EVs

[ChrisV]

I don't think these are going to be equivalent curves or near equivalent curves.  Just guessing but owning a horse and buggy was probably much more of a pain in the ass than owning a Model T Ford and horse and buggy had a lot of limitations (range, speed, etc) compared with a Model T.   

In urban areas yes, as it was hard to "fuel" a horse in those environs, but outside of that, fueling for cars, including the Model T, was harder to come by, just like it is now for EVs. But "fueling" a horse in rural areas was easy and "fuel" was everywhere. That rapidly changed as more cars came on the market, just like it is rapidly changing for EVs.

[ChrisV]

Obviously EVs work for some but for many, not, and that's probably how it should be left alone till "Mr. Fusion" comes along.

Why do we keep saying this? Only about 35% of people live where they can't charge easily UNLESS they drive to a fast charger (i.e. apartments and condos that don't have level 2 chargers or even just 110v outlets near the parked cars...) The other 75%? They could uses EVs even now, even for road trips. Why? Because MOST people don't live in the middle of nowhere. And MOST people don't make weekly road trips outside the range of modern EVs.

As to your other statement, we've gone from $35k cars with 80 miles of EV range for compliance, to $25k cars (the Bolt for example) with 300 miles of range as battery prices have dropped from $1000/kWh to just over $100/kWh. And bigger, more luxurious EVs with that sort of range even while being bigger, heavier and faster, while still competing on price with their equivalent gas cars. That's a LOT of development.

[ChrisV]

The problem with it though is that it only have a 328 mile range, that's not nearly enough to do any type of offroading or terrain crawling.  Although I did notice that my mileage on average is better when I'm off roading than I am doing city driving with the GX though. 

EVs excel at low speed, stop and go driving, like rock crawling, as they use MUCH less energy and can actually exceed rated range doing so. Rated range is done with a lot of highway driving in the mix, where EVs lose range vs what they are capable of. My anecdotal evidence is in the Bolt (and my old Volt) where in stop and go traffic, I could watch the range meter go UP as I drove, due to not using much juice to "idle" and regen every time I slowed down. Which is why in a car rated at 258 miles, I could regularly get over 300 miles (4.8 kWh efficiency) in stop and go traffic.

[Soup DeVille]

They excel at low-speed, low power service. In low-speed, high torque situations like rock crawling, that's really dependent on the motor windings.

There are obviously a lot of advantages to using electrics in rock crawling and general offroading, but unless the motors used are optimized for low speed/high torque service over an extended time, there could be some problems with heat.

[Soup DeVille]

Why do we keep saying this? Only about 35% of people live where they can't charge easily UNLESS they drive to a fast charger (i.e. apartments and condos that don't have level 2 chargers or even just 110v outlets near the parked cars...) The other 75%? They could uses EVs even now, even for road trips. Why? Because MOST people don't live in the middle of nowhere. And MOST people don't make weekly road trips outside the range of modern EVs.

As to your other statement, we've gone from $35k cars with 80 miles of EV range for compliance, to $25k cars (the Bolt for example) with 300 miles of range as battery prices have dropped from $1000/kWh to just over $100/kWh. And bigger, more luxurious EVs with that sort of range even while being bigger, heavier and faster, while still competing on price with their equivalent gas cars. That's a LOT of development.

35% is a lot of people.

[GoCougs]

Why do we keep saying this? Only about 35% of people live where they can't charge easily UNLESS they drive to a fast charger (i.e. apartments and condos that don't have level 2 chargers or even just 110v outlets near the parked cars...) The other 75%? They could uses EVs even now, even for road trips. Why? Because MOST people don't live in the middle of nowhere. And MOST people don't make weekly road trips outside the range of modern EVs.

As to your other statement, we've gone from $35k cars with 80 miles of EV range for compliance, to $25k cars (the Bolt for example) with 300 miles of range as battery prices have dropped from $1000/kWh to just over $100/kWh. And bigger, more luxurious EVs with that sort of range even while being bigger, heavier and faster, while still competing on price with their equivalent gas cars. That's a LOT of development.

"We" (I) keep saying this because as you note, despite 10+ years (really, more like 100+ years, but I'll use the intro of the Model S as the start of a new epoch), an EV is not remotely close to equivalency. Closer, sure, but current battery tech will never be there.

Cars have had 300-400 miles of range since the '60s, and it's not by chance. Sure, most people don't road trip weekly, but most people DO road trip. And current battery tech, even if fast charging were ubiquitous, is a painful if not prohibitive process when road tripping.

Widespread EV adoption at anything remotely close to the current tech will require severe government hegemony, and it's a really bad idea IMO on many levels - financial, social, cultural, environmental.

