After the recent survey in the U.S. that suggested many people wouldn’t want to buy an EV even in a high-price fuel environment I thought I’d do my own kind of survey. So, what are your reasons to buy/not buy an EV? Here are mine, for not wanting one:
1. I deeply mistrust anything powered by batteries and with no constant backup. My laptop only parts with its charger in an emergency. My phone is always near a charger. 2. I even more deeply mistrust electronics and software — too much can go wrong for no immediately discernible reason and fixing the wrong takes an expert. 3. I don’t like it too easy. I love my manual gearbox and the fact I need to be alert all the time when driving my ICE car because every decision is mine. It’s good for the brain. 4. Fuel prices fluctuate. For as long as I can remember, and I can remember back to the early 90s, electricity prices have always gone only one way: up.
The best battery on earth is a full tank of gas. I simply don't trust EVs to not go the way of my laptop or phone and just decide that they are out of a charge
Indeed, that is the great advantage of fossil fuels and nuclear. They are stored, concentrated energy. Hydro even is stored, concentrated energy of water, although at a much lower energy density than fossil/nuclear. Geothermal is stored concentrated nuclear energy also but like hydro at a much lower energy density. That is why only hydro & geothermal are practical renewable energy. Wind and solar, being diffuse, non-stored energy are impractical except for odd niche applications.
They're good for off-grid homes or an emergency BEV charger/power supply, they are good in areas on diesel generation if there is a good wind/solar resource (since diesel fuel is so expensive and may have to be flown in), in areas with lots of reservoir hydro and a good resource since the hydro can buffer some solar & wind, and of course solar is good on satellites and space probes <= Mars orbit or on the poles of the Moon.
That may be but you will pay 6X as much to run on that battery with much lower performance except for range. And maximum range you can get is with a series hybrid EV, which is just an EV with an added small hyper-efficient one speed engine/generator.
Fossils are currently the source of 82% of world energy, but for transportation they are not used efficiently. Essentially you can view the series hybrid as a much more efficient fossil fueled vehicle. Similarly you can view a pure BEV as a much more efficient fossil fueled vehicle, a series hybrid vehicle with the generator at a coal or gas powered plant. Herein you see the advantage. Natural gas is right now 10X cheaper per unit energy than gasoline or diesel. CCGT runs at ~4X the average efficiency of a ICE vehicle engine. So theoretically you should be paying 40X less to run an EV on a gas grid. Unfortunately grid distribution costs have skyrocketed due to all the idiotic wind & solar they have foisted on the grid to maximize the inefficiency of the grid as well as corrupt mismanaged utilities i.e. FERC, CISO, ERCOT & ISO-NE.
I’d get an EV for local use. With dogs, grandkids and sports gear I need a large vehicle for my regular 200 mile trips to the coast - the larger EVs frankly don’t compete on luggage space or range with my very large 4x4.
And electric trolleys, electric trains and even diesel-electric trains are no longer competitive with battery powered buses & trains. They all should be replaced with BEVs.
Battery Vehicles certainly have their niche alright, the "niche" called toys for the wealthy.
Just wait until people have to start replacing the batteries on their Battery Vehicles
Electric trollies don't rely on batteries. They rely on overhead electrical wires which require significant infrastructure and constant maintenance. Trollies were (are) limited in their range. They can't reach the suburban and, of course, rural areas of cities that ICE buses can.
Hobbyists (not wealthy) have been converting ICE vehicles to BEVs for 50yrs or more, because Detroit wouldn't sell them. Battery replacements are like $20k and people have already 400k miles on their Tesla batteries. It's about the cost of an engine replacement in an ICE vehicle. Pay for a lot of battery replacements for 1/6th cost of energy, that's a saving of over $100k.
A look at Tesla battery degradation and replacement after 400,000 miles:
$20K for a battery replacement? Are you crazy? I've NEVER needed an engine replacement. NEVER. But battery replacements will be a regular occurrence. And people will lose their minds when they find out the cost.
We'll be seeing abandoned EVs scattered all over the world because people won't be able to handle the cost.
Tesla battery degradation?
"It’s one of the main concerns of new electric car buyers and it can vary greatly based on several factors like cell chemistry, battery management system, and usage.
Tesla has historically been able to limit degradation to reasonable levels thanks to its robust battery management system."
Those batteries need a "management system" now. What a joke! And here I thought that EVs were the answer to everyone's problems!
Battery vehicles are a big joke, a farce, a con foisted on unsuspecting people.
Yes $20k for a Model S 85kwh battery that's a 300mile range battery. But the newer batteries are going to last for over 300,000 miles, even a million miles with the LFMP cells. Here's a guy in cold Canada who already has 310k miles, on his Tesla Model 3 without any issues except replaced the drivetrain oil pump @ 286k miles for C$194. Still on its original brakes (pads & rotors). And get this his battery is still at 80% of original capacity. And that's not a long life LFP battery.
500,000 km Tesla Model 3 proves EVs far cheaper than gas:
BEV buses are now quite capable of replacing all buses more economically in all but rural routes. Even long distance diesel locomotives can be replaced with battery versions. Short distance planes can be replaced with battery electric. I would question if even city LRT systems are not more economical to build now with battery locomotives, rather than third rails or catenary lines.
You get more luggage space with the modern skateboard chassis EV. Range is still the main limitation but that is slowly improving. The series hybrid EV is the maximum range vehicle, running on diesel.
I cannot trust or believe-knowing the sourcing for EV power or batteries are rare earth minerals is primarily controlled by the CCP; an entity focused on eliminating global freedom
That's because your politicians are as crooked as a $3 bill and sold our countries down the sewer. Politicians nowadays are bought like hogs on the auction block.
Rare earths are neither rare nor earths. They are found without too much difficulty; trouble is that it is a nasty process to mine and extract them. It's highly polluting so we offshored it. We need to wake up as a country and at least get a window put in out stomachs so we can see as that's where our heads are at...
I don't even like 'new' ICE cars for their electronics. I like older cars with dials and gauges. A manual transmission is far more controllable. It's more like riding a horse and yes, you have to use your brain to drive it. Me and my beloved 2002 Audi TT.
That's nice but that's all going the way of the horse and buggy. Maybe 20yrs you won't even be allowed to drive a car without self-driving because killing 40K mostly young people unnecessarily will not be tolerated. Personally I prefer the bicycle.
I like the bicycle too and in 20 years, when I'm 92 (if I make it) I may opt for a tricycle with a basket for my used diapers....Clothe of course. Wouldn't want to leave the carbon footprint associated with the paper ones.
Mostly you will need a large basket full of face diapers. Fauci's successor will not allow you to bicycle or tricycle in public without your face diaper on.
Agreed. There aren't many new cars that tickle my fancy. Amenities like heated seats, BT stereo, and nav are great but some of the gimmicky stuff they're tacking on to vehicles these days cause more trouble than they're worth. I wish manufacturers would take a more minimalist, or at least button-focused approach. Simpler is better...and that doesn't mean cheaply putting everything on one screen either *cough* Tesla
I've been in IT long enough to know that the AI systems behind self-driving cars, "full" or otherwise, are like a 5-year-old driving a Mac truck.
All IT systems always miss something. They're called "boundary conditions". In a business environment, they upgrade the software and move on. Nobody loses one's life.
In driving a vehicle, conditions can change frequently AND unpredictably. People, in general, have a hard time keeping up with changing and unpredictable conditions, so software has an even harder time.
You want to put your life in the hands of a "5-year old", be my guest.
Tesla gets constant feedback data on their self-driving effectiveness. Already a 10X improvement in accident stats. And that continues to improve. When stats come back with what 100X improvement over human drivers and with over 40k people killed in traffic accidents every year, how long do you think they can suppress self-driving let alone mandate it for every vehicle? The thing about it is, once you get it working as it already is, it's just a matter of continual improvement and sooner or later it will supplant human operators. That's a given. Plus most people would rather be able to read, interact on their phones, play video games, do office work, or whatever rather than be focused on another 40min drive to work stuck in traffic. That's a lot of lost time 80min/day for a lot of people.
The thing about it is, AI developers and systems are ALWAYS playing catch-up. That's what happens in IT. Conditions always change and are ALWAYS unpredictable.
If you've ever been in IT, you would KNOW to NEVER put your life in the hands of an AI system, especially in such a chaotic system such as automobile traffic.
Tell a modern fighter pilot that. Their planes fly in a state of unstable equilibrium, the software literally prevents the plane from flying apart with millisecond adjustments to the control surfaces.
It is a tricky question though. You put in an AI so it saves the lives of 999 out of a thousand goofy, careless teenagers who kill themselves in auto crashes. But 1 of the thousand was a really smart, conscientious, careful driver who got killed due to a software bug. For the 1 who died, the FSD was deadly. Essentially she was sacrificed so the 999 careless drivers lived. I would prefer it be optional to use the FSD or go manual. Then if the good driver chooses to use the FSD and it kills her, then it was her personal choice. But I'm not so sure future drivers will be given that option, due to all the deaths the FSD prevents.
I'm not a Nascar fan but what would this mean for car racing? Would it now become less of a car race and more of who's got the better IT? Beer sales at the track would, no doubt, plummet.
Definitely, it is only a matter of time when an AI will outperform the best driver. Auto racing will be more like a robot challenge, best tech team wins. I would imagine most spectator sports are in decline because people like to stay at home and be entertained with their video devices.
EVs are a thing for the sunny days without issues. I remember very dark winter weeks with temperatures constantly well below zero degree Celsius. I do not buy the argument that EVs would work well in such circumstances. The world of today has not understood that dependencies weakens and systems working independently from another are strengthening your survival chances.
No EVs are much better in cold weather (if designed for it). An ICE has to be plugged in or it won't start. And EV will start up just fine even @ -50 degC. And range decreases less than an ICE vehicles range.
We live in western Canada, and routinely drive places that are far off the major highways, where chargers are beginning to be installed. "Range anxiety" is a real issue. If I lived in a major centre like Vancouver and had a car that I needed only to get around town, I might consider an EV
Again an argument for a series hybrid EV. That is the maximum range vehicle. In fact Detroit was contracted by the EPA to build a 100mpg diesel electric series hybrid full sized 4 passenger sedan back in the 1990's. But they never bothered marketing them.
I have one hybrid vehicle (RAV 4) and am very happy with it to date. Great performance and fuel economy on the highway - provides extra range and hill-climbing power. But that's an add-on battery, not an EV
That's pretty much the standard for rational uncorrupted governments to push new tech to reach sufficient market penetration to be self-sustaining or not. The US gov't, especially now has been lackluster in that compared to foreign governments.
China is the industrial powerhouse today because their government through public banks financed hundreds of startup industries, using free Western IP. South Korean gov't decided they could excel in shipbuilding, so they bankrolled the industry to develop, now they're the World leader in shipbuilding.
Once EVs get off ground as they are now, then the subsidies are no longer necessary. So why all the massive unheard-of-ever continuing and increasing subsidies for Wind & Solar? That's the question you should be asking.
Governments' forcibly taking money from less wealthy people (e.g., carbon tax on domestic NG usage) and giving it to more wealthy people to bribe them into buying an expensive car (an EV) is flat-out corruption.
From the poor to the rich via the power of government!
Second, it's the Church of Climate Change itself that our governments have joined that's driving them to push EVs, NOT the technology itself. That applies to wind power and solar power, too.
EVs, wind power, and solar power are all sacraments of the Church of Climate Change.
BEV's are a more efficient technology than ICE vehicles, plain and simple. EV's are a disruptive technology and we are now witnessing them overthrow the incumbent ICE vehicle. The ICE has been around for over a century and it's time is almost up.
I'm not sure what you mean about money going from the poor to the rich via the power of government. Fossil fuel companies and car manufacturers are some of the most powerful and influential companies in the world with immense lobbying power and politicians in their back pocket. These companies have been receiving unrivalled subsidies and tax-breaks for decades to keep their prices artificially low. Is it not only fair that the EV industry receives similar support?
On your "church of climate change" point, I would remind you that EV's are charged using electricity which in most countries is still generated (for the most part) from a fossil fuel source. Will this change? Absolutely, but it will take many years before we can declare EV's to be a truly "clean" alternative to the ICE. Technological efficiency is something that is desired regardless of if we are talking about renewables or fossil fuels, or would you prefer we continued to use an outdated technology that can't keep up with technological advancement and innovation?
Air quality issues in cities are a big problem too, with ICE vehicles being a major contributor to polluting the air we breathe. This causes cancers, asthma and other long-term health complications for so many. Reducing the number of ICE vehicles in our cities is a fantastic way to protect the future health of our children and future generations.
It baffles me that people can be so obsessed with attacking the "church of climate change" that they can overlook other clear benefits that make a technology so appealing.
