient than their gas and electrical resistance counterparts, just like electric vehicles are much more energy efficient than gasoline vehicles.  So transitions to those technologies will have massive benefits before even taking into account a transition to cleaner electricity.

 

I totally agree with your opposition to the American car culture at the expense of mass transportation, and we definitely need to start producing smaller, lighter cars and driving less overall, but I just don't agree with what you're saying about energy on the whole.

@acd,  thanks for this.  I'd like to know more about that data Vaclav Smil used, but we are unlikely to get it. I'm still willing to consider his thesis since he spent a career studying energy, and we're just amateurs. 

 

One area may be electronics which households have a lot more of today, and which contain a lot of embodied energy. E.g. one laptop requires 40,000 lbs of resource through-put to make. That's a lot of embodied energy. Cell phones would have substantial resource through-put too. 

 

Net energy matters because renewables have net energy issues too, and it's net energy that runs society, not gross energy produced. Net energy overall continues to decline. 

 

As I said, fusion would change the equation, but fusion has been 30 years away since the 70s.  

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, gildone said:

@acd,  thanks for this.  I'd like to know more about that data Vaclav Smil used, but we are unlikely to get it. I'm still willing to consider his thesis since he spent a career studying energy, and we're just amateurs. 

 

One area may be electronics which households have a lot more of today, and which contain a lot of embodied energy. E.g. one laptop requires 40,000 lbs of resource through-put to make. That's a lot of embodied energy. Cell phones would have substantial resource through-put too. 

 

Net energy matters because renewables have net energy issues too, and it's net energy that runs society, not gross energy produced. Net energy overall continues to decline. 

 

As I said, fusion would change the equation, but fusion has been 30 years away since the 70s.  

 

 

 

 

 

Resource through-put is not the same as embodied energy.  The embodied energy would be the amount of energy used to get through the 40,000 lbs to get the necessary materials to make the laptop.  I'd imagine machinery can move 40,000 lbs pretty efficiently, and I'd assume the number 40,000 pounds gets thrown out there because it sounds big.

 

I'm unconvinced that net energy matters.  Solar panels return 14-27 times the energy invested in making, mounting, and recycling them (https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2019/04/09/good-news-rooftot-home-batteries/) and I'm supposed to believe that is worse than getting 100 times the energy from oil that is put into extracting it (where did this number come from by the way?)?  As the grid gets cleaner and extraction technologies are electrified, we'll be increasingly using carbon-free energy to produce more carbon-free energy with a downward-trending price per unit energy (because wind and solar are both on long-term learning curves).  I think the essentially unlimited quantity of the energy resource (compared the fossil fuels) and the constantly improving economics of manufacturing more solar and wind kind of decouple renewable energy from the conventional thinking on energy extraction.

16 hours ago, acd said:

Resource through-put is not the same as embodied energy

I know. I never said it was.

 

As for net energy, it still matters for renewables. The energy return figures are debatable  Others put it at a lot less. Then there is the energy density issue. Fossil fuels are very energy dense and renewables don't match it. There are other considerations too, like the ecologically sensitive high mojave desert in Nevada is likely to be torn up for lithium. Part of Portugal too. A huge part of Bolivia is now.  Lithium mining isn't clean. We're already  in the middle of the 6th Great Extinction. We nees to lighten our ecological footprint substantially. Turning over the existing car fleet to electric isn't going to do that.  You've agreed we need to dive less. As driving is a substantial portion of our energy use, then it appears you agree that ee need to dial down our energy use, thoigh we disagree on degree.

 

Oil's net energy return was 100:1 in the 1930s (It's a well known figure) today it's 17:1 to 30:1 depending upon who you read. 

53 minutes ago, gildone said:

I know. I never said it was.

 

As for net energy, it still matters for renewables. The energy return figures are debatable  Others put it at a lot less. Then there is the energy density issue. Fossil fuels are very energy dense and renewables don't match it. There are other considerations too, like the ecologically sensitive high mojave desert in Nevada is likely to be torn up for lithium. Part of Portugal too. A huge part of Bolivia is now.  Lithium mining isn't clean. We're already  in the middle of the 6th Great Extinction. We nees to lighten our ecological footprint substantially. Turning over the existing car fleet to electric isn't going to do that.  You've agreed we need to dive less. As driving is a substantial portion of our energy use, then it appears you agree that ee need to dial down our energy use, thoigh we disagree on degree.