[MrH]

Public charging for road trips is a non-starter for most people.

EVs are a nice toy for people who:

-Own a home and can install a level 2 charger
-Own a gas car they could use for road trips
-Have disposable income

That's really limits things quite a bit.

[GoCougs]

Public charging for road trips is a non-starter for most people.

EVs are a nice toy for people who:

-Own a home and can install a level 2 charger
-Own a gas car they could use for road trips
-Have disposable income

That's really limits things quite a bit.

This is 10-20% of the population at best.

[ChrisV]

35% is a lot of people.

Yes, but it's not MOST. And MOST doesn't equal "some" as though 75% is the niche user. It's wrongheaded to think that way.

[ChrisV]

"We" (I) keep saying this because as you note, despite 10+ years (really, more like 100+ years, but I'll use the intro of the Model S as the start of a new epoch), an EV is not remotely close to equivalency. Closer, sure, but current battery tech will never be there.

Never, eh? I don't think this word means what you think it means.

Cars have had 300-400 miles of range since the '60s, and it's not by chance. Sure, most people don't road trip weekly, but most people DO road trip.

Infrequent road trips are actually quite easy.

And current battery tech, even if fast charging were ubiquitous, is a painful if not prohibitive process when road tripping.

Why do people like you with zero experience argue with people that DO have experience? Hmm? Riddle me that Cougs.

I've done it even in the effin' WINTER. It's easy and not "painful" at all to stop and eat or use the restroom while charging. I have experience with this. Do you?



Numerous trips 700 miles to see the kids, as well as my wife going solo up there AND solo down to Tennessee to see her brother. She found it quite easy even in a red state like that.

Widespread EV adoption at anything remotely close to the current tech will require severe government hegemony, and it's a really bad idea IMO on many levels - financial, social, cultural, environmental.

You really don't understand how well they work RIGHT NOW. But that's to be expected, since you've NEVER listened to anyone with experience.

[Soup DeVille]

Yes, but it's not MOST. And MOST doesn't equal "some" as though 75% is the niche user. It's wrongheaded to think that way.

The post you were responding to didn't say "most." It said "many."

[ChrisV]

Public charging for road trips is a non-starter for most people.

EVs are a nice toy for people who:

-Own a home and can install a level 2 charger
-Own a gas car they could use for road trips
-Have disposable income

That's really limits things quite a bit.

I know a lot of EV owners for whom it's an only car and take road trips in them across the country, even across Canada. It's only a non starter to people that don't know their ass form a hole in the ground and only listen to right wing naysayers. As I've posted before, I HAVE a gas car (two in fact) and the Bolt has become the de-facto road trip car as it's easy and cheap to do so. I could head out tomorrow to go to WA and be just fine the whole way.

[ChrisV]

The post you were responding to didn't say "most." It said "many."

He said they only work for "some, not many." Well, that MEANS, in case you are bad at reading, that he meant they only worked for a minority, when that's false. 75% is not a minority. Sorry.

[Morris Minor]

The well-to-do are usually the early adopters of innovative tech. They're vocal guinea pigs... do the debugging, provide the profit margins, figure out the non-starters & thin the field. The horses that remain in the race can then scale & figure how to mainstream their product profitably.

[Soup DeVille]

He said they only work for "some, not many." Well, that MEANS, in case you are bad at reading, that he meant they only worked for a minority, when that's false. 75% is not a minority. Sorry.

I'd read it again if I were you, since you decided to be an ass about your own reading comprehension failures. Try getting the quote right first.

And holy fuck: this is the third time you've literally been unable to add up a percentage correctly. 

[GoCougs]

Never, eh? I don't think this word means what you think it means.

Infrequent road trips are actually quite easy.

Why do people like you with zero experience argue with people that DO have experience? Hmm? Riddle me that Cougs.

I've done it even in the effin' WINTER. It's easy and not "painful" at all to stop and eat or use the restroom while charging. I have experience with this. Do you?



Numerous trips 700 miles to see the kids, as well as my wife going solo up there AND solo down to Tennessee to see her brother. She found it quite easy even in a red state like that.

You really don't understand how well they work RIGHT NOW. But that's to be expected, since you've NEVER listened to anyone with experience.

True, I do not own an EV but given I live in the second most EV-centric locale in the US, thusly between girlfriends, friends, family and coworkers and such, my time driving/riding in EVs ain't peanuts. Plus, I have extensive OTJ engineering experience with relevant technology like electric motors and drives and rechargeable devices such as consumer electronics and AGVs.