To be honest I live in a city and mainly use my car for round trips of 20+ miles, anything lower and I will take my bike or use public transport, where I can. I have an ICE and I love it, but I know the social and environmental problems it brings about, and with the price of diesel currently I would almost rather walking. I personally need to wait for a steady and competitively priced 2nd hand EV market to get up and running before I switch to an EV, but when that time comes I won't hesitate to get one. Any car is an investment and investing in an EV is starting to make sense.
"I'm not sure what you mean about money going from the poor to the rich via the power of government."
It's very simple, really.
In British Columbia, Canada, the BC government applies a 50% "carbon" tax on domestic natural gas usage. That's everyone, even the poor.
The British Columbia government, you see, is all in on the Climate Change ideology and Battery Vehicles - sorry, Battery Electric Vehicles - is one of their answers to Climate Change.
The BC government takes money from less wealth people and eventually gives those monies as bribery - sorry, "incentives" - to more wealthy people to entice them to buy an expensive Battery Vehicle.
Oh, and those same people who buy Battery Vehicles in Canada also get either a federal tax credit or an incentive, too!
It all helps them buy that EV that is "starting to make sense".
That's corruption, pure and simple because guess who those more wealthy people are going to vote for in the next election?
Aside from subjective considerations the bigger question around BEVs has to do with government subsidies totaling around $10,000 for the purchase of a new electric vehicle. These are simply an undeserved gift to a segment of the population that has the discretionary income to squander on an electric vehicle - and aside from virtue signaling - this accomplishes nothing with regard to the climate.
On technical grounds batteries are the lowest energy density power source for traction vehicles --- coming in at around 1 MJ/kg vs 10 MJ/kg for ICEs. They make no sense as a technical solution.
I live in a very wealthy area of the US and there's probably more EVs here than anywhere else--that's suburban. It's so funny because they'll smugly talk about how great EVs are only to finish that point and start bragging about their most recent $100,000 trip to Europe. They all consume so much--it's insane. I'd also travel a bunch and build a big house with that kind of money, but you won't catch me virtue signaling about how "great it feels not to be polluting on a daily basis" like I didn't just buy $1,000 of imported appetizers and wine from WholeFoods.
Additional thought: here in Germany gvmt is considering the idea that owners of EV are to be cut off the grid in case the state needs to divert the energy to other consumers. Same with heat pumps. Put this together with the constant surveillance apparatus, your car will in the future either not be charged, if somebody on the state level decides so, or it will not got to the destination you've programmed, e.g. to participate in a anti-government demonstration. Put this together with the brand-new tendency (Irina reported about) to distribute CO2-passports, "they" can oppress you in any way "they" want.
1. Spontaneous combustion of batteries - sometimes while being driven.
2. Tires wear out faster - from the weight of the car.
3. Range goes way down when you are running the AC, and we use the AC a lot in Texas. Same thing when you run the heater in winter.
4. Fuel burned at the place you need the energy is more efficient that fuel burned in a power plant miles away and all the transmission losses along the way. I’m guessing the emissions for an EV charged on the grid may be more than an ICE car - no one wants to do that study!!
5. Cost of battery replacement when it needs to be replaced, and the disposal of the battery is a real problem so far. Recycling needs to improve before it is practical to have everyone driving EVs.
I remember last winter battery-powered buses in Sofia had the heating turned off to save on power.
The battery lifetime issue -- thanks for bringing it up. That's another big problem for me, but for people who don't drive their cars for more than 5 year it won't matter. Disposal problem aside.
Right. Let the second owner deal with all the battery problems. I’m sure that will hurt the resale value of EVs when more and more people run into these problems.
Tesla uses a heat pump for heat/cooling. Very efficient. The lack of waste heat in an EV is a plus not a minus. Waste heat is wasted energy and ICE vehicles waste about 85% of the gasoline energy content.
Cool. I understand that there is a lot of energy losses at each step of the electricity generation process. Efficiency losses at the point where fuel is burned to turn the turbines, then each time it goes through a transformer, then through transmission lines, then back through transformers to get back to 220v or whatever your Tesla charger is, then efficiency losses when charging your battery then again when discharging your battery. I have always wondered what percentage all these losses add up to. Is there a way to figure this out? For example is it more efficient to burn gas to cook my bacon on a gas stove or to burn gas at the power plant and go through all the transmission losses noted above?
That's true but you can run on natural gas @ 10X lower cost per unit energy than gasoline or diesel right now. Burning at 60% efficiency in a CCGT which is 4X more efficient than the average ICE vehicle efficiency. So 60% eff X 90% transmission eff x 90% charging eff x 90% BEV efficiency = 44% efficient vs 15% for the ICE vehicle. 3X more efficient and 10X lower fuel energy cost. Not hard to figure out why people want BEVs. Just wait until they are readily available in heavy Trucks.
I am not an EV fan. A hybrid would work for me with my solar for our 10 to 20 km trips. Except for November through February. Economically makes NO sense. I have my Fiat 500X Diesel. For homeowners with solar and small trips it can make sense except for the economics of initial purchase and electrifying the house. Forget apartment dwellers. Here in Germany you CANNOT find an electrician anymore for installation.
As far as battery recycling there is better news out now for secondary use as storage and much longer life albeit with reduced capacity. In other words the batteries can continue to be used for years in stationary operation where weight is not a factor.
Range anxiety and always hoping you find a charging station AND then having to wait makes current EVs useless for medium to long range travel.
1) Big factor is the 6X higher cost of energy for the ICE vehicle. That's the BIG one. Once they become available to Truckers they will not want an ICE truck. Operating costs are the killer.
2) More maintenance issues and breakdowns, EVs don't have all the brake pad replacement, multitude of oil changes, engine coolant, battery fluid, catalytic convertor/muffler replacement, exhaust corrosion, engine & transmission failure problems.
3) Much better performance, better stability, better turning capability, much better acceleration, much easier to have autopilot, much safer in a collision, quieter, much better on hilly roads, built in portable AC power, better for cold weather or hot weather operation, better during flooding and have longer range & operational time than ICE vehicles during bad traffic or evacuation type situations.
4) Less dependent on infrastructure breakdown. Electricity is more fundamental than gasoline long distance supply security. That can easily fail in time of war, natural disaster or government mismanagement (right now deliberate). You can also charge your EV with solar panels and supply emergency home power.
1a) The continuing cost of energy for ICE is higher than EVs, and even with cheaper gas it would be 2x or 3x. Fair point, BUT: the up-front premium for comparable vehicles is significantly more. Hell, you don't even need to look at the comparison between similar vehicles, just look at the YoY price increases. If you intended to buy a Tesla to save on cost of gas--most people don't but whatever--just this last year's price hikes would've mooted 1-5 years of fuel costs depending on how much you drive, but most people who own EVs don't drive that much as they can afford to live near their work. Then consider running costs like tire life and you're not saving much from an EV. But I should double-back and say the vast majority of people aren't doing the math, and to be brutally honest if you're doing this much math to buy a vehicle then I would suggest abstaining on that vehicle or buying something used. 99% of people will only think of not paying for gas a means to be smug to people around them.
1b) The Tesla semi cannot haul more than three tons of cargo according to NHTSA limits. The battery makes the vehicle itself far too heavy to be practical and still road-legal. This is coming from someone who has sat inside a Tesla semi. A very cool looking vehicle, but its weight and range/charging problems make it infeasible. The proof is in the pudding as the semi is still not out yet and has been the source of multiple resignations due to Tesla overpromising only for the engineers to say no and then told to do it anyways.
2) See 1a; nonetheless, yeah I would agree running costs are lower if you lease or manage to sell the car at a price that doesn't factor in battery-life depreciation. Having to replace batteries is an endemic issue.
3) Performance-wise I would disagree: you can launch a Model S Plaid about three times consecutively before it starts to lose performance and range drastically. Hard driving does much the same. I've done drives in the hills with friends and their Teslas go on limp mode. The weight of these vehicles is an issue and brake pads/tires are constant. With this being said, the last AutoCross (look it up) competition was won by a stripped-out and lightly modified Model 3 Performance. They certainly do boogie. As an enthusiast, I appreciate the insane 0-60 times, but it's lacking. I can add by saying there aren't too many people who will gleefully launch a car that hard without feeling deprived of the engagement and drama of ICE. Still. Very fast. The rest of your points are semantic. Could go either way.
4) No. Lol. By that same token, I can buy cans of propane, some gasoline, a grill, and a generator to be just as well-off as someone with solar panels. They also charge insanely slow and are inconsistent. You've managed to say the opposite of what is commonly conceded by proponents of electricity/renewables--that being a weak grid leading to chaos. Gas is definitely better security-wise. Solar panels are a good addition if you have the space, but we can't assume this as a constant in planning our future.
1) No EPA shows a 6X lower cost of energy than a comparable ICE vehicle, and that is getting worse for the ICE vehicle.
The Tesla model Y is now the #1 selling vehicle on the planet, having edged out the Toyota Corolla which has held that position since 1974. You get maybe 10% of their customers are EV enthusiasts, the other 90% buy them because they've examined the specs, cost, maintenance, etc and chosen EV over ICE vehicle. They if anything are a smarter bunch of consumers. So that's your proof that people don't buy your argument. BTW I drive an ICE vehicle and don't want an EV because where I am the numbers don't add up, but that's not everybody. I got a big problem with forcing people to get EVs, it should be up to fair market competition.
Tires? Maintenance costs of EVs are substantially lower than ICE vehicles. The Teslas with the new 4680 cells are expecting million mile range on the vehicle incl battery.
Self-driving is a major selling point for commuters and for safety reasons, 10X safer already.
1b) "Tesla semi cannot haul more than three tons of cargo according to NHTSA limits"
Where do you get that crap from? The battery only weighs 12000lbs and is a structural battery so you are saying it will loose 57,000lbs of cargo due to a 12,000lb battery?!?
In fact the Tesla semi will carry as much or even more than the diesel truck:
"In its 2020 Impact report, Tesla said that it now expects the Tesla Semi to be able to carry a payload “at least as high as it would be for a diesel truck.” And expects 1/2 the operating costs of a diesel truck. That's why people will buy them. In fact you will have to beat truck drivers off with a stick they will want them so bad.
The delay in production is as always ramping up battery production. They are 2yrs behind in cell manufacture, demand for their vehicles is so high. Not helped by the Government pushing wind/solar battery backup.
2) Battery replacement is not endemic. It is less expensive and less common than engine/transmission replacement in an ICE vehicle. Tesla is figuring million mile battery packs with the 4680 cells.
3) No if batteries lost performance that rapidly the pack would be finished within one year. That's nonsense. They are designed for that capability. And warrantied for it. Brake pads get very little wear since they use regenerative braking.
4) I'm not talking about a home solar power setup. Just basic solar panels and inverter to charge your BEV which also supplies portable/emergency power, and a lot cheaper than fueling an ICE vehicle. You would have to store a lot of fuel as an alternative to that. Fuel storage is expensive and dangerous. You have a fuel leak that can cost you or your insurance company over a $million. Stored gas cannot match the energy you will get from solar panels in a good solar location. 10kw solar panels, 40kwh/day, or 140miles/day vs 7gal gas/day for the same. That's a lot of gas storage. Good for short duration but for those who want long duration fuel independence solar/EV would be attractive.
And who says I'm big on "renewables". Wind solar are impractical for grid electricity except for niche applications. But electricity is the future for just about everything including aircraft will be going electric propulsion (hybrid). A lifetime in industry I've seen electric takeover just about everything, what used to be diesel, hydraulic or pneumatic has been replaced by electric. And vehicles will be no exception. For long range a series hybrid can be used, which will be just a standard BEV skateboard chassis with a smaller battery and a extreme efficiency one speed diesel engine, perhaps an opposing piston flat engine. But when the charging infrastructure is in place people seem to just prefer a fast charging coffee break when they go long distance.
6. Massive drop in battery capacity, charging speed, and overall lifespan in cold climates. Teslas have to warm up the batteries before you can start supercharging. I'd assume the same applies to others. If I'm remembering correctly, winter temperatures will decrease battery performance by 50%, if not more. Go to any Northwest State in the winter and you'll notice people install block heaters to warm up their engines before they crank them so they don't turn into a solid piece of metal. Insanely cold. Good luck in an EV.
7. Good luck towing anything. Although EV vehicles have instant power, thus allowing them to tow a lot per se, their range while towing is awful. This is common knowledge after people tried using their Rivians as work trucks. Have fun hauling anything more than mulch in the bed. A decent-sized load will cut range by 50%+. Diesel trucks will take a hit from towing, but you can install auxiliary fuel tanks for extra range and once those go it's just a matter of refueling. My buddy's F-350 has two additional fuel tanks. It can haul anything short of a main battle tank. By contrast, I remember being in a group where some guy tried to tow his Ferrari with a Model X and spent over 24hrs going a few hundred miles. I don't remember the exact range, but it was ridiculously inefficient at towing as it required frequent off-route charges--but on paper they'll tell you it can tow a house haha.