 

Oil's net energy return was 100:1 in the 1930s (It's a well known figure) today it's 17:1 to 30:1 depending upon who you read. 

“Then there is the energy density issue. Fossil fuels are very energy dense and renewables don't match it.” Usage of this line is a pet peeve - talking about the energy density of fossil fuels is irrelevant if we don’t also include that you need a big, heavy, inefficient IC engine to convert that energy. The conversion from IC to EV cars is extremely important for meeting our climate goals, and I find it frustrating that some people are acting like there isn’t benefit to this conversion. We need improvements in many areas, and it seems like many climate activists are hung up on “EVs aren’t the answer” instead of “here are the other additional things we need to be doing”. EVs are really really great! (Big stupid Hummer EVs are terrible.) I think we can advocate for walkable communities, transit investments, and e-bike subsidies without criticizing EVs.

 

If we’re discussing lithium mining not being clean, we have to keep in mind that petroleum extraction is every bit as dirty, and has the added distinction of being horrible for the environment when we burn it. Lithium is a big improvement over what it is replacing! And industrial grade batteries for grid storage do not have to be energy dense, so I fully expect different battery chemicals to be used for that going forward, allowing lithium usage to be primarily for mobile devices where the weight is critical (both electronics and cars).

21 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

If we’re discussing lithium mining not being clean, we have to keep in mind that petroleum extraction is every bit as dirty, and has the added distinction of being horrible for the environment when we burn it. Lithium is a big improvement over what it is replacing! And industrial grade batteries for grid storage do not have to be energy dense, so I fully expect different battery chemicals to be used for that going forward, allowing lithium usage to be primarily for mobile devices where the weight is critical (both electronics and cars).

Liquid flow batteries are in the early stages of development, too, and will only improve over time.  But already they have one big advantage -- low to no fire risk, albeit with some disadvantages, too, like slow discharge (but maybe we'll develop new capacitors to address that).  You're probably right that fixed locations like substations, factories, and homes will someday all have liquid-based batteries for electricity storage.

 

For the mobile market, there is a lot of research into new batteries that use less or no lithium.  As those technologies mature, we may be able to "mine" old lithium batteries for the lithium and use it to make many multiples of new batteries.

 

 

2 hours ago, gildone said:

I know. I never said it was.

 

As for net energy, it still matters for renewables. The energy return figures are debatable  Others put it at a lot less. Then there is the energy density issue. Fossil fuels are very energy dense and renewables don't match it. There are other considerations too, like the ecologically sensitive high mojave desert in Nevada is likely to be torn up for lithium. Part of Portugal too. A huge part of Bolivia is now.  Lithium mining isn't clean. We're already  in the middle of the 6th Great Extinction. We nees to lighten our ecological footprint substantially. Turning over the existing car fleet to electric isn't going to do that.  You've agreed we need to dive less. As driving is a substantial portion of our energy use, then it appears you agree that ee need to dial down our energy use, thoigh we disagree on degree.

 

Oil's net energy return was 100:1 in the 1930s (It's a well known figure) today it's 17:1 to 30:1 depending upon who you read. 

 

Energy density is also overrated.  Renewables and batteries are easy to locate in a distributed way, which is also better for the grid than fewer large power plants.  The problem with fossil fuels is that they burn up, pollute the atmosphere, and warm the planet when they're used.  Then you have to continue extracting more.  Lithium can be used over and over again, then recycled almost completely.  In an ideal state, we'll extract almost all the critical materials we need, then have a circular economy of reusing recycled materials instead of constantly extracting more.  Continuing to use fossil fuels is a non-starter; we can't keep using fossil fuels in an easy-to-decarbonize segment that can't easily incorporate carbon capture.  As @Foraker and @Boomerang_Brian mentioned, there are plenty of efforts in progress to eliminate the most environmentally harmful materials from batteries (LiFePO4 eliminates Cobalt, Na ion eliminates Lithium, Iron-air eliminates both), particularly from applications where energy density is not as important.

