Interesting Articles Relating to EVs

[rruff]

The percentage of Americans that would buy an EV velomobile would be minimal.

Think about why that is for a second. Imagine driving around on the streets as they are, with the parking as it is, with everyone else driving a big SUV or pickup as they do... and you in a little electric vehicle about the size of what I posted above.

Would you feel safe? What would be the upside?

 

[wanderlust]

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

But we already do pay for that. Florida, Delaware, Virginia, Carolinas, etc - coastal areas are being flooded. Homeowners cannot get private flood insurance, only the insurance subsidized by Fed. So basically we taxpayers pay a little so rich people can afford to live in oceanfront property.
John Oliver (warning: he uses a lot of profanities, but he IS funny) has a good stream about it:

 

[rruff]

It is easy to see why Americans don't blink at spending
$50,000 for a 4-door pickup.

You maybe haven't priced one lately. The lower trim 4x4s cost that much. $70k is more typical.

 

[rruff]

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.

People are getting fatter, but we still don't need a 6,000 lb vehicle to haul a payload of one human.

The guys are trapped by the macho manly angle of a big vehicle, while both genders are trapped by the safety angle... which is real! Not that the big vehicle is any safer when running into trees or walls, or when colliding with the big vehciles that everyone else has... but if colliding with an intelligently sized vehicle that weighed 1/10 as much, they'd squish it like a bug. There is an arms race to be safe and feel manly and "better"... and also be able to see over other vehicles... that is driving this trend.

 

[bullfrog !]

You think it is safe or healthy to be exposed to pollution? Motorcycle people think they are safer being able to change direction quickly, stop and accelerate due to their light vehicle. Honestly I feel safer having more room on the road in a small vehicle able to drive around hazards. Maybe the right lane needs to be designated for slower or smaller vehicles and single driver vehicles restricted to 20MPH slower speed limits in the right lane! Lol!!!

 

[user 22017]

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.

Regarding the disruption to the highways... are you thinking of the recent posts showing highways in Norway and Detroit that charge the EV's driving on them?

That could be super disruptive in and near large cities. Might have to use eminent domain and build new EV highways through wealthy neighborhoods... since we know poor neighborhoods were decimated by interstates built through them.

Or, we could ban cars in highly concentrated metro areas, but provide excellent mass transit. <<< my preference

 

[user 22017]

People are getting fatter, but we still don't need a 6,000 lb vehicle to haul a payload of one human.

The guys are trapped by the macho manly angle of a big vehicle, while both genders are trapped by the safety angle... which is real! Not that the big vehicle is any safer when running into trees or walls, or when colliding with the big vehciles that everyone else has... but if colliding with an intelligently sized vehicle that weighed 1/10 as much, they'd squish it like a bug. There is an arms race to be safe and feel manly and "better"... and also be able to see over other vehicles... that is driving this trend.

My concern has always been for those in the smaller cars.

Maybe accidents involving substantially unequal size vehicles don't cause excessive damage/fatalities to the smaller one. I don't know. Seems logical.

I was rear-ended on the interstate while driving a small Hyundai. It was a full size sedan that hit me, I think. My car rolled three times in the median and I was ejected. Wonder what would have happened if it was a truck or big SUV that hit me. The sedan did enough damage. I never looked that up, but I don't like mixing big and small vehicles.

I say yes to more regulations Bans, too. Because people go nuts without regulations and laws. I learned that through gaming.

Had a Toyota MR2 for a while and I felt super tiny on the interstate in that.

 

[user 22017]

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.

It's not just the upper "few" doing great. It's the top 20%.

 

[user 22017]

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.

I tell my kids about European vacation time constantly, because growing up here... nobody will inform them about how poor our working conditions are in contrast to other developed countries. And we take it. We didn't used to take it. Not in the 1930's through 1980. We sure do now.

 

[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/

For those that seem to insist that fat Americans need bigger cars to feel manly, please read the above articles.

Prior to these rule changes there were many compact and sub compact cars from every manufacturer.

When the rules changed and they figured out making larger vehicles allowed them to skirt those rules, what did they do? They stopped making smaller cars and started making larger ones. And the marketing dollars went to promoting the larger vehicles.

Marketing and marketing dollars matter. If you don't believe me, ask any politician that lost because they were outspent by an inferior opponent. An superior product losing market share to a crappy one because the marketing wasn't as good.

Between the marketing of large vehicles and the loss of most smaller cars models, the entire market changed. Yes larger vehicles have higher margins. And they also don't have the downside the rule changes presented makers of smaller vehicles. If you were in charge of the company wouldn't you do the same? Yes, you would.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^it also means you should vote for people that will change the regulations and not the ones that will not.

 

[dhuff]

RE: expensive SUVs and pickups. I read years ago that Americans live for "stuff", Europeans live for "experiences".

And as a society we are much poorer for that. I wish I'd learned the difference decades ago. My son is leaning a lot more towards the "experiences" side and I'm extremely proud of him...

 

[RonDean]

Then we will just have to disagree. I don't know what is in the posted video, as I have explained I tend to avoid watching videos except as a last resort. But I can't see how any video would change the high cost of EVs vs average or lower income levels. As far as cost to drive or money saved at the pump - for me and many other people that is only secondary. Climate change and global pollution are far more important.

As far as "stuff" and "experiences" and/or American priorities I can agree. I put some of the blame on the marketing industry that inundates us on every media stream with what they want us to buy that will increase their profits. Sure, many of us could or should use better sense, but a lifetime of brainwashing can get to anyone.