But what I stated were facts; i.e., no experience required. EVs are not equivalent to an ICE-powered vehicle in range, cost and refueling time, and that is a profound barrier for adoption for 80%+ of the US. As long as energy storage is based on cramming energy into a chemical concoction within thousands of individual cells, equivalency will never be reached.

[afty]

We have both an ICE and EV, and we haven't taken the ICE car on a road trip since purchasing the EV. The EV is a nicer car, Autopilot makes the trip more pleasant, and it's far more efficient.

[Laconian]

The ability to take enormous road trips must be an potent psychological safety blanket for some folks. It's a 1% use case that counterbalances the massive quality of life gains for the other 99% of uses.

I'll just take a 30 minute break on each of the 1-2 trips per year, it's fine.

[CaminoRacer]

Or just rent a car. I kinda like renting for roadtrips anyway. Get to drive something different for a bit.

[GoCougs]

My current, future and recent road trips from Seattle (Pullman/WA, Bend/OR, Moab/UT, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Lake Tahoe) are not a pleasant thing with an EV - simply chart such with the various charging planners.

Plus I do a lot of long one-day trips (250+ miles) for riding and skiing, usually in sorta elevated heat or cold, and the FUCK I'm going to wait an hour or more for charging, including usually driving out of my way, after a day of abusing myself. (Trust me, it's more for the benefit of the public than it is for me!)

EV range anxiety is a major thing for most people, and shaming will not make it go away.

[AutobahnSHO]

Or just rent a car. I kinda like renting for roadtrips anyway. Get to drive something different for a bit.

Someone could CRUSH it if they advertised a discount for rental with EV purchase. Oh but wait, didn't every EV built get sold anyway?

[veeman]

EV will not save the average American significant money because the cost of gasoline in the U.S., even today, is not high enough to offset the increased purchase price of the EV.  This remains so even if you add in the extra cost of maintenance of the ICE vehicle compared with the EV. 

Looking at equivalency I'm comparing a 2022 Hyundai Kona ICE vs a 2022 Hyundai Kona EV.  Using fueleconomy.gov the EV saves you $6750 in fueling costs over 5 years.  But the rub is the EV purchase price costs about $12 thousand dollars more.  Now if you get a $7500 tax break, the difference between the two in total expenditure over 5 years becomes near equivalent. 

So if there's no significant monetary advantage, why get an EV?  Is the driving experience that much better that it's worth the hassle of range anxiety? 

For me the only reason to get it is that it's good for the planet and I really like the no dealership model of Tesla. 

[NomisR]

Never, eh? I don't think this word means what you think it means.

Infrequent road trips are actually quite easy.

Why do people like you with zero experience argue with people that DO have experience? Hmm? Riddle me that Cougs.

I've done it even in the effin' WINTER. It's easy and not "painful" at all to stop and eat or use the restroom while charging. I have experience with this. Do you?



Numerous trips 700 miles to see the kids, as well as my wife going solo up there AND solo down to Tennessee to see her brother. She found it quite easy even in a red state like that.

You really don't understand how well they work RIGHT NOW. But that's to be expected, since you've NEVER listened to anyone with experience.

I'm 100% sure I wouldn't be able to do the road trip I just did in my Model 3 or my old Bolt.  Based on the routing by Tesla and ABRP, best case senario for me to get to Great Basin NP would be to charge to 100% at Cedar city and end up with 30%.  Unfortunately, no L2 available unless I drive 50 miles away at Ely, NV which means I would need to charge for the whole day just be able to do anything.  Not gonna happen.   It was hard enough to do it with a gas car as is.  Plus the fact that when I  got to Baker, NV, the power was out for miles including 50 miles away in Baker so I would not be able to charge and likely be stranded with a dead battery as a result. 

[GoCougs]

I'll be in/though Ely, NV tomorrow! Of note, in that part of the USA, temps are usually extreme, thereby disproportionately decreasing EV range.

[GoCougs]

EV will not save the average American significant money because the cost of gasoline in the U.S., even today, is not high enough to offset the increased purchase price of the EV.  This remains so even if you add in the extra cost of maintenance of the ICE vehicle compared with the EV. 

Looking at equivalency I'm comparing a 2022 Hyundai Kona ICE vs a 2022 Hyundai Kona EV.  Using fueleconomy.gov the EV saves you $6750 in fueling costs over 5 years.  But the rub is the EV purchase price costs about $12 thousand dollars more.  Now if you get a $7500 tax break, the difference between the two in total expenditure over 5 years becomes near equivalent. 

So if there's no significant monetary advantage, why get an EV?  Is the driving experience that much better that it's worth the hassle of range anxiety? 

For me the only reason to get it is that it's good for the planet and I really like the no dealership model of Tesla.