 

And I don't want to sound like converting to EV's is a grand solution.  We certainly can't act like the problem's solved and justify driving longer distances with bigger and faster cars.  The ultimate goal needs to be vehicles as more of a last-mile or occasional solution with electrified rail, buses, biking, and walking as primary modes.  I just don't think there's time to get those modes to the level they need to be by the time fossil fuels need to be mostly phased out.

One of the world's largest reserves of lithium just discovered in Nevada.

 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh8183

I thought this article sums up the extraction concerns of EV's vs. ICE vehicles nicely.

 

Washington Post - Are electric cars really better for the environment?

 

Quote

In 2020, building the world’s wind turbines, solar panels, EVs and other clean-energy infrastructure demanded 7 million tons of minerals, estimates the International Energy Agency. Roughly half of this was destined for batteries and EVs.

 

The oil, gas and coal industry, by contrast, extracted the equivalent of 15 billion metric tons in 2019. And the industry will need to extract it year after year to keep supplying energy. Clean-energy technology can use these materials for decades or, if recycled, in perpetuity.

 

The article did later add that mining minerals generally requires much more material to be pulled from the ground, so by that metric fossil fuels "only" required five times as much matter to be extracted.

 

 

Why Norway — the poster child for electric cars — is having second thoughts

 

Although the EV rush has reduced tailpipe emissions, it has also entrenched car dependence...

 

Although the EV policies were fueling a car-buying frenzy for affluent residents, they offered little to those of limited means. Many low-income Norwegians do not own a car: In Bergen, for instance, 67 percent of households in the lowest income quartile go without one. One recent study found the likelihood that a Norwegian household would purchase an EV rose 26 percent with each 100,000 Norwegian Krones (around $11,000) in annual income, suggesting that electrification subsidies — which ballooned to $4 billion in 2022, equivalent to 2 percent of the national budget — have redistributed resources toward the rich...

 

EV promotions have shrunk the funding available to invest in transit improvements because Norwegian public transportation budgets are partly funded through the road tolls that the national government exempted EV owners from paying...

 

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23939076/norway-electric-vehicle-cars-evs-tesla-oslo

 

 

 

 

Auto execs are coming clean: EVs aren't working

 

 

With signs of growing inventory and slowing sales, auto industry executives admitted this week that their ambitious electric vehicle plans are in jeopardy, at least in the near term.

 

Several C-Suite leaders at some of the biggest carmakers this week voiced fresh unease about the electric car market's growth as concerns over the viability of these vehicles put their multi-billion-dollar electrification strategies at risk.

 

--

 

Toyota is having the last laugh. Perhaps we can stop building compliance cars (ahem, Toyota BZ4X) and spending more money on building vehicles that sell, are more reliable, and cheaper to buy and operate.

Another Quarter, Another Record: EV Sales in the U.S. Surpass 300,000 in Q3, as Tesla Share of EV Segment Tumbles to 50%

 

https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/q3-2023-ev-sales/

October 12, 2023

 

Electric vehicle (EV) sales volumes set another record in Q3, as total sales of battery-powered vehicles jumped past 300,000 for the first time in the U.S. market. Year-to-date EV sales through September reached just over 873,000, putting the market firmly on track to surpass 1 million for the first time ever. The milestone will likely be achieved in November.

 

===================

 

While it's true that manufacturers have been forced to scale back their most ambitious plans for EV rollouts and adoption, remember that some of those plans were really ambitious.  As the article @seicer linked noted, Ford had a self-imposed target to build and sell 2 million EVs per year by 2026.  Ford's total sales volume in 2022 was 4.6 million vehicles.  So they had dreams of going >40% electric in the space of just a few years (2024 is almost upon us).  The growth in the sector is still very significant.  Just not "iPhone 2007" instant-paradigm-changing.

There certainly is a lot of rent-seeking in the segment right now. But nobody is rent-seeking say, $27K.

The "Cybertruck" monstrosity was finally unveiled last week...four years later, with (mostly) worse specs, and some whopping 40-50% price increases by trim.