Tax the rich - I am fine with that. Even better, tax churches and any non-profits that can't show sufficient societal good. We talk about Starbucks being everywhere (slightly > than 16,000) but there are now about 385,000 churches in the US by the last estimate. Admittedly some are doing good works, but I think we could do far more with the money if they would all just pay a reasonable tax rate. I think we could immediately fix the gas vs EV infrastructure some have referenced with just the real estate taxes on the major religious organizations.

Staying just on EVs... I can't speak for anyone else, but based on sales figures most of us are not willing to pay $50,000 (or $70,000) for a 4-door pickup, regardless of how many years and associated interest we can take to pay it off. Lower the price and extend the range and we would be flooding the dealerships. Many of us really WANT an affordable and environmental clean transportation.

 

[user 25174]

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.

What are we to believe?
I live in Chandler, AZ. and can count the number of charging stations on one hand.
Let's say electric cars were affordable.
With the infrastructure far from available to meet demand, and the shutting down of fossil fueled power plants, one might come to believe freedom of or to travel is at stake.

 

[RonDean]

What are we to believe?
I live in Chandler, AZ. and can count the number of charging stations on one hand.
Let's say electric cars were affordable.
With the infrastructure far from available to meet demand, and the shutting down of fossil fueled power plants, one might come to believe freedom of or to travel is at stake.

Keith, I'm not sure exactly what your push back is. Not enough charging stations? My last job I worked with someone that drove a Tesla a two hour round trip every day to work and back. That was in rural Oregon - not exactly a hotbed of charging stations! Most days he just plugged in at home every night and problem solved. That leaves appt dwellers and travelers. Not a small group but much more manageable than everyone. What did they do in the early 20th century when there were not enough gas stations? They build more. The great thing about electricity is that most days the sun shines. Add wind and waves and whatever. We have enough energy sources. All we need is a better distribution network and I'll wager it would be less difficult than trucking all that oil to refineries and then the fossil fuel to all the gas stations.

I think what is at stake is our personal health and the survivability of the planet. Not to mention that a cleaner world would just be a nicer place to live.

 

[bullfrog !]

Freedom to breath clean air and stay healthy is more important than the majority of travel in this country done by single individuals in inefficient oversized vehicles with fuel gulping accessories driving just to be exercising their right to travel. Our freedom to travel doesn’t mean we have to do it in a manner that will eventually destroy our way of life.

 

[user 25174]

Freedom to breath clean air and stay healthy is more important than the majority of travel in this country done by single individuals in inefficient oversized vehicles with fuel gulping accessories driving just to be exercising their right to travel. Our freedom to travel doesn’t mean we have to do it in a manner that will eventually destroy our way of life.

I wholeheartedly agree that the environment we share is important.
I disagree with anyone who mandates others not to do what they themselves are doing.
Like those flying personal jets around the world and telling others how to save the planet.
You go ahead and be the % who need to.
I'll be with those who prefer to make my own decisions.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^Agreed and voice those decisions by voting. I can’t begin to imagine how we can say we are worried more about the environment while allowing the discharge of millions of tons of explosives by waring nations across the world and ourselves flying bombers half way around the world. We need to be much better at deterrence and diplomacy. Isolation isn’t going to solve world climate problems but we can be a better influence and example.

 

[wanderlust]

there were not enough gas stations? They build more.
We have enough energy sources. All we need is a better distribution network and I'll wager it would be less difficult than trucking all that oil to refineries and then the fossil fuel to all the gas stations.

As I said elsewhere, problem with electricity is that we don't have good cheap way to store it. We have cheap way to satisfy base load demand, but we need to run coal power plants on idle to be able to satisfy peak demand (or risk network brownout nad collapse). Charging EVs is making this problem worse, not better.

I think what is at stake is our personal health and the survivability of the planet. Not to mention that a cleaner world would just be a nicer place to live.

Ron, I agree with you, but like when solving most engineering problems, when you hear "can we just", you know there are some missing assumptions.

~~~~~~~~~

Funny fact: yes, we need our military (look at Ukraine who decided to dismantle their army, they thought it was waste of resources, Russians would never start the war, right? Or Chinese?) but we don't need to bomb people living in feodalism into stone age.

As military experts say: First task of army is to PREVENT conflict; second is, if they failed at first task, is to win it.

Those 4 trillions (including future benefits of veterans, which they earned and shold not be cut in any way) which we wasted on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (bombing ruins to dust) would be enough to:
- convert whole country to electricity, replace all gas home appliances with electric;
- rebuild power transmission network (build 80-60 years ago with expected 50 years lifespan, designed to handle substantially lower load, and now falling apart, see yearly fires in the West);
- build decentralized electricity storage facilities and smart usage (turn off A/C for few minutes, stop dryer) to smooth/handle peak demand.

Also, this electrification program would create many thousands of jobs impossible to outsource abroad.

Thomas Jefferson stated this assumption frequently: “A well informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.” “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” “An informed citizenry is at the heart of a dynamic democracy.”
https://connections.ca6.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/announcements/Civics Who Will Teach Them June 2023 Final.pdf

Yes, democracy solves such challenges by voting. It is easy to have opinion, everybody has a right to have opinion, but is is much harder to have *informed* opinion.

BTW, I also have opinions, possibly wrong, and I reserve the right to change them as I learn new facts.

 

[bullfrog !]

When you start to look at converting to EVs as a national defense issue and how important a functional transportation system that isn’t dependent on fossil fuels solely is to our security those infrastructure costs begin to look minor compared to the defense buget we now spend.