Good for the planet in your immediate area (primarily, less smog) but any offset is transferred to elsewhere (additional pollution building up a stronger electrical grid, additional power generation, additional mining).

[CaminoRacer]

Good for the planet in your immediate area (primarily, less smog) but any offset is transferred to elsewhere (additional pollution building up a stronger electrical grid, additional power generation, additional mining).

EVs are better for the environment overall. We've been over this before...

EV haters love to bring up mining and ignore oil extraction. Fracking ruining water supplies and causing thousands of earthquakes. Massive oil spills in the ocean. Etc etc

[GoCougs]

EVs are better for the environment overall. We've been over this before...

EV haters love to bring up mining and ignore oil extraction. Fracking ruining water supplies and causing thousands of earthquakes. Massive oil spills in the ocean. Etc etc

Actually, it's not about hate, it's about facts, data and logic.

The US's environmental woes would be solved in a day (or, solved to the greatest extent possible) if WtP bought Civics, Mavericks and Rav4s, lived in right-sized homes, stopped flying so much for leisure and stopped buying so much stuff in general.

Foisting EVs onto WtP, especially with government hegemony, is an infinitely poor substitute for Doing The Right Thing In The First Place.

Also, less oil extraction/refining/burning is offset by more mining/processing + electricity generation. 1:1 offset? For the number of decades it'll take to shore up the US electrical grid, my bet is it'll be in the ballpark.

Just like their electric transportation fore bearers, many decades old now (subways, commuter trains, city trolleys and buses), EVs have legit applications but the technology simply does not exist, and won't in my lifetime, for rational widespread adoption for transportation.

[veeman]

The US's environmental woes would be solved in a day (or, solved to the greatest extent possible) if WtP bought Civics, Mavericks and Rav4s, lived in right-sized homes, stopped flying so much for leisure and stopped buying so much stuff in general.

This part you said is not the answer because it goes against capitalism and human nature.  People strive to accumulate wealth so that they can live better lives (which includes buying a lot of stuff, living in bigger houses, and traveling the world or in the future traveling outer space).

No one realistically proposes that Americans quit using air conditioning where it's hot; quit constructing swimming pools, quit skiing where it's cold (it costs a ski resort between 500,000 and 3.5 million dollars a year to make snow), etc etc.  Combating climate change has to have realistic goals and telling people to buy compact cars, live in small houses or apartments without air conditioning, and not travel by plane or cruise ship is not realistic and not American 

Figuring out how to dump ICE vehicles for EV is actually a realistic goal.  We need more federal and state  govt incentives because right now there's not a financial incentive and few things work better for motivation than one's pocketbook.

[NomisR]

This part you said is not the answer because it goes against capitalism and human nature.  People strive to accumulate wealth so that they can live better lives (which includes buying a lot of stuff, living in bigger houses, and traveling the world or in the future traveling outer space).

No one realistically proposes that Americans quit using air conditioning where it's hot; quit constructing swimming pools, quit skiing where it's cold (it costs a ski resort between 500,000 and 3.5 million dollars a year to make snow), etc etc.  Combating climate change has to have realistic goals and telling people to buy compact cars, live in small houses or apartments without air conditioning, and not travel by plane or cruise ship is not realistic and not American 

Figuring out how to dump ICE vehicles for EV is actually a realistic goal.  We need more federal and state  govt incentives because right now there's not a financial incentive and few things work better for motivation than one's pocketbook.

Give it a few more year, all of this will be serious suggestions by the elites all in the name of climate change.  Of course all of this will only apply to everyone but themselves.

[CaminoRacer]

Actually, it's not about hate, it's about facts, data and logic.

The US's environmental woes would be solved in a day (or, solved to the greatest extent possible) if WtP bought Civics, Mavericks and Rav4s, lived in right-sized homes, stopped flying so much for leisure and stopped buying so much stuff in general.

Foisting EVs onto WtP, especially with government hegemony, is an infinitely poor substitute for Doing The Right Thing In The First Place.

Also, less oil extraction/refining/burning is offset by more mining/processing + electricity generation. 1:1 offset? For the number of decades it'll take to shore up the US electrical grid, my bet is it'll be in the ballpark.

Just like their electric transportation fore bearers, many decades old now (subways, commuter trains, city trolleys and buses), EVs have legit applications but the technology simply does not exist, and won't in my lifetime, for rational widespread adoption for transportation.

A new EV is cleaner than a new car over the life of the vehicle according to studies that look at the whole supply chain, manufacturing, and driving emissions (power plant emissions for EVs)

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

Talking about reducing consumption is a separate issue.