 

It'll be perfect for two segments, imo - 1) the Instagram influencer and 2) the overcompensating man who feels the need for people to look at him.

Edited December 6, 20231 yr by DarkandStormy

15 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

It'll be perfect for two segments, imo - 1) the Instagram influencer and 2) the overcompensating man who feels the need for people to look at him.

 

And by that you mean California/Las Vegas people. 

Will it even fit properly on Ohio roads? They design all these bigass trucks for Texas and other Western states then people in Ohio and even really old states like Pennsylvania buy them without thinking and then they're bouncing off of everything.

9 minutes ago, GCrites said:

Will it even fit properly on Ohio roads? They design all these bigass trucks for Texas and other Western states then people in Ohio and even really old states like Pennsylvania buy them without thinking and then they're bouncing off of everything.

 

It's about the size of an F150.  A few inches shorter actually and pretty much the same width.

I guess that's better than how the media was making it sound -- which was even larger than the current crop of full-size ICE trucks.

Despite all the negative headlines, EV sales in the US are way up this year:

 

Quote

For all the headlines written in the last six months about how EV demand is faltering, the data definitely doesn’t support that, or at least not yet.  Sales of passenger EVs are on pace to hit 14 million this year, up 36% from 2022. In the US, where most of the concerns on demand have been raised, sales are growing even faster and will be up 50% this year. Sales might be less than some manufacturers were hoping for, but they are in line BNEF’s forecast from the beginning of the year, and most industries would be very happy with that kind of growth rate.

 

https://about.bnef.com/blog/zero-emission-vehicles-factbook-cop28-edition/

 

As mentioned in the article, some manufacturers (Ford, GM) are missing their targets because their offerings aren't competitive enough on price, especially with Tesla's frequent price reductions this year.  It seems that legacy automakers are struggling to thread the needle in transitioning to EV's, while pure-play EV companies are doing well without the baggage of having to maintain ICE production as well.

2 hours ago, acd said:

Despite all the negative headlines, EV sales in the US are way up this year:

 

 

https://about.bnef.com/blog/zero-emission-vehicles-factbook-cop28-edition/

 

As mentioned in the article, some manufacturers (Ford, GM) are missing their targets because their offerings aren't competitive enough on price, especially with Tesla's frequent price reductions this year.  It seems that legacy automakers are struggling to thread the needle in transitioning to EV's, while pure-play EV companies are doing well without the baggage of having to maintain ICE production as well.

 

Nikola? Rivian? Lucid? Lordstown? 

 

Not sure what pure-play EV companies are doing well.

 

Auto industry is a notoriously tough business with razor thin margins. Even Tesla is experiencing declining earnings sequentially this year.

If Tesla's pricing strategy is more like a computer's (or a Model T's) where as the car design gets older the price goes down that is going to clash with the current pricing model of the automobile where the price really only goes up on the same design as time goes on... perhaps with some updates.

The average electric car is in the mid $50,000 range, the cheapest Tesla, what, about $40,000?

 

Meanwhile, an average Civic is half the price and gets mid 30s miles/gallon. 

 

To each his own - hell, I don't even have a car - but it seems like EV's are strictly luxury and will stay that way a good long while. 

 

Range anexity relegates them to 2nd and 3rd cars still.

10 minutes ago, TBideon said:

The average electric car is in the mid $50,000 range, the cheapest Tesla, what, about $40,000?

 

Meanwhile, an average Civic is half the price and gets mid 30s miles/gallon. 

 

To each his own - hell, I don't even have a car - but it seems like EV's are strictly luxury and will stay that way a good long while. 

 

Mostly agreed, that's why I didn't buy an electric car, but price is coming down (fairly quickly), and electricity is cheaper (and less variable) than gas. I expect the economic case to flip in the next few years as costs come down (and chargers become more available). Once that happens electric cars will no longer be a luxury item and will quickly become the majority of cars sold. 

 

15 minutes ago, GCrites said:

Range anexity relegates them to 2nd and 3rd cars still.

 

Range isn't that much of an issue anymore. Basically all electric vehicles can drive for four hours straight (highway), and most can manage five. Assuming you can charge while you stop for a meal (which with current infrastructure isn't a safe assumption at all), most cars can manage most distances most people are willing to drive in a day. To my mind the issue is more the lack of charging infrastructure, not the range of the vehicles. 