My reasons for not buying. 1) cost, way too pricey, 2) lack of enough EV chargers to make it worth it at this time, 3) the adverse affect of cold on the batteries which affects the operational range, 4) the adverse affect of severe heat (think over 40c which we see in the Deserts of the USA) which while possibly increasing range causes battery degradation, 5) EVs keep popping up catching on fire spontaneously and battery fires don’t like water and need alternate means to put out, 6) the USA grid or any Grid is not anywhere ready for massive EV incorporation, and 7) the minerals needed are currently (for the most part) only available from China which has many challenges and issues around that fact.
2 - resell value seems iffy. Who wants a car dependent on a used battery.
3 - they weigh a lot and this makes them pollute the air due to micro rubber coming off the tires
4- how are they good for the environment when the mining of minerals needed to produce them is very bad for the environment and they cannot be easily recycled
5 - charging stations are not keeping up with demand and this could get you in a difficult position.
6 - there is a shortage of expert mechanics that can service them and also auto repair shops that do work on them.
7- the batteries will stock pile and perhaps the cars also when we get to many in the road. New technology could obsolete them quickly.
I would consider it as a second car. But that would be an expensive second car.
Also I routinely take 7 hour drives, not sure evs are up to that task yet with out long pit stops.
The acceleration is intriguing though.
I always thought the mild 48volt hybrid made the most sense at increasing milage on the most amount of cars. But the people who want batteries want big batteries they can plugin.
Never buy one - I want my electronics in my office not my car!
I want my cars "old school" with me in control and I don't want them tell me what to do... so maybe I'm a control freak?
I live in Texas - way out in the middle of nowhere... who would come get me if I ran out of juice. I might make it to Ft Worth - but 3 hours to Dallas - I don't want to stay there over night just for a road trip.
I don't want to support the Chinese.
Or Elon Musk - my tax dollars are doing that.
Don't believe in tax dollars going to support corporations, if it isn't a good product then it won't sell enough to make a profit, at least that's how it used to be, then it would go away.
Too expensive and I'm too practical, not a yuppie.
The last thing - I like my behind too much to see it go up in flames one day!
I enjoy ICE cars as an enthusiast. EVs are soulless; no sound, no vibration, no engagement, no dynamism, etc. EVs are also the worst when it comes to actually owning the vehicle. Tesla will brick your car if you mess with the software, so all you can do to tweak it would be suspension, wheels, and weight reduction along with general aesthetic changes. With my car I can tune the engine to my liking and add as many parts as I feel like without issue. For example, I have an E85 software map for my car as well as a pump gas performance map, a pump gas eco map, and a stock map. I have family members/friends with EVs and they like them, but they drive maybe 20 minutes a day and charge them overnight. I think the best "solution" for most people would be plug-in hybrids as they use much less battery material than a full EV, deliver good performance, and have unlimited range in hybrid mode. One of my family members has a PIH and hasn't bought gas since he bought it due to short commutes in EV mode. What's great is that he always has the option to drive it in hybrid mode for road trips or towing. When you compare this to a Tesla, you're going the same distance every day with zero tailpipe emissions with probably 1/10th as much battery volume as the Tesla. FYI it's a RAV4 XSE Prime. Got it for $54k IIRC. Good car thus far.
Regardless, I like gas cars because I'm an enthusiast and although high-end EVs are REALLY fast off the line, they're just not that much fun beyond that. For everyone else, I think plug-in hybrid vehicles make a lot more sense than EVs. Hell, maybe even nat gas ICE would work. I've seen some home-brew NG conversions that work well.
Sure, they accelerate fast but how important a consideration is that in everyday life, really, when you think about it? I'm totally happy with my Mazda 2, fast enough for me.
Yeah and the fast ones cost $100k+. A gas car with the same performance would run you $50k unless we're talking about the Model S Plaid, in which case you're looking at Porsche 991 Turbo S performance.
A Porsche 991 can't compete with a Plaid. $2M Lamborghini's get demolished by Plaid's. Watch DragTimes and see the Plaid beat just about every vehicle except for the 1914hp RIMAC BEV:
Yes, Toyota likes the complex series-parallel hybrid format. Tesla rejected hybrids and went all EVs. Now the Tesla Model Y has now displaced the Toyota Corolla as the #1 selling vehicle. The Toyota Corolla has held that title since 1974. Tesla is winning with pure BEVs and Toyota is losing with its hybrids. Its a case of the market preference.
Nothing wrong with being an enthusiast. Gearheads as they are nicknamed, have a lot of fun with their ICE vehicles, an excellent hobby. There are also a lot of EV enthusiasts, they also enjoy them. No need whatsoever for mandating one vehicle type over another. Let the consumer choose.
1) Big factor is the 6X higher cost of energy for the ICE vehicle. That's the BIG one. Once they become available to Truckers they will not want an ICE truck. Operating costs are the killer.
2) More maintenance issues and breakdowns, EVs don't have all the brake pad replacement, multitude of oil changes, engine coolant, battery fluid, catalytic convertor/muffler replacement, exhaust corrosion, engine & transmission failure problems.
3) Much better performance, better stability, better turning capability, much better acceleration, much easier to have autopilot, much safer in a collision, quieter, much better on hilly roads, built in portable AC power, better for cold weather or hot weather operation, better during flooding and have longer range & operational time than ICE vehicles during bad traffic or evacuation type situations.
4) Less dependent on infrastructure breakdown. Electricity is more fundamental than gasoline long distance supply security. That can easily fail in time of war, natural disaster or government mismanagement (right now deliberate). You can also charge your EV with solar panels and supply emergency home power.
I am ideally suited for an EV - low mileage, short journeys, able to home charge. However, I am not in the market for a new car. If I was, I would not want to pay the premium for EV. Also, the overall environmental impact of building an EV (rare earths, etc) would be worse than keeping my diesel SUV running for as long as possible.
Am I right to think that someone at Tesla in California can tweak the software in a Tesla anywhere in the world ? If so, a hacker could do it. Very frightening.
Unfortunately that's true for any connected car (EV or ICE) which most new ones are nowadays, including various aspects of automatic driving (breaking, steering, acceleration). The powertrain is largely not the factor here.
If you could build and power the entire EV with electricity that came from hydro, geothermal or nuclear then you might have something. Keep in mind energy travels down hill from high order to lower order. Energy is neither created or destroyed. If you build and power an EV with fossil fuels then you are farthest away from the source of energy you used. In other words you are farther downhill. Sorry folks, but thats how energy works for normal people.
And fossil fuels are are produced with electricity. In fact a gasoline vehicle uses more electricity than a BEV because of all the electricity that goes into refining & distributing gasoline. Energy is routinely created, mass --> energy is where virtually all energy comes from. Fossil fuel inputs full lifecycle for an EV even powered on a Coal grid are lower than an ICE vehicle. And of course you can power an EV on hydro, nuclear or hyper-efficient gas/coal which you just can't achieve hyper-efficiency on a ICE vehicle. The only way is with a series hybrid Electric vehicle. When EV manufacture matures it is quite possible a standard BEV skateboard chassis will come with a series hybrid version for long range. Hyper-efficient one speed small diesel engines can be built.
Come to my neighborhood, every house has 2 piles with an 80% chance it is a luxury pile.
Max 5 years per pile and then onto a fresh new smell pile. The bigger the pile the better.
They love their piles so much its payments and interest all the way. One neighbor got ostracized because they got their kid a liddle chevy pile, we felt for the pile.
When I was in college a $20 bill would buy 80 gallons of gas. Is it really that much more expensive now?
I like to travel by car across the western US. It can be 100 miles between gas stations, but there are NO chargers at all. And if you did find one how long would you be there?
Longer than you'd be at a fuel station. The nearest charger to us us at a hypermarket in town. Every time we go shopping there is a car there, sometimes two. I think they charge for free there but imagine if a third EV happens to come along... Haven't seen another charger in town, by the way, just this one.
I am a long distance driver, being child and benefactor of the Interstate Highway System, so EV still don’t make any practical sense for me. I still love the thrill of driving across America and feeling like Easy Rider again. I have driven over 5 million miles and owned 11 truck stop on my resume.
My family owns two Teslas. The first one, we bought 8 years ago. It's not because we are greenies. We aren't. It's because they are a better mousetrap. Acceleration and handling are remarkable. No trips to the gas station. We charge overnight in the garage for much less than gas. Less maintenance. More technologically advanced.
The only downside is long trips when you have to wait at a charging location for 30 to 45 minutes for an 80% charge. For that, we have a fullsize pickup with a V8 hemi. Given unreliability of electricity in my state, we'll always have an ICE as well.
A sensible position. Even for range though an series hybrid EV would be the right way to build them, just a standard EV chassis with a much smaller battery and a much smaller engine than your V8 hemi, with more torque and much higher efficiency. If electricity fails gas pumps go down also. Much as I reject solar as a grid power solution it is good for home resilience and is cost effective charging your EV, but only if you don't mind parking it for peak solar hours while it is charging. And the EV can supply substantial emergency power.
Thanks very much for joining the discussion! Tesla is something of a legend when it comes to handling and acceleration, no doubt about that. And as long as your electricity is cheaper than fuel it makes perfect sense.
Right! It's you and the car working together. Also, after all the effort I put into learning to drive a manual I wouldn't trade it for a (more expensive, costlier if it breaks down) automatic. If I sweat blood until I learned to do something, I am doing this something forever and that's that. :D
They simulate manual on an automatic? Oh my gosh, this is the funniest thing I've heard since last Thursday! How do you simulate it without a clutch and without a manual gear stick? I'd really love to know.
The put anouther mode "M" beside "D" on the selector, then up and down switches by it or on the steering wheel "paddle controls". No clutch at all. Basically it just let's you try to second guess the auto Trans gear selection logic.
Big "R" word - Reliability decreases with increase in interdependencies of software, hardware (mechanical) and electrical components. A simple probability theory will tell you this....more failure modes, warranty costs pile up! This is not good for the environment or ecology! Lower reliability means lower sustainability, higher costs, and higher carbon footprint.....the older mechanically-oriented autos are much better in this regard. This EV hysteria a way to commoditize and financialize the rare earth materials until they last....this is only good for financial speculation and not a good engineering solution.
It's interesting how EV enthusiasts will tell you that because EVs have fewer moving parts they need less maintenance but never say a word about the electronics, which, like mechanical moving parts, are not exactly immune to failures and breakdowns. There's always a tradeoff though in this case no one would call it so, because electronics are so cool and everything.
What they don't need is regular oil change, I understand. Filter changes, too, I suppose, although perhaps they do need an air filter? This is the only thing I must do about my car every year -- oil and filters. If someone drives a lot, they probably need to change the oil more often, of course, but still, it doesn't take a week to change the oil and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
1. I don't like being mandated what I should use MY hard earned money to purchase.
3. EVs are VERY limited on range. Of course the government loves that, they don't want us to go too far, do they?
3. The size of the battery on an EV is HUGE and not disposable.
4. Why are the powers that be so suddenly and so desperate for everyone to be driving EVs when the infrastructure does NOT exist? that is the critical question that must be answered!
for people living in cities with no parking space of their own, it's a non starter. for people who do have their own, you need to pay for infrastructure. where you don't (i.e. subsidy), you are stealing from poorer people who can not afford EV/have no parking space of their own. they are STUPIDLY hogging battery material compared to plug in hybrids - most people drive 30, 40 km per day tops. they can do that milage on mostly batterty in a hybrid. you can put 5 hybrids on the road for one Tesla and get 5X the carbon reduction. and - if properly adopted, and knowing what we know about the grid, they will make very beautiful paperweights, if you can lift them in the parking lot to put some papers under the wheels.
The infrastructure vicious circle is a great one: investors in chargers need to know the demand will be there before they make a commitment. EV buyers want to know that the chargers will be there before they buy an EV. Enter the government and its public spending funds.
Given current infrastructure, I do not want to have to choose between running the a/c at my house or charging a car to go places and while that isn't necessarily a direct choice at the moment, given what is happening in global energy policy (specifically the EU) it isn't that far fetched. The diversification of sorts seems reasonable at this point in time to me.
To those making the repetitive arguments for hybrid EVs, I don't think the world views hybrid EVs as equivalent to EVs so this survey is about pure EVs which is what seems to be getting press and momentum these days. I would be much more inclined to entertain purchasing an improved hybrid EV over a pure EV over time even though I am a car enthusiast and for some of the reasons listed below enjoy ICE ownership.
I continue to be baffled as to why the industry pushes towards pure EV over hybrid EV in spite of the sense it makes to pursue hybrid EV at the very least as a transition into more EVs if that is in-fact the ultimate objective. This whole green energy movement seems to be fixated on moving from where we are today to where they think they want to be all in one very quick and fell swoop opposed to working in that direction with a logical timeline that would allow for resources to be deployed, systems to be developed and perhaps even objectives being achieved.
Consumers prefer the pure BEV over a hybrid. Most people who buy EVs buy them for city travel and maybe the odd longer range travel is Ok providing charging stations are available or they will have a truck or SUV for longer range or large payload travel. No need to have any incentives at this point, EVs are mainstream. Politicians are pushing EVs now because their solar & wind energy scam is being blown wide open and they are trying to divert attention from that fact.
