Interesting Articles Relating to EVs

[RonDean]

And EVs are even heavier. Which wears out tires much faster apparently, leaving more rubber dust, according to some studies. So good and bad. They can probably figure that out.

The percentage of Americans that would buy an EV velomobile would be minimal. Look at how many tiny "Smart" cars have sold. A one or two person vehicle doesn't really work for the average person. Even trucks almost all have extended cabs these days.

Take the the mini Cooper. Sold well. Can fit 4 humans if needed and is sporty and has a classic look. Mom can still get the kids to school if needed.

These specially cars and use cases work very well in smaller countries that don't have very large population and have the ability to make changes nationwide that doesn't wreak havoc on their roads and cities.

Everyone says Norway is the gold standard of EV adoption. But Norway has half the population of LA county and 140k more square miles. And ironically they have a very high income per person because of their export of petroleum.

Bottom line is that we mostly have the infrastructure we have. And can adjust to some extent. But we can't rip and replace most of it. So if it's hydrogen, electric, CNG, captured cattle farts, whatever, and it improves things, I'm for it.
But forced wholesale change is almost impossible at best.

Part of the problem is that none of the manufacturers or producers have to pay for the results of climate changes or the health issues caused by pollution. If they did, their attitude might change. There was a high cost to ripping up all the trolley tracks and putting in gas stations and freeways that made way for our current auto-culture too. Even when we choose to ride a bicycle or drive in a much smaller car it's more dangerous. And it's almost impossible to find any kind of public transportation in most of the country. The cost and infrastructure may be keeping us stuck where we are. But it's not a good place to be and sooner or later we will need to change it. I'm hoping for sooner.

 

[RonDean]

Yes we tend to wander a bit in these discussions. The OP was about EV for RVing. And I'm guessing that as we improve access or technology for commuters it will also move us closer to an electric RV. As far as horse "waste" - I've shoveled my share of it. And assuming a healthy diet, as someone pointed out it's not really waste.

 

[user 22017]

And EVs are even heavier. Which wears out tires much faster apparently, leaving more rubber dust, according to some studies. So good and bad. They can probably figure that out.

The percentage of Americans that would buy an EV velomobile would be minimal. Look at how many tiny "Smart" cars have sold. A one or two person vehicle doesn't really work for the average person. Even trucks almost all have extended cabs these days.

Take the the mini Cooper. Sold well. Can fit 4 humans if needed and is sporty and has a classic look. Mom can still get the kids to school if needed.

These specially cars and use cases work very well in smaller countries that don't have very large population and have the ability to make changes nationwide that doesn't wreak havoc on their roads and cities.

Everyone says Norway is the gold standard of EV adoption. But Norway has half the population of LA county and 140k more square miles. And ironically they have a very high income per person because of their export of petroleum.

Bottom line is that we mostly have the infrastructure we have. And can adjust to some extent. But we can't rip and replace most of it. So if it's hydrogen, electric, CNG, captured cattle farts, whatever, and it improves things, I'm for it.
But forced wholesale change is almost impossible at best.

My guess is changes were required by the countries that are ahead of us with EV adoption . Laws were passed... I'm guessing. People don't like change.

 

[Happy Camper]

My guess is changes were required by the countries that are ahead of us with EV adoption . Laws were passed... I'm guessing. People don't like change.

I'm all for change when it makes sense. Those countries have the ability to drastically change infrastructure, and the money to do it with less disruption than we can.

 

[user 22017]

I'm all for change when it makes sense. Those countries have the ability to drastically change infrastructure, and the money to do it with less disruption than we can.

We have the money.

 

[Gr8ful]

Who has the money? The U.S. has a 33 trillion $$ debt which is just under $100k per citizen. EVs are cheaper in many other countries because of our higher safety rules. What the government & EV makers should have done is sold us on the virtues of EVs instead of trying to force them on us when they weren't ready. I've been in sales forever & always said you can sell anything if it's packaged right. Remember the Pet Rocks, Beanie Baby's. etc?

 

[bullfrog !]

Interesting fact as it seems only 12% of Americans have over $100,000 in savings and checking accounts. Which should mean there is a huge market for cheap transportation, funny as that doesn’t seem to be what is being offered!

