EVs

[CaminoRacer]

PA doesn't require them as well.

They are required in NJ by law but it isn't really enforced. The dealer that delivered my Golf R to me here in NJ (Princeton VW) asked me if I wanted a front plate and I said no, so they left it off. Cops don't really care if you have a front plate, but if they stop you for something else they could ticket you for it.

That's how it is here too. I don't have a front plate on the El Camino for that reason. I figure the cops never bother me so I should be fine.

[cawimmer430]

I really dislike that carmakers have to accommodate ugly & wasteful front registration plates.

Would not surprise me if in the future automotive license plates are like digital and integrated into the front and rear windscreens.

[ChrisV]

That was a good and interesting write-up, Afty. You also stated that you're an early-adapter of new technology, so I can understand why you like your EV. 

But count me in as one of those people who views EVs with a little skepticism. I think the breakthrough for EVs will only come when:

1) They become affordable (which also includes the cost of a new battery)

Why? DO you count the cost of a new engine or transmission in your decision of affordability for a gas powered car? MOST people don't. My Bolt, with a 300 mile range, was only $25k. That's affordable for a 200hp hot hatch.

2) Their range increases

300 miles is plenty. As I've done driving all around the mid atlantic region on one charge, spending 6 hours in the driver's seat non-stop and still had a quarter charge left when I got home.

3) Their recharging times decrease to levels of ICE cars

99.999% of the time, the cars charge up in the evening when your home doing something else (like eating or sleeping) though unless you do 300 miles every day, you find that it only takes a couple hours in the evening to be back to full charge, since you're really only going to have taken it down less than a quarter of the way in the typical commute. BUT, on a road trip from here in Baltimore to eastern CT, it takes one 15 minute stop to top off the charge to get there, when starting out with a full charge from here. 15 minutes on a 6-7 hour road trip is NOTHING.

On an EV, I kinda want all the range I can get. I might not need the full range which an EV has to offer but what's the harm in having more range?

Carrying around more weight and more cost for something that you deal with less than 10% of the time? It'd be like having your daily driver be a diesel dually so that you can tow a 6 horse trailer to the equestrian ring twice a year.

Also, EV range drops like a rock when you require the A/C / heating system to deliver.

AC not as much as you'd think and even the heaters, as much as they draw, can be minimized by 1) pre-heating while plugged in, using house power to bring it up to temp, and 2) using the heated seats and steering wheel options instead of the heater to keep the touch points warm while not using drive battery power (they are run off the regular 12v battery). My range is still over 220 miles in the winter here when it's down to 0 degrees F.

I just feel that EVs still have a long way to go before they can fulfill the needs of every driver out there. 

No car has to be 100% perfect for 100% of drivers in 100% of situations. We don't bitch about Miatas and Mustangs not being good for families of 7, we don't bitch about Golfs and FWD AMG cars being good for towing large travel trailers, and we don't complain about tow vehicles not being good for autocrossing. Why do EVs have to be 100% perfect for 100% of drivers in 100% of scenarios to be viable? They work for 80% of drivers RIGHT NOW and we can't BUILD enough for that many drivers worldwide.

I live with a pair of EVs now. And the truth is, the Bolt, with it's ~300 mile range, has become our go to road trip car if we aren't going to be towing the travel trailer. It's also the more fun daily driver, being much quicker than the Volt. The ONLY time we charge it away from the house is on the long run up to CT or upstate NY (which we no longer have to make, now that my son has moved to eastern CT). And then it only takes one 15 minute stop, which coincides with a potty break and eating.

[Laconian]

No car has to be 100% perfect for 100% of drivers in 100% of situations. We don't bitch about Miatas and Mustangs not being good for families of 7, we don't bitch about Golfs and FWD AMG cars being good for towing large travel trailers, and we don't complain about tow vehicles not being good for autocrossing. Why do EVs have to be 100% perfect for 100% of drivers in 100% of scenarios to be viable? They work for 80% of drivers RIGHT NOW and we can't BUILD enough for that many drivers worldwide.