I disagree about defining those events as a revolution. People overthrew governments weak enough to fall on their own, which is exactly what happened in Bulgaria. We didn't even have protests. The government simply resigned. It's been repeatedly called "a bloodless revolution", I suppose only to use the word revolution because it sounds so self-satisfying. Romania's approach could probably be defined as a revolution, since they did protest, they did riot and they did shoot their dictators... and where is Romania 30+ years later? One of the poorest countries in Europe. That's how well it worked. Note that I am not comparing Romania today to Romania under Ceausescu -- Ceausescu absolutely deserved to be executed. I am only talking about the supposedly beneficial results of revolutions.
Well they sure as hell weren't evolution. If they weren't evolution what were they? I don't know about Romania & Bulgaria but certainly East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia & Hungary did far better exiting the Soviet Union. And Russia has done better after the corrupt Yeltsin destroyed Russia, although they still have a private Western Bankster Central Bank they need to overthrow (revolt against). You ain't going to overthrow the Bankster cartel in the west without a revolution.
No matter the technology, it takes the same amount of energy to drive the same vehicle from "A" to "B".
It just depends upon who will be paying the price for that energy.
What I've found is that the price of the energy for Battery Vehicles is borne by people who are paid next to nothing for their labour:
1. Thousands of children in Congo being paid $1-$2/day to mine cobalt for Battery Vehicle batteries.
China, by the way, is in Congo in a big way.
2. Slave labour (Uyghurs) in China very likely build the batteries for Battery Vehicles.
Also, electricity doesn't have anywhere near the energy-density that oil has. Thus, it takes far, far more electricity to provide the same amount of energy as oil provides. This will cause the price of electricity to sky-rocket, putting more and more people in the cold and dark.
As more Battery Vehicles appear on the road, the demand for electricity and therefore its cost will increase commensurately, making electricity out-of-reach for more and more people.
This means that our societies will slow to a crawl and begin to retreat.
This whole situation is a disaster waiting to happen, a completely avoidable disaster.
Electricity prices are one other thing EV campaigners overlook regularly. They seem to assume electricity prices are 1. frozen and 2. always cheaper than petrol prices.
I love EVs- I rent them regularly for trips to the Swiss mountains- regen braking during descents is fantastic. However, they really aren’t perfect for every situation. They cost too much and for my use case the payback period would be more than infinity.
2. Cost-effective and time-effective charging availability away from home (i.e. road trip).
A comment about software and electronics. My 2002 vehicle had a handful of onboard computers. My 2014 vehicle, same model has over 30 according to the dealer. I think today’s ICE vehicles are equally complex and reliant on software and computers to operate.
That being said, I’m thinking about buying a full hybrid for my long commute. The battery is charged during use, not via plug in. Seems like a reasonable risk to gain 40-50 mpg and reduce my gasoline consumption (at any price). And I don’t need to find a charging station.
I like tech toys and liked the idea of EVs......until I read about all the issues with mining and processing for battery and motor components and power generation. I would hold off on mass EV production until these issues are solved (if ever) and until there is a complete alternative supply chain that does not depend on China. However, if anyone has a free Tesla I would gratefully accept.
There are a whole lot more issues with Oil, often called the Devil's Tears. Why is it every country that has lots of oil ends up getting invaded by the USA, unless they are good puppies.
5. cold weather. a battery killer and significantly shortened power.
6. no charger infrastructure.
7. I can always get a gallon of gas, it's impossible to get a gallon of electricity on the side of the road. 8. 2/3 of the vehicle cost is the batteries to replace. an ICE engine replacement is 10% .
9. electrical fires - special fire extinguisher.
10. anything electrical will always fail, just a question of WHEN, not IF.
- Instant, constant torque (quicker and often times, with a skateboard chassis, lower center of gravity resulting in better handling vs. an equivalent ICE model, towing capacity - if not range - is often higher too)
- Lower "fuel" costs (MPGe)
- Lower service costs (less fluids, fewer parts to break)
- Purchase model (direct to customer vs. dealer model). Obviously this only applies for some manufacturers - right now only EV's
- New SUV / Truck (Rivian, Ford, GM) expand cargo capacity and range options (without the engine, they typically have more cargo capacity than their ICE equivalents)
- Vehicle to home charging option - some vehicles (i.e. can effectively serve as a backup to your home's electric grid, esp. if you also have an ICE car)
- Noise (I guess this depends on your PoV. I do like the sound of a V8... sometimes)
- Ability to charge at home
- Potential future pro (if they can get them to work), solid state batteries might be a game changer for range and charge times. Big if, but some promising developments
- net emissions (electric grid generation is, per unit of measure, cleaner than burning gas in your car)
- Diversity of power source (potential pro) - i.e. we (could) have a well diversified power grid without reliance on any one fuel. Obviously as a single input, that's not the case with gas.
Cons
- Range (number 1 issue IMO). Exacerbated by limited options if you run out of charge (you're almost certainly going to need a tow).
- Charge times (number 2)
- Supply chain and sourcing/availability concerns for the various metals
- Price. Typically (although depends on your comp) on the higher end of the cost spectrum... for now. And regardless of what I think about them, the rebates mitigate this to some extent.
- Battery longevity and replacement costs
- Drain on the grid (i.e. our charging infrastructure is not set up to support mass adoption, and I don't have much hope that this will be reliably addressed in the near future)
Given that most people don't drive upwards of 100 miles a day 90%+ of the time, and especially for people who have access to charging either at home or at work, this means that for the most part range is not a daily concern for most people and also for shorter road trips especially if you're staying overnight and have access to a reasonably fast charger. OTOH it's a big deal for any trip of any significant length (250+ miles one-way. They can be problematic if there's an extended power outage and you don't have a second non-EV car (that goes both ways though, remember the issues we had getting gas after hurricanes in the gulf? Also the back power supply for the house is a nice option for shorter outages).
Overall, and certainly longer term, with (hopefully) better batteries (including better material sourcing), better/expanded charging network, reliable and diversified power grid (nuclear?), I think they're a net plus. Can't see a world in which oil and NG are not still a significant resource; given the propensity for supply side disruptions and possibly higher extraction costs, I think it behooves us to reduce dependency on the demand side - EV's will help. I'm likely a near term adopter.
I buy cheap ICE cars that I can tinker back to health and keep running for a long time. The battery needed for an electrical vehicle will always be so prohibitively expensive that it will rule out that path to affordable transportation. The first thing to fail in an ICE vehicle are its electrical components.
1,Our grids are already massively overstressed due to insane energy policies whereby we replace reliable sources of energy (eg nat gas, nuclear) with intermittent sources that cannot perform reliably during times of temperature extremes. Now imagine a situation in which millions of cars are hooked into that same grid to power up their EVs. What could possibly go wrong?
2. The Ukraine conflict (and the weaponisation of gas by Russia) shows the dangers of leaving our energy security in the hands of forces potentially hostile to us. But shifting to EVs will simply repeat the same mistake all over again, this time with China, rather than Russia. Rushing to replace gasoline-powered cars with electric vehicles would hand the keys to the American or European transportation sector to China, given Beijing’s near-monopoly on rare-earth elements like neodymium and dysprosium, which are used in the high-output motors of most electric vehicles.
And yet there is so much talk about sourcing all these minerals at home or in friendly countries... Like it will happen overnight and with no effort whatsoever.
My ICE car, a BMW X3 diesel costs $30 NZD to complete a daily round trip of 100km and requires servicing 3 times a year not to mention additional maintenance. My EV a BMW i3 costs $4 to complete the same trip, is a joy to drive and requires servicing once every two years. Also with far less moving parts I expect the maintenance requirements to be significantly less then the ICE car. A no brainer really.
For you, maybe. For places with more expensive electricity it is a no brainer in the other direction.
Why does a BMW need servicing three times a year? Because it's German? Once a year is the standard here unless, of course, there's something wrong with the car.
we live in the center of a medium sized us city - for us I could see not owning a vehicle at all but utilizing autonomous rental vehicle for daily needs and renting a vehicle for longer trips/vacations - but real world "now" we own quite new ice
Anyone interested in the subject of vehicle CO2 emissions should have a look at this paper.... It should be available for free download from the society of automotive engineers SAE. Senecal is the founder of convergent science, a company specialized in cfd software for combustion simulations. He is a proponent of hybrid vehicles with small battery packs. Have a look at his posts on LinkedIn as well.
A Data-Driven Greenhouse Gas
Emission Rate Analysis for Vehicle
Comparisons
Tristan Burton,1 Scott Powers,2 Cooper Burns,1 Graham Conway,3 Felix Leach,4 and Kelly Senecal 1
I’ve driven a Tesla owned by a friend. It was an awesome drive. It would out-accelerate even the fastest muscle cars of my youth (the 60’s). But, I’m completely against owning one for all the reasons an engineer (me) and all environmentalists should be: it’s really a fossil-fueled car, which I don’t mind, but start being honest about it. The mining required for batteries is heinous. The power density is nowhere near comparable to gas or diesel. It’s a high entropy source, and not thermodynamically competent. It’s not proven to be safe (spontaneous combustion). Also, I have some long trips to drive in the Midwest. Not gonna sit in long lines at charging stations.
If they were cheap as a toyota corrolla i would buy one for the city but keep my Landrover for trips down south 200-450k away. (West Australia -Perth to Dunsborough or Albany) . Before we use up all the worlds Resources, maybe they should aim more for Plug in Hybrids charged from the roof at home and a range of 25k to get to work for most people and stop all the extreme aims. This would clean up the air in the city as a benefit
Excellent point about the extreme aims and targets that are only getting more extreme instead of less, as they should amid all the very real problems with the transition as currently planned.
The extreme views in my opinion are now getting entrenched in a kind of mainstream groupthink which is alarming and as you pointed out cheered on by the head of the UN !!. Certain subjects - Nuclear Power, mitigation, adaptation, further more efficient use of O&G are dismissed aggressively and get no airplay. This is not allowing logical debate to occur and we are seeing the results. Ripping down trees to put in solar stations made out of coal and are off 70% of the day. Energy situation in Europe. Have a look at the Sun Cable idea where they want to power Singapore with Solar and wind energy from Northern Australia. Investors are actually throwing money at it. (Doomberg did a good piece on a similar proposal from Morocco to UK) . I could go on but my blood pressure rises!!
Irina - You are correct! There is one more critical component. It is the CONTINUOUS (DYNAMIC) INTERACTION among software, electronics, and mechanical hardware elements that causes significant degradation leading to variety of failure modes difficult to diagnose. This causes the reliability to reduce to a point, when the user becomes heavily dependent on a centralized system for frequent repairs or replacement thus leading to the cost of ownership and significant increase in use of fossil fuel (primary foundational energy source) to mitigate these reliability problems....I do not think this is a viable solution by any means.
What the EV zealots also conveniently ignore is the energy-density of oil versus the energy-density of electricity.
Thus, to obtain the same AMOUNT of energy from electricity as is provided by oil costs significantly more.
That's why, for example, the battery pack in an EV is significantly bigger, more expensive, and more difficult to make than a petrol tank in an ICE vehicle.
EV battery packs are not only far more costly to make than ICE vehicle petrol tanks, they require enormous amounts of the Earth's resources - lithium, cobalt, cadmium, carbon - far, far more than petrol tanks.
Moreover, as has been mentioned many times, the electricity infrastructure needed to provide the SAME amount of energy as is currently provided by petrol will have to be significantly greater than it is now. Thus the COST of electricity will rise commensurately, putting more and more people in the cold and dark.
This is all because of the energy-density of the two types of energy sources, i.e., electricity vs. oil.
As I mentioned, this is a completely human-caused AND avoidable disaster waiting to happen.
Battery Vehicles remind me of electric lawn mowers.
Notice that one does not see too many battery lawn mowers being used in city parks to cut grass.
We've had electric (battery AND wired) lawn mowers for years and yet cities still use gas-powered lawn mowers in their parks (especially those mowers with 4 turning blades).
Why?
If battery technology is so advanced, why don't we see cities using battery lawn mowers to cut the lawns in their parks?
Because electricity simply does not have anywhere near the energy-density - and therefore the POWER - that petrol does.
Therefore Battery Vehicles, just like electric lawn mowers, when compared to ICE vehicles, are highly limited both in range (e.g., just in urban areas) and in what they can "carry".
I see Battery Vehicles as just toys for the wealthy.
The more I see how much our governments are pushing people - even bribing them - to get them into driving EVs, the more it reminds me of Stalin's push to industrialize the Soviet Union.
And don't forget that Pete Buttigieg, secretary of the US DoT, is a communist like his father, Joseph Buttigieg, was.
Electricity, per se, is not the problem; making ENOUGH RELIABLE electricity is the problem.
1. Electricity is secondary energy, not primary energy. Sometimes, it is tertiary energy (wind). Each stage loses efficiency.