 

[user 22017]

Who has the money? The U.S. has a 33 trillion $$ debt which is just under $100k per citizen. EVs are cheaper in many other countries because of our higher safety rules. What the government & EV makers should have done is sold us on the virtues of EVs instead of trying to force them on us when they weren't ready. I've been in sales forever & always said you can sell anything if it's packaged right. Remember the Pet Rocks, Beanie Baby's. etc?

Look at how much we spend on our military. It is insane. We definately have the money. Mostly because we are blessed with the most abundant natural resources in the world.

Look it up... the percentage of our budget spent on the military. Money for the military industrial complex, as Eisenhower referred to it (I think). And Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[user 22017]

Interesting fact as it seems only 12% of Americans have over $100,000 in savings and checking accounts. Which should mean there is a huge market for cheap transportation, funny as that doesn’t seem to be what is being offered!

It's the SOS decade after decade. Marketing used by corporations to convince Americans that they are losers if they don't have bigger and more expensive SUV's or pickup trucks. Bigger = more profit for the car manufacturers. And people are swayed by the marketing. Nobody wants to be a loser

 

[Happy Camper]

It's the SOS decade after decade. Marketing used by corporations to convince Americans that they are losers if they don't have bigger and more expensive SUV's or pickup trucks. Bigger = more profit for the car manufacturers. And people are swayed by the marketing. Nobody wants to be a loser

Unintended consequences of Cafe mpg rules. Look it up, and you'll see.

Now if EV makers were really in it to get everyone an EV they would have started with cheaper EVs. But they started at the high end. And the very high end. And most that got the EV credits already had money to purchase them without the credits.

So now they are going to bring value EVs to the masses supposedly. They've squeezed as much as they can from the high end and the market is drying up a little. So the focus will be on lower profit per unit and selling more units. It's a shell game. It took years for Tesla to hit the low cost number he put out there for the model 3. And it only lasted for a week or so before getting bumped up again.

It is a good time to buy a used Tesla from Hertz. As they are selling them low enough to get a $4k credit for buying a used EV under a certain amount in some cases.

Carla, we might have the money to do it. But the disruption would be terrible for our economy. They have been working on the freeway by my place for almost 4 years to expand and add two more lanes. This is a stretch of roughly five miles. They have about a year more before it's finished. That's 2 lanes for 5 miles.

And when they're done with that, they will be working on about 5 to 7 miles to the east. That'll take 3-4 years.

It's been extremely disruptive and has cost a lot of money to businesses and people trying to get to work on time. Unplanned closures, unexpected delays, and even when it's open it's a bottleneck. Every single time I leave my place I check maps for traffic. Because it affects the surface streets as well.

2 lanes. 5 miles of freeway. 4+ years of madness. All for 2 toll lanes I'll never use. I live very close to the freeway, so I deal with it every day.

The way we do things takes forever and isn't always the best way to solve the problem.

Like I said. It's a huge difference for a large rich country with only 5 million people to make these changes than say anywhere in California.

 

[Happy Camper]

Because I said it, I'll link these articles that explain my unintended consequences remark.

From 2011:
https://me.engin.umich.edu/news-events/news/cafe-standards-could-mean-bigger-cars-not-smaller-ones/

From 2023:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-loophole-that-supersized-cars/

 

[Gr8ful]

As I understand it an EV tax credit only applies if you pay taxes. I watched a show today claiming we're 2nd behind Russia in Natural Resourses. Maybe EVs should come with Pet Rocks & Beanie Babies

 

[user 22017]

As I understand it an EV tax credit only applies if you pay taxes. I watched a show today claiming we're 2nd behind Russia in Natural Resourses. Maybe EVs should come with Pet Rocks & Beanie Babies

That could be right. I was going to add that we are tied with Russia for natural resources... from the last time I looked it up. Maybe 10-15 years ago

 

[Happy Camper]

Initially they EV credits were applied to tax forms and credited if you had outstanding tax liability, non refundable. So that shows that a person with an average income generally wasn't going to have $8k in tax liability.