That's a very good point. Electric drivetrains get an inordinate amount of perfectionist scrutiny. They're just another kind of engineering tradeoff, one which works for a lot of people, but doesn't work for others - that's OK.

[veeman]

While ChrisV makes a lot of good points he reminds me a lot of my brother in law with regards to EV ownership.  My brother in law who owns a Tesla Model S is adamant to the point of anger when I poke fun at him for having an amazing car which he can't take anywhere far without "planning".  I know, I know, 15 minutes is not long to wait and coincides with a likely bathroom break but in reality, you can't count on it only being 15 minutes and so there's an element of some anxiety.  The EV owners will always come back that there's equal stress with driving an ICE car long distance but it's not.  Ready fueling availability is a given 99.9% of the time.  Ready charging availability doesn't have that level of assurance yet.  You might have to wait 30 minutes.  Or longer.  You go to any vacation town, you don't see anyone bring an EV.  I told my brother in law to bring his Tesla to Cape Cod (a 2.5 hr drive for him) when we went a few months ago to an AirBnB for a week.  He said he would.  Of course he didn't.  While we were there we didn't drive that much.  But why bring an EV there?  It's just not a good vacation travel car. 

I'd love to switch out my Crosstrek for an EV hot hatch but my commute is 100 miles/day and rarely 200 miles/day (have to go back and forth to work twice in a day).  I don't want to deal with the added stress of making sure I have enough charge.  Did the electricity go out (a not that infrequent occurrence where I live)?  Plus it's not that much a cost savings in the US with gas being pretty cheap.  Using fueleconomy.gov if you compare a 2020 Bolt with a 2020 Honda Civic coupe (another sorta hot hatch) you save $450/year with the Bolt in annual "fuel" cost.  It's not nothing but it's not a huge amount when averaged over a year.  You're right ChrisV that the Civic is going to be more expensive to maintain.  Oil changes, brakes, etc that you won't have to pay for with a Bolt.  No question the Bolt is also better for the environment.  But the Civic you never have range anxiety which is there when the car is going to be driven long distance. 


I understand ChrisVs valid points.  No car is perfect for every situation and EVs are under a lot of unfair criticism for that reason.  And for him it's been great and he's been able to drive it a few hours away or even several hours drive away without issue. 

When I really get under my brother in laws skin about how he doesn't drive his Tesla anywhere far and instead takes his Acura RDX, he puffs his chest out and tells me he's going to replace his Acura when the time comes with another Tesla.  So he would have two EV cars and no ICE car.  And that's when I know he's really full of crap because no one with any sense would do that except if you live in a country where they've really given a ton of incentives to drive one and disincentives to drive an ICE car.  Like Norway. 

[AutobahnSHO]

EVs make great second cars but what about if the chargers are full of other cars when you get there? Etc...

The full ecosystem just isn't there yet.

Gasoline cars grew out of desire- the fact that government has to mandate and incentivise EVs means the market isn't willing to go all in.

[r0tor]

Gasoline cars grew out of desire- the fact that government has to mandate and incentivise EVs means the market isn't willing to go all in.

That's going a bit far... Tesla sales did not decrease after rebates were cut.  There is a pretty strong market globally for these things and mostly all automakers have given large amounts of their R&D funds to EVs for a few years now playing catch up.... Just like what happened when crossovers took over R&D, the next been off EVs coming out will drastically increase sales

The government has also propped up the oil industry all this time.  Hell, one comment by Biden in the last debate that the oil industry will eventually be phased out was enough to get hourly commercials shoved down voters throats in Texas, PA, and other oil producing states..

[cawimmer430]

ChrisV,

Good points. Seriously, good points. But I guess it comes down to the fact that EVs don't work for everyone at the moment in their current state. Plus, some people just don't want one. I see no benefit to owning an EV for my driving needs.

The range of EVs is still unstable compared to ICE cars. It might work for people who stick to speed limits etc., but here I don't want to be crawling at 110-120 km/h on the highway to preserve range. I'm a 140-150 km/h (or higher) cruiser and at those speeds the ranges of Teslas also drop like a rock (imagine the range loss on lesser, more affordable EVs). I like the flexibility of an ICE motor and its fuel in this regard.