2. The grid must more than double to transmit the added power ONLY for battery storage autos. For TOTAL energy demand, the grid must grow SIX times.
Invest in copper.
3. On average, 250 watts/m2 of solar energy reaches the ground; a few percent is convertable into electricity, and one-third of that is lost getting the electricity to a battery.
4. Potential renewable energy to replace fossil fuels, then, is insufficient to charge two billion batteries, light -heat homes, etc. Forget about trucks, buses, and airplanes.
5. Renewable energy is erratic: diurnally, seasonally, annually, and over multiple years to decades AND THEREFORE, requires an equal backup system.
6. The required backup does NOT exist, even in principle, except as fossil fuel/nuclear.
Then, of course, there is no need for the erratic renewable energy!
The direct answer to "who likes EV's", then, is " virtue signalers wishing to avoid petrol taxes" (a temporary situation).
As for who likes EVs, I think there are also people who genuinely believe they are better for the environment because they do not produce exhaust gases. All the rest of it that all of you here have already pointed out is not something a lot pf people care about.
Personally, I respect those who choose an EV for things like handling and acceleration, or convenience in urban driving -- no virtue-signalling there, that's genuine informed decision-making.
Anyone who wishes to purchase a battery energy storage auto, can do so. I have no objection.
My sister did. Now, she parks her Tesla outside the garage, for fear of burning down her home, and charges with a BIG extension cord.
For the same money, I can purchase a Porshe and get REAL acceleration. In fact, I have done. WHEEEE!
People need to be educated about REAL pollution. Low information people believe a lot of rubbish. The EXHAUST of the battery EV occurs during fabrication and at the power plant - out of sight - out of mind. That is what I name 'virtue signalling". The vanity plates - "NO EMISSION"- cause me to chuckle over the knuckleheads who believe that nonsense. The battery components: mining, fabrication, etc. cost more than 100,000 miles worth of CO2 (assuming CO2 is a pollutant which it is not). (SEE: https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761, and many similar comparison analyses). A detailed accounting always reveals the "MISINFORMATION' promoted by manufacturers. Of course, it is in the interest of the manufacturer to tout the product so as to sell the product. That does not make it factual.
The Battery EV handles well since the center of gravity is very close to the road, just like my Porsche. The MASSIVE 1000 kg battery is the reason. A Tesla has the same curb weight as my 1/2 ton truck. Tires wear out quickly in Teslas. Did you ever consider "tire pollution" or battery recycling? Neither did Tesla.
So, forgive me, it is not "informed decision making". It is just great advertising/indoctrination.
The best battery on earth is a full tank of gas. I simply don't trust EVs to not go the way of my laptop or phone and just decide that they are out of a charge
Its a natural battery.
Indeed, that is the great advantage of fossil fuels and nuclear. They are stored, concentrated energy. Hydro even is stored, concentrated energy of water, although at a much lower energy density than fossil/nuclear. Geothermal is stored concentrated nuclear energy also but like hydro at a much lower energy density. That is why only hydro & geothermal are practical renewable energy. Wind and solar, being diffuse, non-stored energy are impractical except for odd niche applications.
You think wind and solar are impractical except for odd niche applications? What niche applications are you referring to?
They're good for off-grid homes or an emergency BEV charger/power supply, they are good in areas on diesel generation if there is a good wind/solar resource (since diesel fuel is so expensive and may have to be flown in), in areas with lots of reservoir hydro and a good resource since the hydro can buffer some solar & wind, and of course solar is good on satellites and space probes <= Mars orbit or on the poles of the Moon.
That may be but you will pay 6X as much to run on that battery with much lower performance except for range. And maximum range you can get is with a series hybrid EV, which is just an EV with an added small hyper-efficient one speed engine/generator.
Hybrids are closer to the source of energy.
Fossil fuels.
Fossils are currently the source of 82% of world energy, but for transportation they are not used efficiently. Essentially you can view the series hybrid as a much more efficient fossil fueled vehicle. Similarly you can view a pure BEV as a much more efficient fossil fueled vehicle, a series hybrid vehicle with the generator at a coal or gas powered plant. Herein you see the advantage. Natural gas is right now 10X cheaper per unit energy than gasoline or diesel. CCGT runs at ~4X the average efficiency of a ICE vehicle engine. So theoretically you should be paying 40X less to run an EV on a gas grid. Unfortunately grid distribution costs have skyrocketed due to all the idiotic wind & solar they have foisted on the grid to maximize the inefficiency of the grid as well as corrupt mismanaged utilities i.e. FERC, CISO, ERCOT & ISO-NE.
I’d get an EV for local use. With dogs, grandkids and sports gear I need a large vehicle for my regular 200 mile trips to the coast - the larger EVs frankly don’t compete on luggage space or range with my very large 4x4.
Yes, they do have a weight problem, so to speak. EVs can be good for urban driving, with a good charger network.
We have EVs since the electric trolley.
EVs have their niche.
And electric trolleys, electric trains and even diesel-electric trains are no longer competitive with battery powered buses & trains. They all should be replaced with BEVs.
Battery Vehicles certainly have their niche alright, the "niche" called toys for the wealthy.
Just wait until people have to start replacing the batteries on their Battery Vehicles
Electric trollies don't rely on batteries. They rely on overhead electrical wires which require significant infrastructure and constant maintenance. Trollies were (are) limited in their range. They can't reach the suburban and, of course, rural areas of cities that ICE buses can.
They aren't toys for the wealthy. Ordinary people are buying them. You can order an EV small truck from China for $2000:
Unboxing & Testing My Chinese "$2,000" ELECTRIC Truck!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bixJDOH864U
Hobbyists (not wealthy) have been converting ICE vehicles to BEVs for 50yrs or more, because Detroit wouldn't sell them. Battery replacements are like $20k and people have already 400k miles on their Tesla batteries. It's about the cost of an engine replacement in an ICE vehicle. Pay for a lot of battery replacements for 1/6th cost of energy, that's a saving of over $100k.
A look at Tesla battery degradation and replacement after 400,000 miles:
https://electrek.co/2020/06/06/tesla-battery-degradation-replacement/
EVs are extremely expensive.
$20K for a battery replacement? Are you crazy? I've NEVER needed an engine replacement. NEVER. But battery replacements will be a regular occurrence. And people will lose their minds when they find out the cost.
We'll be seeing abandoned EVs scattered all over the world because people won't be able to handle the cost.
Tesla battery degradation?
"It’s one of the main concerns of new electric car buyers and it can vary greatly based on several factors like cell chemistry, battery management system, and usage.
Tesla has historically been able to limit degradation to reasonable levels thanks to its robust battery management system."
Those batteries need a "management system" now. What a joke! And here I thought that EVs were the answer to everyone's problems!
Battery vehicles are a big joke, a farce, a con foisted on unsuspecting people.
Yes $20k for a Model S 85kwh battery that's a 300mile range battery. But the newer batteries are going to last for over 300,000 miles, even a million miles with the LFMP cells. Here's a guy in cold Canada who already has 310k miles, on his Tesla Model 3 without any issues except replaced the drivetrain oil pump @ 286k miles for C$194. Still on its original brakes (pads & rotors). And get this his battery is still at 80% of original capacity. And that's not a long life LFP battery.
500,000 km Tesla Model 3 proves EVs far cheaper than gas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Ms-XCBoxI
BEV buses are now quite capable of replacing all buses more economically in all but rural routes. Even long distance diesel locomotives can be replaced with battery versions. Short distance planes can be replaced with battery electric. I would question if even city LRT systems are not more economical to build now with battery locomotives, rather than third rails or catenary lines.
For sure, as a secondary commuting car, with a battery sized for actual commuting needs, that actually makes sense.
You get more luggage space with the modern skateboard chassis EV. Range is still the main limitation but that is slowly improving. The series hybrid EV is the maximum range vehicle, running on diesel.
I cannot trust or believe-knowing the sourcing for EV power or batteries are rare earth minerals is primarily controlled by the CCP; an entity focused on eliminating global freedom
and enhancing control over populations.
That's because your politicians are as crooked as a $3 bill and sold our countries down the sewer. Politicians nowadays are bought like hogs on the auction block.
Rare earths are neither rare nor earths. They are found without too much difficulty; trouble is that it is a nasty process to mine and extract them. It's highly polluting so we offshored it. We need to wake up as a country and at least get a window put in out stomachs so we can see as that's where our heads are at...
I don't even like 'new' ICE cars for their electronics. I like older cars with dials and gauges. A manual transmission is far more controllable. It's more like riding a horse and yes, you have to use your brain to drive it. Me and my beloved 2002 Audi TT.
I couldn't have put it better myself. My thoughts exactly.
That's nice but that's all going the way of the horse and buggy. Maybe 20yrs you won't even be allowed to drive a car without self-driving because killing 40K mostly young people unnecessarily will not be tolerated. Personally I prefer the bicycle.
I like the bicycle too and in 20 years, when I'm 92 (if I make it) I may opt for a tricycle with a basket for my used diapers....Clothe of course. Wouldn't want to leave the carbon footprint associated with the paper ones.
Mostly you will need a large basket full of face diapers. Fauci's successor will not allow you to bicycle or tricycle in public without your face diaper on.
Agreed. There aren't many new cars that tickle my fancy. Amenities like heated seats, BT stereo, and nav are great but some of the gimmicky stuff they're tacking on to vehicles these days cause more trouble than they're worth. I wish manufacturers would take a more minimalist, or at least button-focused approach. Simpler is better...and that doesn't mean cheaply putting everything on one screen either *cough* Tesla
Distraction is a major issue on ALL cars, ICE and Battery.
The worst part about all those bells and whistles on the newer cars is that they distract me from the road.
I drove a more recent model car and all those bells and whistles were constantly grabbing my attention. NOT GOOD.
Plus they're information overload.
That's one of the major reasons why I don't like Battery Vehicles.
Well when they have full self-driving you can focus on all the bells and whistles and ignore the driving.
I've been in IT long enough to know that the AI systems behind self-driving cars, "full" or otherwise, are like a 5-year-old driving a Mac truck.
All IT systems always miss something. They're called "boundary conditions". In a business environment, they upgrade the software and move on. Nobody loses one's life.
In driving a vehicle, conditions can change frequently AND unpredictably. People, in general, have a hard time keeping up with changing and unpredictable conditions, so software has an even harder time.
You want to put your life in the hands of a "5-year old", be my guest.
Tesla gets constant feedback data on their self-driving effectiveness. Already a 10X improvement in accident stats. And that continues to improve. When stats come back with what 100X improvement over human drivers and with over 40k people killed in traffic accidents every year, how long do you think they can suppress self-driving let alone mandate it for every vehicle? The thing about it is, once you get it working as it already is, it's just a matter of continual improvement and sooner or later it will supplant human operators. That's a given. Plus most people would rather be able to read, interact on their phones, play video games, do office work, or whatever rather than be focused on another 40min drive to work stuck in traffic. That's a lot of lost time 80min/day for a lot of people.
"Already a 10X improvement in accident stats."
That's encouraging!
The thing about it is, AI developers and systems are ALWAYS playing catch-up. That's what happens in IT. Conditions always change and are ALWAYS unpredictable.
If you've ever been in IT, you would KNOW to NEVER put your life in the hands of an AI system, especially in such a chaotic system such as automobile traffic.
Tell a modern fighter pilot that. Their planes fly in a state of unstable equilibrium, the software literally prevents the plane from flying apart with millisecond adjustments to the control surfaces.
It is a tricky question though. You put in an AI so it saves the lives of 999 out of a thousand goofy, careless teenagers who kill themselves in auto crashes. But 1 of the thousand was a really smart, conscientious, careful driver who got killed due to a software bug. For the 1 who died, the FSD was deadly. Essentially she was sacrificed so the 999 careless drivers lived. I would prefer it be optional to use the FSD or go manual. Then if the good driver chooses to use the FSD and it kills her, then it was her personal choice. But I'm not so sure future drivers will be given that option, due to all the deaths the FSD prevents.
I'm not a Nascar fan but what would this mean for car racing? Would it now become less of a car race and more of who's got the better IT? Beer sales at the track would, no doubt, plummet.
Definitely, it is only a matter of time when an AI will outperform the best driver. Auto racing will be more like a robot challenge, best tech team wins. I would imagine most spectator sports are in decline because people like to stay at home and be entertained with their video devices.
EVs are a thing for the sunny days without issues. I remember very dark winter weeks with temperatures constantly well below zero degree Celsius. I do not buy the argument that EVs would work well in such circumstances. The world of today has not understood that dependencies weakens and systems working independently from another are strengthening your survival chances.
Ah, yes, the weather issue, good point.
No EVs are much better in cold weather (if designed for it). An ICE has to be plugged in or it won't start. And EV will start up just fine even @ -50 degC. And range decreases less than an ICE vehicles range.