Range anexity is a separate phenomenon from actual range in the same way perception doesn't always match reality. 

Am I the only person who thought you guys were mispelling "anxiety"? 

Looks like I was

1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Nikola? Rivian? Lucid? Lordstown? 

 

Not sure what pure-play EV companies are doing well.

 

Auto industry is a notoriously tough business with razor thin margins. Even Tesla is experiencing declining earnings sequentially this year.

 

The article mentions Tesla, BYD, and Li Auto.  I think Rivian is also on a decent track.  Lucid's obviously struggling and Nikola and Lordstown aren't in the conversation.

 

I think the premise was more "doing well with EV's" than just doing well financially.  In that context, what legacy automakers are actually doing well?  Hyundai/Kia possibly, and maybe a couple of the luxury brands (BMW, Audi, Volvo).  GM is struggling to produce vehicles and Ford is losing a ton on every EV the produce.

 

1 hour ago, TBideon said:

The average electric car is in the mid $50,000 range, the cheapest Tesla, what, about $40,000?

 

Meanwhile, an average Civic is half the price and gets mid 30s miles/gallon. 

 

To each his own - hell, I don't even have a car - but it seems like EV's are strictly luxury and will stay that way a good long while. 

 

 

The cheapest Tesla is about $30,000 now after tax credit.  The cheapest EV (though it's being discontinued for a couple years) is the Chevy Bolt for about $20,000 after tax credit.  Certain states (Colorado, Vermont, Massachusetts) offer their own tax credits to bring those numbers down another $2-5k, which puts a Tesla on par with a Civic.

 

For the most part though, you're right, EV's are too expensive for most people.  That's not the case worldwide, however, so I think there could be more affordable options in America in the next few years.

1 hour ago, TBideon said:

The average electric car is in the mid $50,000 range, the cheapest Tesla, what, about $40,000?

 

Meanwhile, an average Civic is half the price and gets mid 30s miles/gallon. 

 

To each his own - hell, I don't even have a car - but it seems like EV's are strictly luxury and will stay that way a good long while. 

 

Average cost of a new car (regardless of drivetrain) is now over $48k.

 

Lowest priced Tesla is ~$35-$37k, before the EV tax credit.

 

KBB pegged the average cost of a new EV at just under $54k this past summer, so really not that much more than the $48k for the entire auto segment.

3 hours ago, TBideon said:

The average electric car is in the mid $50,000 range, the cheapest Tesla, what, about $40,000?

 

Meanwhile, an average Civic is half the price and gets mid 30s miles/gallon. 

 

To each his own - hell, I don't even have a car - but it seems like EV's are strictly luxury and will stay that way a good long while. 

 

 

Range anxiety and power grid anxiety (even Elon says the grid can't handle mass changeover yet).  Also price of both the initial vehicle and battery replacement.

9 hours ago, TBideon said:

The average electric car is in the mid $50,000 range, the cheapest Tesla, what, about $40,000?

 

Meanwhile, an average Civic is half the price and gets mid 30s miles/gallon. 

 

To each his own - hell, I don't even have a car - but it seems like EV's are strictly luxury and will stay that way a good long while. 

 

To clarify, half of "the mid $50,000 range," yes, not half of $40,000.  A Civic with zero options starts at about $24k these days.  And most people add at least one or two options, if not more.  A fully loaded Civic can be substantially north of the base MSRP, too, though of course, a fully-optioned Model 3 is also way north of the base price.

10 hours ago, GCrites said:

Range anexity is a separate phenomenon from actual range in the same way perception doesn't always match reality. 

 

My parents bought an electric car earlier this year (a Nissan) but don't appear to be using it very much because they live out in the middle of bum-boof nowhere.  I know that they aren't driving it to my brother's house because they can't get there and back on a single charge and my dad was throwing a fit about not wanting to wait around for the thing to charge at a charging station.  He was trying to cajole my brother (who does not own an electric car) into installing a charger at his house so that he (my dad) can charge the car, which is typical of his scheming. 