Also, yesterday I was listening to the brilliant podcast from a scientist in Austria who is researching and pushing for synthetic fuels. He had great arguments and explained new energy-efficient techniques for producing it. Not everyone can afford an EV over the next decade or more. Synthetic fuels are a great way to keep the mobility for the masses alive until something better comes along. I'm also of the opinion that the future will involve a mix: EVs, Fuel-Cell, E-Fuels and perhaps something new and better that we can't even begin to imagine.

[CaminoRacer]

That's going a bit far... Tesla sales did not decrease after rebates were cut.  There is a pretty strong market globally for these things and mostly all automakers have given large amounts of their R&D funds to EVs for a few years now playing catch up.... Just like what happened when crossovers took over R&D, the next been off EVs coming out will drastically increase sales

The government has also propped up the oil industry all this time.  Hell, one comment by Biden in the last debate that the oil industry will eventually be phased out was enough to get hourly commercials shoved down voters throats in Texas, PA, and other oil producing states..

Yup. Gasoline made the most sense in the 20th century, but oil companies were/are subsidized same as EVs are. Historically the oil industry has gotten MORE subsidies, and their subsidies are permanent vs the EV tax credit that expires once a manufacturer sells 200k EVs

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/20/us-subsidizes-fossil-fuels-to-the-tune-of-4-6-27-4-or-649-billion-annually-depending-on-source/

[FoMoJo]

ChrisV,

Good points. Seriously, good points. But I guess it comes down to the fact that EVs don't work for everyone at the moment in their current state. Plus, some people just don't want one. I see no benefit to owning an EV for my driving needs.

The range of EVs is still unstable compared to ICE cars. It might work for people who stick to speed limits etc., but here I don't want to be crawling at 110-120 km/h on the highway to preserve range. I'm a 140-150 km/h (or higher) cruiser and at those speeds the ranges of Teslas also drop like a rock (imagine the range loss on lesser, more affordable EVs). I like the flexibility of an ICE motor and its fuel in this regard.

Also, yesterday I was listening to the brilliant podcast from a scientist in Austria who is researching and pushing for synthetic fuels. He had great arguments and explained new energy-efficient techniques for producing it. Not everyone can afford an EV over the next decade or more. Synthetic fuels are a great way to keep the mobility for the masses alive until something better comes along. I'm also of the opinion that the future will involve a mix: EVs, Fuel-Cell, E-Fuels and perhaps something new and better that we can't even begin to imagine.

These are good points.  Although EVs are viable for many, as witnessed by members on this forum, they are not the answer for everyone.  However, energy technology is still in its infancy as witnessed by the advancements over the last couple of decades; and we haven't even tapped into the more efficient energy forms.

[MrH]

Yup. Gasoline made the most sense in the 20th century, but oil companies were/are subsidized same as EVs are. Historically the oil industry has gotten MORE subsidies, and their subsidies are permanent vs the EV tax credit that expires once a manufacturer sells 200k EVs

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/20/us-subsidizes-fossil-fuels-to-the-tune-of-4-6-27-4-or-649-billion-annually-depending-on-source/

The study defines "subsidy" very broadly, as many economists do. It accounts for the "differences between actual consumer fuel prices and how much consumers would pay if prices fully reflected supply costs plus the taxes needed to reflect environmental costs" and other damage, including premature deaths from air pollution.

That's not what subsidy means.

[FoMoJo]

It's about time that we (the people) realized what a precious commodity fossil fuels are, and stop exploding so much of it into the atmosphere. 

[r0tor]

That's not what subsidy means.

Attack a definition when you can't dispute the claim...

[MrH]

Attack a definition when you can't dispute the claim...

"Look how much in subsidies the oil industry gets!"

"Those aren't subsidies"

And that's your response.

[CaminoRacer]

That's not what subsidy means.

Price-gap comparisons are apparently common for measuring energy subsidies worldwide.

I was looking more at the 2 smaller numbers listed on that article, though.