We live in western Canada, and routinely drive places that are far off the major highways, where chargers are beginning to be installed. "Range anxiety" is a real issue. If I lived in a major centre like Vancouver and had a car that I needed only to get around town, I might consider an EV
Again an argument for a series hybrid EV. That is the maximum range vehicle. In fact Detroit was contracted by the EPA to build a 100mpg diesel electric series hybrid full sized 4 passenger sedan back in the 1990's. But they never bothered marketing them.
I have one hybrid vehicle (RAV 4) and am very happy with it to date. Great performance and fuel economy on the highway - provides extra range and hill-climbing power. But that's an add-on battery, not an EV
"... contracted by the [US] EPA ..."
If EVs are so wonderful, why do governments have to push them?
That's pretty much the standard for rational uncorrupted governments to push new tech to reach sufficient market penetration to be self-sustaining or not. The US gov't, especially now has been lackluster in that compared to foreign governments.
China is the industrial powerhouse today because their government through public banks financed hundreds of startup industries, using free Western IP. South Korean gov't decided they could excel in shipbuilding, so they bankrolled the industry to develop, now they're the World leader in shipbuilding.
Once EVs get off ground as they are now, then the subsidies are no longer necessary. So why all the massive unheard-of-ever continuing and increasing subsidies for Wind & Solar? That's the question you should be asking.
Governments' forcibly taking money from less wealthy people (e.g., carbon tax on domestic NG usage) and giving it to more wealthy people to bribe them into buying an expensive car (an EV) is flat-out corruption.
From the poor to the rich via the power of government!
Second, it's the Church of Climate Change itself that our governments have joined that's driving them to push EVs, NOT the technology itself. That applies to wind power and solar power, too.
EVs, wind power, and solar power are all sacraments of the Church of Climate Change.
BEV's are a more efficient technology than ICE vehicles, plain and simple. EV's are a disruptive technology and we are now witnessing them overthrow the incumbent ICE vehicle. The ICE has been around for over a century and it's time is almost up.
I'm not sure what you mean about money going from the poor to the rich via the power of government. Fossil fuel companies and car manufacturers are some of the most powerful and influential companies in the world with immense lobbying power and politicians in their back pocket. These companies have been receiving unrivalled subsidies and tax-breaks for decades to keep their prices artificially low. Is it not only fair that the EV industry receives similar support?
On your "church of climate change" point, I would remind you that EV's are charged using electricity which in most countries is still generated (for the most part) from a fossil fuel source. Will this change? Absolutely, but it will take many years before we can declare EV's to be a truly "clean" alternative to the ICE. Technological efficiency is something that is desired regardless of if we are talking about renewables or fossil fuels, or would you prefer we continued to use an outdated technology that can't keep up with technological advancement and innovation?
Air quality issues in cities are a big problem too, with ICE vehicles being a major contributor to polluting the air we breathe. This causes cancers, asthma and other long-term health complications for so many. Reducing the number of ICE vehicles in our cities is a fantastic way to protect the future health of our children and future generations.
It baffles me that people can be so obsessed with attacking the "church of climate change" that they can overlook other clear benefits that make a technology so appealing.
To be honest I live in a city and mainly use my car for round trips of 20+ miles, anything lower and I will take my bike or use public transport, where I can. I have an ICE and I love it, but I know the social and environmental problems it brings about, and with the price of diesel currently I would almost rather walking. I personally need to wait for a steady and competitively priced 2nd hand EV market to get up and running before I switch to an EV, but when that time comes I won't hesitate to get one. Any car is an investment and investing in an EV is starting to make sense.
"I'm not sure what you mean about money going from the poor to the rich via the power of government."
It's very simple, really.
In British Columbia, Canada, the BC government applies a 50% "carbon" tax on domestic natural gas usage. That's everyone, even the poor.
The British Columbia government, you see, is all in on the Climate Change ideology and Battery Vehicles - sorry, Battery Electric Vehicles - is one of their answers to Climate Change.
The BC government takes money from less wealth people and eventually gives those monies as bribery - sorry, "incentives" - to more wealthy people to entice them to buy an expensive Battery Vehicle.
Oh, and those same people who buy Battery Vehicles in Canada also get either a federal tax credit or an incentive, too!
It all helps them buy that EV that is "starting to make sense".
That's corruption, pure and simple because guess who those more wealthy people are going to vote for in the next election?
Aside from subjective considerations the bigger question around BEVs has to do with government subsidies totaling around $10,000 for the purchase of a new electric vehicle. These are simply an undeserved gift to a segment of the population that has the discretionary income to squander on an electric vehicle - and aside from virtue signaling - this accomplishes nothing with regard to the climate.
On technical grounds batteries are the lowest energy density power source for traction vehicles --- coming in at around 1 MJ/kg vs 10 MJ/kg for ICEs. They make no sense as a technical solution.
Yes, there are a number of problematic aspect that have to do with the materials EVs are made from. Subsidies too.
I live in a very wealthy area of the US and there's probably more EVs here than anywhere else--that's suburban. It's so funny because they'll smugly talk about how great EVs are only to finish that point and start bragging about their most recent $100,000 trip to Europe. They all consume so much--it's insane. I'd also travel a bunch and build a big house with that kind of money, but you won't catch me virtue signaling about how "great it feels not to be polluting on a daily basis" like I didn't just buy $1,000 of imported appetizers and wine from WholeFoods.
And guess where the monies for those BEV government subsidies come from.
One guess.
Hint: You and me.
From the poor to the rich via the power of government!
Additional thought: here in Germany gvmt is considering the idea that owners of EV are to be cut off the grid in case the state needs to divert the energy to other consumers. Same with heat pumps. Put this together with the constant surveillance apparatus, your car will in the future either not be charged, if somebody on the state level decides so, or it will not got to the destination you've programmed, e.g. to participate in a anti-government demonstration. Put this together with the brand-new tendency (Irina reported about) to distribute CO2-passports, "they" can oppress you in any way "they" want.
Charming and so chilling.
1. Spontaneous combustion of batteries - sometimes while being driven.
2. Tires wear out faster - from the weight of the car.
3. Range goes way down when you are running the AC, and we use the AC a lot in Texas. Same thing when you run the heater in winter.
4. Fuel burned at the place you need the energy is more efficient that fuel burned in a power plant miles away and all the transmission losses along the way. I’m guessing the emissions for an EV charged on the grid may be more than an ICE car - no one wants to do that study!!
5. Cost of battery replacement when it needs to be replaced, and the disposal of the battery is a real problem so far. Recycling needs to improve before it is practical to have everyone driving EVs.
I remember last winter battery-powered buses in Sofia had the heating turned off to save on power.
The battery lifetime issue -- thanks for bringing it up. That's another big problem for me, but for people who don't drive their cars for more than 5 year it won't matter. Disposal problem aside.
Right. Let the second owner deal with all the battery problems. I’m sure that will hurt the resale value of EVs when more and more people run into these problems.
The good thing about inefficient ICEs is that there is plenty of waste heat to keep the bus warm
The waste heat from EVs is at the electric motors that drive the wheels. No way to get that heat into the passenger compartment. Good try.
Tesla uses a heat pump for heat/cooling. Very efficient. The lack of waste heat in an EV is a plus not a minus. Waste heat is wasted energy and ICE vehicles waste about 85% of the gasoline energy content.
Cool. I understand that there is a lot of energy losses at each step of the electricity generation process. Efficiency losses at the point where fuel is burned to turn the turbines, then each time it goes through a transformer, then through transmission lines, then back through transformers to get back to 220v or whatever your Tesla charger is, then efficiency losses when charging your battery then again when discharging your battery. I have always wondered what percentage all these losses add up to. Is there a way to figure this out? For example is it more efficient to burn gas to cook my bacon on a gas stove or to burn gas at the power plant and go through all the transmission losses noted above?
That's true but you can run on natural gas @ 10X lower cost per unit energy than gasoline or diesel right now. Burning at 60% efficiency in a CCGT which is 4X more efficient than the average ICE vehicle efficiency. So 60% eff X 90% transmission eff x 90% charging eff x 90% BEV efficiency = 44% efficient vs 15% for the ICE vehicle. 3X more efficient and 10X lower fuel energy cost. Not hard to figure out why people want BEVs. Just wait until they are readily available in heavy Trucks.
I am not an EV fan. A hybrid would work for me with my solar for our 10 to 20 km trips. Except for November through February. Economically makes NO sense. I have my Fiat 500X Diesel. For homeowners with solar and small trips it can make sense except for the economics of initial purchase and electrifying the house. Forget apartment dwellers. Here in Germany you CANNOT find an electrician anymore for installation.
As far as battery recycling there is better news out now for secondary use as storage and much longer life albeit with reduced capacity. In other words the batteries can continue to be used for years in stationary operation where weight is not a factor.
Range anxiety and always hoping you find a charging station AND then having to wait makes current EVs useless for medium to long range travel.
1) Big factor is the 6X higher cost of energy for the ICE vehicle. That's the BIG one. Once they become available to Truckers they will not want an ICE truck. Operating costs are the killer.
2) More maintenance issues and breakdowns, EVs don't have all the brake pad replacement, multitude of oil changes, engine coolant, battery fluid, catalytic convertor/muffler replacement, exhaust corrosion, engine & transmission failure problems.
3) Much better performance, better stability, better turning capability, much better acceleration, much easier to have autopilot, much safer in a collision, quieter, much better on hilly roads, built in portable AC power, better for cold weather or hot weather operation, better during flooding and have longer range & operational time than ICE vehicles during bad traffic or evacuation type situations.
4) Less dependent on infrastructure breakdown. Electricity is more fundamental than gasoline long distance supply security. That can easily fail in time of war, natural disaster or government mismanagement (right now deliberate). You can also charge your EV with solar panels and supply emergency home power.
To your points:
1a) The continuing cost of energy for ICE is higher than EVs, and even with cheaper gas it would be 2x or 3x. Fair point, BUT: the up-front premium for comparable vehicles is significantly more. Hell, you don't even need to look at the comparison between similar vehicles, just look at the YoY price increases. If you intended to buy a Tesla to save on cost of gas--most people don't but whatever--just this last year's price hikes would've mooted 1-5 years of fuel costs depending on how much you drive, but most people who own EVs don't drive that much as they can afford to live near their work. Then consider running costs like tire life and you're not saving much from an EV. But I should double-back and say the vast majority of people aren't doing the math, and to be brutally honest if you're doing this much math to buy a vehicle then I would suggest abstaining on that vehicle or buying something used. 99% of people will only think of not paying for gas a means to be smug to people around them.
1b) The Tesla semi cannot haul more than three tons of cargo according to NHTSA limits. The battery makes the vehicle itself far too heavy to be practical and still road-legal. This is coming from someone who has sat inside a Tesla semi. A very cool looking vehicle, but its weight and range/charging problems make it infeasible. The proof is in the pudding as the semi is still not out yet and has been the source of multiple resignations due to Tesla overpromising only for the engineers to say no and then told to do it anyways.
Video explaining this better than I did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__a8EcM2jI
2) See 1a; nonetheless, yeah I would agree running costs are lower if you lease or manage to sell the car at a price that doesn't factor in battery-life depreciation. Having to replace batteries is an endemic issue.
3) Performance-wise I would disagree: you can launch a Model S Plaid about three times consecutively before it starts to lose performance and range drastically. Hard driving does much the same. I've done drives in the hills with friends and their Teslas go on limp mode. The weight of these vehicles is an issue and brake pads/tires are constant. With this being said, the last AutoCross (look it up) competition was won by a stripped-out and lightly modified Model 3 Performance. They certainly do boogie. As an enthusiast, I appreciate the insane 0-60 times, but it's lacking. I can add by saying there aren't too many people who will gleefully launch a car that hard without feeling deprived of the engagement and drama of ICE. Still. Very fast. The rest of your points are semantic. Could go either way.
4) No. Lol. By that same token, I can buy cans of propane, some gasoline, a grill, and a generator to be just as well-off as someone with solar panels. They also charge insanely slow and are inconsistent. You've managed to say the opposite of what is commonly conceded by proponents of electricity/renewables--that being a weak grid leading to chaos. Gas is definitely better security-wise. Solar panels are a good addition if you have the space, but we can't assume this as a constant in planning our future.
1) No EPA shows a 6X lower cost of energy than a comparable ICE vehicle, and that is getting worse for the ICE vehicle.
The Tesla model Y is now the #1 selling vehicle on the planet, having edged out the Toyota Corolla which has held that position since 1974. You get maybe 10% of their customers are EV enthusiasts, the other 90% buy them because they've examined the specs, cost, maintenance, etc and chosen EV over ICE vehicle. They if anything are a smarter bunch of consumers. So that's your proof that people don't buy your argument. BTW I drive an ICE vehicle and don't want an EV because where I am the numbers don't add up, but that's not everybody. I got a big problem with forcing people to get EVs, it should be up to fair market competition.
Tires? Maintenance costs of EVs are substantially lower than ICE vehicles. The Teslas with the new 4680 cells are expecting million mile range on the vehicle incl battery.