 

I think that pro-electric people don't recognize that there are people who absolutely lack the patience to charge a car. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Lazarus said:

My parents bought an electric car earlier this year (a Nissan) but don't appear to be using it very much because they live out in the middle of bum-boof nowhere.  I know that they aren't driving it to my brother's house because they can't get there and back on a single charge and my dad was throwing a fit about not wanting to wait around for the thing to charge at a charging station.  He was trying to cajole my brother (who does not own an electric car) into installing a charger at his house so that he (my dad) can charge the car, which is typical of his scheming. 

 

I think that pro-electric people don't recognize that there are people who absolutely lack the patience to charge a car.

 

Yeah, in that scenario a PHEV would be better.

 

If you have a garage / access to a charger overnight, it's like plugging in your phone and works fine for daily commutes.

 

For longer trips, some of the chargers are getting better -> getting nearly 200 miles of range in ~20 minutes in som cases.  But for very rural America off of major interstates the infrastructure probably isn't there.

20 hours ago, acd said:

The article mentions Tesla, BYD, and Li Auto.  I think Rivian is also on a decent track.  Lucid's obviously struggling and Nikola and Lordstown aren't in the conversation.

 

Ah, three Chinese companies.

10 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

My parents bought an electric car earlier this year (a Nissan) but don't appear to be using it very much because they live out in the middle of bum-boof nowhere.  I know that they aren't driving it to my brother's house because they can't get there and back on a single charge and my dad was throwing a fit about not wanting to wait around for the thing to charge at a charging station.  He was trying to cajole my brother (who does not own an electric car) into installing a charger at his house so that he (my dad) can charge the car, which is typical of his scheming. 

 

I think that pro-electric people don't recognize that there are people who absolutely lack the patience to charge a car. 

 

 

 

Sitting in a truck stop where you have to pay for Wi-Fi, unable to look at their favorite websites that have tons of autoplay video on their phone, forced to watch the Weather Channel while repetitive shower availability announcements are barked over the P.A.

12 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

My parents bought an electric car earlier this year (a Nissan) but don't appear to be using it very much because they live out in the middle of bum-boof nowhere.  I know that they aren't driving it to my brother's house because they can't get there and back on a single charge and my dad was throwing a fit about not wanting to wait around for the thing to charge at a charging station.  He was trying to cajole my brother (who does not own an electric car) into installing a charger at his house so that he (my dad) can charge the car, which is typical of his scheming. 

 

I think that pro-electric people don't recognize that there are people who absolutely lack the patience to charge a car. 

 

Going all the way back to page 3 of this thread (which was in 2017 and before I even got my Tesla), I noted that people in that mould, who might have to drive 2 counties to get to work, would be among the last to switch.  No argument there. 

 

But patience is not one of my particular virtues and yet I have no problems charging my car, because it almost always happens when I'm off doing other things.  If anything, it's the feeding-trough anarchy of gas stations that tried my patience, and I'm happy to be mostly rid of them (and I drive my wife's minivan just often enough that I sometimes have to stop at a gas station, which just prevents me from forgetting about how much better I have it not having to deal with them).

4 hours ago, Gramarye said:

If anything, it's the feeding-trough anarchy of gas stations that tried my patience

 

The insurgence of Buc-cee's into the Midsouth and now Ohio seems to be a prep for giving long-distance travelers something to do (shop for beef jerky) while charging their cars. 

 

 

But apparently not sit down!

5 hours ago, Lazarus said:

The insurgence of Buc-cee's into the Midsouth and now Ohio seems to be a prep for giving long-distance travelers something to do (shop for beef jerky) while charging their cars. 

 

The big one in Pennsylvania that has been edging into Ohio is Sheetz.  (Sheetz already had stations in Ohio, but the Supercharger rollout at Ohio's Sheetz lagged behind Pennsylvania's for a while.)  As convenience-store/travel-plaza food goes, their made-to-order fare is honestly not horrible.

5 hours ago, GCrites said:

But apparently not sit down!

 

17:05

 

Also, they show the 24 Tesla chargers at 1:55. 