The workaround is to transfer the credit to the dealership you're buying from. Then it can be used to lower the cost of the car or as a down payment, etc. Which incentivizes dealerships to bring prices up on EVs and give less than the full amount possible. Or charge more and show they are applying the full credit.

 

[RonDean]

RE: We have the money... It's called income disparity. The US is rich but most of us sure don't feel rich. There are the upper few percentage that are doing great and then there's the rest of us. Laws are passed to favor and protect the rich political donors and not the rest of us. EVs would be much more popular if the rest of us could afford them. Look at the semi-affordable Hybrid Ford PU with waiting lines and Ford still chooses not to make enough for the demand. Tax rebates only help those making enough money but certainly not anyone living on SS. I could go on, but you've heard the tune before. The bottom line is that the US not having more EVs on the road is not because of a lack of demand or even possible impact on our economy. It's just that most of us can't afford the few that are produced.

 

[Gr8ful]

Ron I disagree. IMHO EVs haven't beat the existing fuel cars on mileage, operating in the cold, ease of use, charging, range, cost, etc. Plus the government is forcing them on us. When the EVs can beat fuel vehicles they will win but that's a long way off.
Here's a great You Tube on the Truth of EVs. Watch all 26 min please & let me jnow what you think, Thanks!

 

[dhuff]

RE: We have the money... It's called income disparity. The US is rich but most of us sure don't feel rich. There are the upper few percentage that are doing great and then there's the rest of us. <snip>

Another reason we "have the money," look up how much income would be added to the Fed. budget if rich tax cheats were prosecuted and made to pay their legal share. Not talking about raising their rate (tho' IMHO we should) but just unpaid taxes owed currently. UC Calif. Berkeley professor and former US Sec. of Labor Robert Reich has stated more than once,

"Researchers estimate that if the top 1% of Americans paid the full amount of taxes they owed, it would raise $175 billion a year. That’s just UNPAID taxes. Not new or higher taxes."

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^I guess it depends on your view point. There is a lot of damaging and costly pollution being caused by internal combustion engines. If you lived in someplace like big city California in the 1970’s or China during the Olympics most likely you would understand how devastating it is to have to deal with pollution in your daily life. We have allowed the problem to grow to a point it is affecting the whole world. EVs do have the potential to with alternative energy to reduce the problem eventually but until then using internal combustion engines does have a high cost to the environment and life in general. What if we end up paying for the islands sinking into the sea, providing aid to those that suffer property loss due to weather extremes caused by climate change due even somewhat to pollution and health care for those with respiratory problems. If you realize how much it is costing to continue using internal combustion engines you might consider EVs winning and want the government to require them when they can meet the need. Bet if we had to pay the real cost of using internal combustion engines many peoples opinions would change. At $1.00 a gallon for fuel would you still think sending soldiers to die to get cheap fuel a good idea, you know we did that right?

 

[JT646]

^^^ Bet if we had to pay the real cost of using internal combustion engines many peoples opinions would change. At $1.00 a gallon for fuel would you still think sending soldiers to die to get cheap fuel a good idea, you know we did that right?

Well stated. Here's an interesting article from Stanford University on transitioning to cleaner sources...

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/02...ble-a-reliable-cheap-clean-energy-transition/

 

[camperdan]

It's the SOS decade after decade. Marketing used by corporations to convince Americans that they are losers if they don't have bigger and more expensive SUV's or pickup trucks. Bigger = more profit for the car manufacturers. And people are swayed by the marketing. Nobody wants to be a loser

RE: expensive SUVs and pickups. I read years ago that Americans live for "stuff", Europeans live for "experiences".
Two factors are in favor of experiences.. .. Europeans face far shorter drives to get to interesting places. Italy, for example,
is an 11-hour drive from England. Secondly, they have more time than Americans. Europeans by large, have at least 6 weeks vacation each year. Americans get two if they're lucky. It is easy to see why Americans don't blink at spending
$50,000 for a 4-door pickup......semi-manageable payments and they're instantly happy. Don't have the time or money
for 'experiences' . And, of course, the momentum of rampant consumerism for decades certainly played a part.