Self-driving is a major selling point for commuters and for safety reasons, 10X safer already.
1b) "Tesla semi cannot haul more than three tons of cargo according to NHTSA limits"
Where do you get that crap from? The battery only weighs 12000lbs and is a structural battery so you are saying it will loose 57,000lbs of cargo due to a 12,000lb battery?!?
In fact the Tesla semi will carry as much or even more than the diesel truck:
"In its 2020 Impact report, Tesla said that it now expects the Tesla Semi to be able to carry a payload “at least as high as it would be for a diesel truck.” And expects 1/2 the operating costs of a diesel truck. That's why people will buy them. In fact you will have to beat truck drivers off with a stick they will want them so bad.
The delay in production is as always ramping up battery production. They are 2yrs behind in cell manufacture, demand for their vehicles is so high. Not helped by the Government pushing wind/solar battery backup.
2) Battery replacement is not endemic. It is less expensive and less common than engine/transmission replacement in an ICE vehicle. Tesla is figuring million mile battery packs with the 4680 cells.
3) No if batteries lost performance that rapidly the pack would be finished within one year. That's nonsense. They are designed for that capability. And warrantied for it. Brake pads get very little wear since they use regenerative braking.
4) I'm not talking about a home solar power setup. Just basic solar panels and inverter to charge your BEV which also supplies portable/emergency power, and a lot cheaper than fueling an ICE vehicle. You would have to store a lot of fuel as an alternative to that. Fuel storage is expensive and dangerous. You have a fuel leak that can cost you or your insurance company over a $million. Stored gas cannot match the energy you will get from solar panels in a good solar location. 10kw solar panels, 40kwh/day, or 140miles/day vs 7gal gas/day for the same. That's a lot of gas storage. Good for short duration but for those who want long duration fuel independence solar/EV would be attractive.
And who says I'm big on "renewables". Wind solar are impractical for grid electricity except for niche applications. But electricity is the future for just about everything including aircraft will be going electric propulsion (hybrid). A lifetime in industry I've seen electric takeover just about everything, what used to be diesel, hydraulic or pneumatic has been replaced by electric. And vehicles will be no exception. For long range a series hybrid can be used, which will be just a standard BEV skateboard chassis with a smaller battery and a extreme efficiency one speed diesel engine, perhaps an opposing piston flat engine. But when the charging infrastructure is in place people seem to just prefer a fast charging coffee break when they go long distance.
6. Massive drop in battery capacity, charging speed, and overall lifespan in cold climates. Teslas have to warm up the batteries before you can start supercharging. I'd assume the same applies to others. If I'm remembering correctly, winter temperatures will decrease battery performance by 50%, if not more. Go to any Northwest State in the winter and you'll notice people install block heaters to warm up their engines before they crank them so they don't turn into a solid piece of metal. Insanely cold. Good luck in an EV.
7. Good luck towing anything. Although EV vehicles have instant power, thus allowing them to tow a lot per se, their range while towing is awful. This is common knowledge after people tried using their Rivians as work trucks. Have fun hauling anything more than mulch in the bed. A decent-sized load will cut range by 50%+. Diesel trucks will take a hit from towing, but you can install auxiliary fuel tanks for extra range and once those go it's just a matter of refueling. My buddy's F-350 has two additional fuel tanks. It can haul anything short of a main battle tank. By contrast, I remember being in a group where some guy tried to tow his Ferrari with a Model X and spent over 24hrs going a few hundred miles. I don't remember the exact range, but it was ridiculously inefficient at towing as it required frequent off-route charges--but on paper they'll tell you it can tow a house haha.
My reasons for not buying. 1) cost, way too pricey, 2) lack of enough EV chargers to make it worth it at this time, 3) the adverse affect of cold on the batteries which affects the operational range, 4) the adverse affect of severe heat (think over 40c which we see in the Deserts of the USA) which while possibly increasing range causes battery degradation, 5) EVs keep popping up catching on fire spontaneously and battery fires don’t like water and need alternate means to put out, 6) the USA grid or any Grid is not anywhere ready for massive EV incorporation, and 7) the minerals needed are currently (for the most part) only available from China which has many challenges and issues around that fact.
To me they don’t make sense
1 - way more expensive to purchase
2 - resell value seems iffy. Who wants a car dependent on a used battery.
3 - they weigh a lot and this makes them pollute the air due to micro rubber coming off the tires
4- how are they good for the environment when the mining of minerals needed to produce them is very bad for the environment and they cannot be easily recycled
5 - charging stations are not keeping up with demand and this could get you in a difficult position.
6 - there is a shortage of expert mechanics that can service them and also auto repair shops that do work on them.
7- the batteries will stock pile and perhaps the cars also when we get to many in the road. New technology could obsolete them quickly.
That’s just my list. I would not buy one.
6 is totally overlooked and it's important.
I would consider it as a second car. But that would be an expensive second car.
Also I routinely take 7 hour drives, not sure evs are up to that task yet with out long pit stops.
The acceleration is intriguing though.
I always thought the mild 48volt hybrid made the most sense at increasing milage on the most amount of cars. But the people who want batteries want big batteries they can plugin.
Hybrids do make sense, definitely. They have backup.
I'm not convinced Chinese global hegemony is a good thing. Regardless of what Davos wants.
Never buy one - I want my electronics in my office not my car!
I want my cars "old school" with me in control and I don't want them tell me what to do... so maybe I'm a control freak?
I live in Texas - way out in the middle of nowhere... who would come get me if I ran out of juice. I might make it to Ft Worth - but 3 hours to Dallas - I don't want to stay there over night just for a road trip.
I don't want to support the Chinese.
Or Elon Musk - my tax dollars are doing that.
Don't believe in tax dollars going to support corporations, if it isn't a good product then it won't sell enough to make a profit, at least that's how it used to be, then it would go away.
Too expensive and I'm too practical, not a yuppie.
The last thing - I like my behind too much to see it go up in flames one day!
I also suspect myself of being a control freak when it comes to cars but I regret nothing. 😁
I enjoy ICE cars as an enthusiast. EVs are soulless; no sound, no vibration, no engagement, no dynamism, etc. EVs are also the worst when it comes to actually owning the vehicle. Tesla will brick your car if you mess with the software, so all you can do to tweak it would be suspension, wheels, and weight reduction along with general aesthetic changes. With my car I can tune the engine to my liking and add as many parts as I feel like without issue. For example, I have an E85 software map for my car as well as a pump gas performance map, a pump gas eco map, and a stock map. I have family members/friends with EVs and they like them, but they drive maybe 20 minutes a day and charge them overnight. I think the best "solution" for most people would be plug-in hybrids as they use much less battery material than a full EV, deliver good performance, and have unlimited range in hybrid mode. One of my family members has a PIH and hasn't bought gas since he bought it due to short commutes in EV mode. What's great is that he always has the option to drive it in hybrid mode for road trips or towing. When you compare this to a Tesla, you're going the same distance every day with zero tailpipe emissions with probably 1/10th as much battery volume as the Tesla. FYI it's a RAV4 XSE Prime. Got it for $54k IIRC. Good car thus far.
Regardless, I like gas cars because I'm an enthusiast and although high-end EVs are REALLY fast off the line, they're just not that much fun beyond that. For everyone else, I think plug-in hybrid vehicles make a lot more sense than EVs. Hell, maybe even nat gas ICE would work. I've seen some home-brew NG conversions that work well.
Sure, they accelerate fast but how important a consideration is that in everyday life, really, when you think about it? I'm totally happy with my Mazda 2, fast enough for me.
Yeah and the fast ones cost $100k+. A gas car with the same performance would run you $50k unless we're talking about the Model S Plaid, in which case you're looking at Porsche 991 Turbo S performance.
I'd rather have the 911.
A Porsche 991 can't compete with a Plaid. $2M Lamborghini's get demolished by Plaid's. Watch DragTimes and see the Plaid beat just about every vehicle except for the 1914hp RIMAC BEV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB1z5wr5p8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXrOJ7fFatM
My sister has that same RAV4 plug in hybrid and she loves it. So much better than an EV!!
It is an EV. A PHEV is an EV. It just has a smaller battery and a small ICE generator.
The 2.5L 4cyl doesn't act as a generator--not at least primarily.
Yes, Toyota likes the complex series-parallel hybrid format. Tesla rejected hybrids and went all EVs. Now the Tesla Model Y has now displaced the Toyota Corolla as the #1 selling vehicle. The Toyota Corolla has held that title since 1974. Tesla is winning with pure BEVs and Toyota is losing with its hybrids. Its a case of the market preference.
Agreed. Great car.
Nothing wrong with being an enthusiast. Gearheads as they are nicknamed, have a lot of fun with their ICE vehicles, an excellent hobby. There are also a lot of EV enthusiasts, they also enjoy them. No need whatsoever for mandating one vehicle type over another. Let the consumer choose.
1) Big factor is the 6X higher cost of energy for the ICE vehicle. That's the BIG one. Once they become available to Truckers they will not want an ICE truck. Operating costs are the killer.
2) More maintenance issues and breakdowns, EVs don't have all the brake pad replacement, multitude of oil changes, engine coolant, battery fluid, catalytic convertor/muffler replacement, exhaust corrosion, engine & transmission failure problems.
3) Much better performance, better stability, better turning capability, much better acceleration, much easier to have autopilot, much safer in a collision, quieter, much better on hilly roads, built in portable AC power, better for cold weather or hot weather operation, better during flooding and have longer range & operational time than ICE vehicles during bad traffic or evacuation type situations.
4) Less dependent on infrastructure breakdown. Electricity is more fundamental than gasoline long distance supply security. That can easily fail in time of war, natural disaster or government mismanagement (right now deliberate). You can also charge your EV with solar panels and supply emergency home power.
I am ideally suited for an EV - low mileage, short journeys, able to home charge. However, I am not in the market for a new car. If I was, I would not want to pay the premium for EV. Also, the overall environmental impact of building an EV (rare earths, etc) would be worse than keeping my diesel SUV running for as long as possible.
Plug-in hybrids are so much better than full evs.
They have advantages and disadvantages. Most people prefer pure EVs who don't want ICE vehicles.
Am I right to think that someone at Tesla in California can tweak the software in a Tesla anywhere in the world ? If so, a hacker could do it. Very frightening.
Yes, someone mentioned this earlier. The while remote control thing is worrying. I wrote about that a while ago, chargers can be hacked, too.
Unfortunately that's true for any connected car (EV or ICE) which most new ones are nowadays, including various aspects of automatic driving (breaking, steering, acceleration). The powertrain is largely not the factor here.
EVs are built and powered by fossil fuels.
If you could build and power the entire EV with electricity that came from hydro, geothermal or nuclear then you might have something. Keep in mind energy travels down hill from high order to lower order. Energy is neither created or destroyed. If you build and power an EV with fossil fuels then you are farthest away from the source of energy you used. In other words you are farther downhill. Sorry folks, but thats how energy works for normal people.
And fossil fuels are are produced with electricity. In fact a gasoline vehicle uses more electricity than a BEV because of all the electricity that goes into refining & distributing gasoline. Energy is routinely created, mass --> energy is where virtually all energy comes from. Fossil fuel inputs full lifecycle for an EV even powered on a Coal grid are lower than an ICE vehicle. And of course you can power an EV on hydro, nuclear or hyper-efficient gas/coal which you just can't achieve hyper-efficiency on a ICE vehicle. The only way is with a series hybrid Electric vehicle. When EV manufacture matures it is quite possible a standard BEV skateboard chassis will come with a series hybrid version for long range. Hyper-efficient one speed small diesel engines can be built.
Come to my neighborhood, every house has 2 piles with an 80% chance it is a luxury pile.
Max 5 years per pile and then onto a fresh new smell pile. The bigger the pile the better.
They love their piles so much its payments and interest all the way. One neighbor got ostracized because they got their kid a liddle chevy pile, we felt for the pile.
When I was in college a $20 bill would buy 80 gallons of gas. Is it really that much more expensive now?
I like to travel by car across the western US. It can be 100 miles between gas stations, but there are NO chargers at all. And if you did find one how long would you be there?
Longer than you'd be at a fuel station. The nearest charger to us us at a hypermarket in town. Every time we go shopping there is a car there, sometimes two. I think they charge for free there but imagine if a third EV happens to come along... Haven't seen another charger in town, by the way, just this one.
I am a long distance driver, being child and benefactor of the Interstate Highway System, so EV still don’t make any practical sense for me. I still love the thrill of driving across America and feeling like Easy Rider again. I have driven over 5 million miles and owned 11 truck stop on my resume.
At 78, I will likely die in a ICE.
That's an argument for a series hybrid EV. Why do you want to pay 4X more for fuel?
My family owns two Teslas. The first one, we bought 8 years ago. It's not because we are greenies. We aren't. It's because they are a better mousetrap. Acceleration and handling are remarkable. No trips to the gas station. We charge overnight in the garage for much less than gas. Less maintenance. More technologically advanced.