[CaminoRacer]

More info on the price-gap approach: https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/bali_2_copenhagen_ff_subsidies_pricegap.pdf

"Price-gap measurements examine differences between the observed price for a good or service in the economy against what that price "should" be without the government programs. By definition, the price gap does not pick up government programs that support industries or people, but does not change the final price. This can be confusing. However, consider subsidies to domestic oil and gas producers in the United States. This support helps them stay in business if they have older technology or more expensive reserves. It might help them to pay more to drill in certain areas than they could otherwise afford. But the subsidy is not likely to change the market price of heating oil or gasoline, simply because the subsidized producer is a very small player in the global oil market, and what they do has little effect on the bigger flows of fuel. These other payments are certainly subsidies, and do affect market behaviour, though not necessarily through changes in consumer prices.Because the price gap does not capture them, estimates using this approach tend to form the lower bound of government support. The price-gap approach can pick up the impacts of government policy that either increase or decrease prices. In practice, however, some estimates often reference past evaluations (World Bank, IMF, IEA) that have focused only on countries where fossil fuels were being sold at subsidized rates."

[MrH]

My issue is not with the price-gap approach.  I understand how that works. The issue is with this part:

reflect environmental costs" and other damage, including premature deaths from air pollution.

There's a ton of assumptions that have to go into this and it's easy to change the outcome with these assumptions.

[CaminoRacer]

The study shows both pre-tax subsidies (government incentive programs) and post-tax subsidies (which includes the externality costs that you're not a fan of).

Either way, it backs up the original point - fossil fuels are subsidized by governments all around the world, probably more than EVs are. And then once you add in the externalities, it's even worse. While there are a couple of good arguments for ICE vs EV, subsidies isn't a great one. Besides, GM and Tesla don't get the federal tax credit anymore and they're still selling EVs.

[Laconian]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/us-grid-battery-costs-dropped-70-over-3-years/

Utility-scale energy storage costs are dropping like a rock. 70% over 3yrs.

[MrH]

The study shows both pre-tax subsidies (government incentive programs) and post-tax subsidies (which includes the externality costs that you're not a fan of).

Either way, it backs up the original point - fossil fuels are subsidized by governments all around the world, probably more than EVs are . And then once you add in the externalities, it's even worse. While there are a couple of good arguments for ICE vs EV, subsidies isn't a great one. Besides, GM and Tesla don't get the federal tax credit anymore and they're still selling EVs.

From your own source:

[Laconian]

Do wars for oil count? We should see a $1.9T spike at 2003. How much are human lives worth?

[CaminoRacer]

How much are human lives worth?

$10 million each

[CaminoRacer]

From your own source:

Yeah, the "vehicles" part looks a bit smaller than fossil fuels the past couple of years.

I also think the fossil fuel incentives have to be averaged out over time somehow, since EVs are "new" and infant tech normally needs more help than established tech.

[FoMoJo]

Do wars for oil count? We should see a $1.9T spike at 2003. How much are human lives worth?

Not as much as a good quality tuna apparently.

[MrH]

Yeah, the "vehicles" part looks a bit smaller than fossil fuels the past couple of years.

I also think the fossil fuel incentives have to be averaged out over time somehow, since EVs are "new" and infant tech normally needs more help than established tech.

Is your argument is that EV vehicles should receive more in subsidies than all fossil fuel energy uses?

[r0tor]

Why is there any money given to fossil fuels - direct or indirect?

[MrH]

Why is there any money given to any industry? The govt sucks at trying to pick winners

[CaminoRacer]

I think the big point is that it's not "unfair" or even that odd that EVs get subsidies, since even fossil fuels get them even though there's not really a good reason for them to

[Laconian]

There is a good reason to fund it. Solar, battery, and motor technology are all riding some crazy exponential growth curves. We have a tremendous national interest in positioning the country so that it benefits from that growth.

Otherwise Jina's gonna get it all.

[AutobahnSHO]

Why is there any money given to any industry? The govt sucks at trying to pick winners

+1

Subsidies are ok for an emergency but not long term. They're financial poison.