 

https://www.ev-volumes.com/

 

Quote

Global EV sales continued as expected by us at the beginning of 2023. A total of 14,2 million new Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) and Plug-in Hybrids (PHEV) were delivered during 2023, an increase of +35 %. 10 million were pure electric BEVs and 4,2 million were Plug-in Hybrids (PHEV) and Range Extender EVs (EREV).

 

Media reporting that EV adoption is in reverse is not evident in our monthly tracking. Global deliveries of BEVs and PHEVs increased by 3,66 million units over 2022 and all monthly sales were between 8 % and 52 % higher than in the year previous. 5 months of 2023 witnessed new all-time highs for EV sales, Market share increases were consistent throughout the year.

 

EV shares still continued to increase in most markets. BEVs (11,1 %) and PHEVs (4,7 %) stood for 15,8 % of global light vehicle sales in 2023, compared to 13,0 % in 2022. Norway had the highest market share of EVs in 2023 (BEVs 72 % + PHEVs 7 %), followed by Hong Kong and the Nordic countries in Europe. China had 33,9 %, Europe 21,4 % and USA 9,4 %.

 

 

I know many of the ardent EV supporters were hoping for a much longer S-curve.  It's too early to tell if 2023 represents the flattening of the top of the S-curve or if it's just a temporary slow down (see: 2019).

2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

https://www.ev-volumes.com/

 

 

 

I know many of the ardent EV supporters were hoping for a much longer S-curve.  It's too early to tell if 2023 represents the flattening of the top of the S-curve or if it's just a temporary slow down (see: 2019).

"Light" vehicles has become a bit of a misnomer as we transition first to SUVs and then to EVs.

 

https://www.nada.org/nada/nada-headlines/american-cars-are-developing-serious-weight-problem-bloomberg

well, this is one way to kickstart the rocky e-vehicle industry -- 🙌

 

 

 

 

8 states are planning to BAN the sale of gas-powered cars entirely - after Biden unveiled ambitious plans to phase them out by 2032

 

California was the first state to adopt the plan to ban sales of gas cars by 2035
Electric vehicles made up 7.6 percent of new car sales in the US last year

 

By TILLY ARMSTRONG ASSISTANT CONSUMER EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 07:57 EDT, 26 March 2024

 

At least eight states are planning to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars in the next decade - and others are considering joining them. 

Only zero-emission vehicles can be sold in participating states beginning from the 2035 model year, according to the Advanced Clean Cars II legislation. 

 

The rule, which was first adopted by California, means that automakers and dealerships would be banned from selling new gas cars in these states from that point onwards. 

 

more:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/yourmoney/cars/article-13237051

It is my belief that it will get pushed back (under current knowledge) that it will get pushed back due to a lack of charging infrastructure especially in rural areas. Two-stroke engines were to be banned in 1996 yet they haven't disappeared at all. People in 1995 were assuming that it was really going to happen. I don't think that in 2065 ICE cars for consumers will still be made but I do feel there is going to be some delay.

Yeah, If you buy a new ICE car in 2034 it'll easily last for more than a decade. Especially in the parts of CA that don't get snow, they can last a long time. I just had a thought that by 2050, it'll increasingly hard to find gas stations as the demand drops a bunch of them will go out of business or move towards being convenience stores with some charging stations attached.

1 hour ago, Henryefry said:

Yeah, If you buy a new ICE car in 2034 it'll easily last for more than a decade. Especially in the parts of CA that don't get snow, they can last a long time. I just had a thought that by 2050, it'll increasingly hard to find gas stations as the demand drops a bunch of them will go out of business or move towards being convenience stores with some charging stations attached.

We're currently pumping more oil than anyone else in the world, but well productivity declines over time those decline rates are closely guarded secrets.  The oil companies may be seeing the writing on the walls and pumping like mad to get value while they still can.

I would add the increased tire dust in waterways and oceans.  Tire dust is 70% of the microplastic in the oceans.  It's pushing Coho Salmon to extinction in the Pacific NW

 

EVs Can’t Fix a Global Epidemic of ‘Car Harm,’ Study Finds

A staggering number of deaths, injuries and illnesses over many decades can be attributed to cars and auto infrastructure, researchers say. 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-07/evs-can-t-fix-a-global-epidemic-of-car-harm-study-finds