The only downside is long trips when you have to wait at a charging location for 30 to 45 minutes for an 80% charge. For that, we have a fullsize pickup with a V8 hemi. Given unreliability of electricity in my state, we'll always have an ICE as well.
A sensible position. Even for range though an series hybrid EV would be the right way to build them, just a standard EV chassis with a much smaller battery and a much smaller engine than your V8 hemi, with more torque and much higher efficiency. If electricity fails gas pumps go down also. Much as I reject solar as a grid power solution it is good for home resilience and is cost effective charging your EV, but only if you don't mind parking it for peak solar hours while it is charging. And the EV can supply substantial emergency power.
Thanks very much for joining the discussion! Tesla is something of a legend when it comes to handling and acceleration, no doubt about that. And as long as your electricity is cheaper than fuel it makes perfect sense.
P.S. Truck stop restaurants.
I am totally with you on the manual transmission thing. It forces you to engage in driving and pay attention. Also quite fun in a sports car.
Right! It's you and the car working together. Also, after all the effort I put into learning to drive a manual I wouldn't trade it for a (more expensive, costlier if it breaks down) automatic. If I sweat blood until I learned to do something, I am doing this something forever and that's that. :D
What I really don't get is the simulated manual mode in some newer automatics/cvts. With out a clutch pedal what is the point?
They simulate manual on an automatic? Oh my gosh, this is the funniest thing I've heard since last Thursday! How do you simulate it without a clutch and without a manual gear stick? I'd really love to know.
The put anouther mode "M" beside "D" on the selector, then up and down switches by it or on the steering wheel "paddle controls". No clutch at all. Basically it just let's you try to second guess the auto Trans gear selection logic.
Big "R" word - Reliability decreases with increase in interdependencies of software, hardware (mechanical) and electrical components. A simple probability theory will tell you this....more failure modes, warranty costs pile up! This is not good for the environment or ecology! Lower reliability means lower sustainability, higher costs, and higher carbon footprint.....the older mechanically-oriented autos are much better in this regard. This EV hysteria a way to commoditize and financialize the rare earth materials until they last....this is only good for financial speculation and not a good engineering solution.
It's interesting how EV enthusiasts will tell you that because EVs have fewer moving parts they need less maintenance but never say a word about the electronics, which, like mechanical moving parts, are not exactly immune to failures and breakdowns. There's always a tradeoff though in this case no one would call it so, because electronics are so cool and everything.
Not to mention suspension, steering, and braking components that have the sale, if not more, maintenance requirements compared to an ice car.
What they don't need is regular oil change, I understand. Filter changes, too, I suppose, although perhaps they do need an air filter? This is the only thing I must do about my car every year -- oil and filters. If someone drives a lot, they probably need to change the oil more often, of course, but still, it doesn't take a week to change the oil and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
1. I don't like being mandated what I should use MY hard earned money to purchase.
3. EVs are VERY limited on range. Of course the government loves that, they don't want us to go too far, do they?
3. The size of the battery on an EV is HUGE and not disposable.
4. Why are the powers that be so suddenly and so desperate for everyone to be driving EVs when the infrastructure does NOT exist? that is the critical question that must be answered!
for people living in cities with no parking space of their own, it's a non starter. for people who do have their own, you need to pay for infrastructure. where you don't (i.e. subsidy), you are stealing from poorer people who can not afford EV/have no parking space of their own. they are STUPIDLY hogging battery material compared to plug in hybrids - most people drive 30, 40 km per day tops. they can do that milage on mostly batterty in a hybrid. you can put 5 hybrids on the road for one Tesla and get 5X the carbon reduction. and - if properly adopted, and knowing what we know about the grid, they will make very beautiful paperweights, if you can lift them in the parking lot to put some papers under the wheels.
Hybrids have ICEs. Hybrids are bad.
The infrastructure vicious circle is a great one: investors in chargers need to know the demand will be there before they make a commitment. EV buyers want to know that the chargers will be there before they buy an EV. Enter the government and its public spending funds.
Given current infrastructure, I do not want to have to choose between running the a/c at my house or charging a car to go places and while that isn't necessarily a direct choice at the moment, given what is happening in global energy policy (specifically the EU) it isn't that far fetched. The diversification of sorts seems reasonable at this point in time to me.
To those making the repetitive arguments for hybrid EVs, I don't think the world views hybrid EVs as equivalent to EVs so this survey is about pure EVs which is what seems to be getting press and momentum these days. I would be much more inclined to entertain purchasing an improved hybrid EV over a pure EV over time even though I am a car enthusiast and for some of the reasons listed below enjoy ICE ownership.
I continue to be baffled as to why the industry pushes towards pure EV over hybrid EV in spite of the sense it makes to pursue hybrid EV at the very least as a transition into more EVs if that is in-fact the ultimate objective. This whole green energy movement seems to be fixated on moving from where we are today to where they think they want to be all in one very quick and fell swoop opposed to working in that direction with a logical timeline that would allow for resources to be deployed, systems to be developed and perhaps even objectives being achieved.
Consumers prefer the pure BEV over a hybrid. Most people who buy EVs buy them for city travel and maybe the odd longer range travel is Ok providing charging stations are available or they will have a truck or SUV for longer range or large payload travel. No need to have any incentives at this point, EVs are mainstream. Politicians are pushing EVs now because their solar & wind energy scam is being blown wide open and they are trying to divert attention from that fact.
Indeed, revolution is being overwhelmingly preferred to evolution. As if there isn't abundant evidence that all revolutions end in disaster.
Revolution worked pretty good in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, East Germany & Bulgaria 30yrs ago.
I disagree about defining those events as a revolution. People overthrew governments weak enough to fall on their own, which is exactly what happened in Bulgaria. We didn't even have protests. The government simply resigned. It's been repeatedly called "a bloodless revolution", I suppose only to use the word revolution because it sounds so self-satisfying. Romania's approach could probably be defined as a revolution, since they did protest, they did riot and they did shoot their dictators... and where is Romania 30+ years later? One of the poorest countries in Europe. That's how well it worked. Note that I am not comparing Romania today to Romania under Ceausescu -- Ceausescu absolutely deserved to be executed. I am only talking about the supposedly beneficial results of revolutions.
Well they sure as hell weren't evolution. If they weren't evolution what were they? I don't know about Romania & Bulgaria but certainly East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia & Hungary did far better exiting the Soviet Union. And Russia has done better after the corrupt Yeltsin destroyed Russia, although they still have a private Western Bankster Central Bank they need to overthrow (revolt against). You ain't going to overthrow the Bankster cartel in the west without a revolution.
No matter the technology, it takes the same amount of energy to drive the same vehicle from "A" to "B".
It just depends upon who will be paying the price for that energy.
What I've found is that the price of the energy for Battery Vehicles is borne by people who are paid next to nothing for their labour:
1. Thousands of children in Congo being paid $1-$2/day to mine cobalt for Battery Vehicle batteries.
China, by the way, is in Congo in a big way.
2. Slave labour (Uyghurs) in China very likely build the batteries for Battery Vehicles.
Also, electricity doesn't have anywhere near the energy-density that oil has. Thus, it takes far, far more electricity to provide the same amount of energy as oil provides. This will cause the price of electricity to sky-rocket, putting more and more people in the cold and dark.
As more Battery Vehicles appear on the road, the demand for electricity and therefore its cost will increase commensurately, making electricity out-of-reach for more and more people.
This means that our societies will slow to a crawl and begin to retreat.
This whole situation is a disaster waiting to happen, a completely avoidable disaster.
Electricity prices are one other thing EV campaigners overlook regularly. They seem to assume electricity prices are 1. frozen and 2. always cheaper than petrol prices.
I love EVs- I rent them regularly for trips to the Swiss mountains- regen braking during descents is fantastic. However, they really aren’t perfect for every situation. They cost too much and for my use case the payback period would be more than infinity.
1. The premium price for EVs versus ICE vehicles
2. Cost-effective and time-effective charging availability away from home (i.e. road trip).
A comment about software and electronics. My 2002 vehicle had a handful of onboard computers. My 2014 vehicle, same model has over 30 according to the dealer. I think today’s ICE vehicles are equally complex and reliant on software and computers to operate.
That being said, I’m thinking about buying a full hybrid for my long commute. The battery is charged during use, not via plug in. Seems like a reasonable risk to gain 40-50 mpg and reduce my gasoline consumption (at any price). And I don’t need to find a charging station.
I like tech toys and liked the idea of EVs......until I read about all the issues with mining and processing for battery and motor components and power generation. I would hold off on mass EV production until these issues are solved (if ever) and until there is a complete alternative supply chain that does not depend on China. However, if anyone has a free Tesla I would gratefully accept.
There are a whole lot more issues with Oil, often called the Devil's Tears. Why is it every country that has lots of oil ends up getting invaded by the USA, unless they are good puppies.
I like the sound and feel of riding in my 67 Camero SS over anything electric. Plus I can still tinker with it.
5. cold weather. a battery killer and significantly shortened power.
6. no charger infrastructure.
7. I can always get a gallon of gas, it's impossible to get a gallon of electricity on the side of the road. 8. 2/3 of the vehicle cost is the batteries to replace. an ICE engine replacement is 10% .
9. electrical fires - special fire extinguisher.
10. anything electrical will always fail, just a question of WHEN, not IF.
EV pros:
- Instant, constant torque (quicker and often times, with a skateboard chassis, lower center of gravity resulting in better handling vs. an equivalent ICE model, towing capacity - if not range - is often higher too)
- Lower "fuel" costs (MPGe)
- Lower service costs (less fluids, fewer parts to break)
- Purchase model (direct to customer vs. dealer model). Obviously this only applies for some manufacturers - right now only EV's
- New SUV / Truck (Rivian, Ford, GM) expand cargo capacity and range options (without the engine, they typically have more cargo capacity than their ICE equivalents)
- Vehicle to home charging option - some vehicles (i.e. can effectively serve as a backup to your home's electric grid, esp. if you also have an ICE car)
- Noise (I guess this depends on your PoV. I do like the sound of a V8... sometimes)
- Ability to charge at home
- Potential future pro (if they can get them to work), solid state batteries might be a game changer for range and charge times. Big if, but some promising developments
- net emissions (electric grid generation is, per unit of measure, cleaner than burning gas in your car)
- Diversity of power source (potential pro) - i.e. we (could) have a well diversified power grid without reliance on any one fuel. Obviously as a single input, that's not the case with gas.
Cons
- Range (number 1 issue IMO). Exacerbated by limited options if you run out of charge (you're almost certainly going to need a tow).
- Charge times (number 2)
- Supply chain and sourcing/availability concerns for the various metals
- Price. Typically (although depends on your comp) on the higher end of the cost spectrum... for now. And regardless of what I think about them, the rebates mitigate this to some extent.
- Battery longevity and replacement costs
- Drain on the grid (i.e. our charging infrastructure is not set up to support mass adoption, and I don't have much hope that this will be reliably addressed in the near future)
- Charging infrastructure: reliability, availability, relative cost (for non-at-home)
Given that most people don't drive upwards of 100 miles a day 90%+ of the time, and especially for people who have access to charging either at home or at work, this means that for the most part range is not a daily concern for most people and also for shorter road trips especially if you're staying overnight and have access to a reasonably fast charger. OTOH it's a big deal for any trip of any significant length (250+ miles one-way. They can be problematic if there's an extended power outage and you don't have a second non-EV car (that goes both ways though, remember the issues we had getting gas after hurricanes in the gulf? Also the back power supply for the house is a nice option for shorter outages).
Overall, and certainly longer term, with (hopefully) better batteries (including better material sourcing), better/expanded charging network, reliable and diversified power grid (nuclear?), I think they're a net plus. Can't see a world in which oil and NG are not still a significant resource; given the propensity for supply side disruptions and possibly higher extraction costs, I think it behooves us to reduce dependency on the demand side - EV's will help. I'm likely a near term adopter.
Thanks for this balanced view. Nothing is ever only good or only bad.
I buy cheap ICE cars that I can tinker back to health and keep running for a long time. The battery needed for an electrical vehicle will always be so prohibitively expensive that it will rule out that path to affordable transportation. The first thing to fail in an ICE vehicle are its electrical components.
1,Our grids are already massively overstressed due to insane energy policies whereby we replace reliable sources of energy (eg nat gas, nuclear) with intermittent sources that cannot perform reliably during times of temperature extremes. Now imagine a situation in which millions of cars are hooked into that same grid to power up their EVs. What could possibly go wrong?
2. The Ukraine conflict (and the weaponisation of gas by Russia) shows the dangers of leaving our energy security in the hands of forces potentially hostile to us. But shifting to EVs will simply repeat the same mistake all over again, this time with China, rather than Russia. Rushing to replace gasoline-powered cars with electric vehicles would hand the keys to the American or European transportation sector to China, given Beijing’s near-monopoly on rare-earth elements like neodymium and dysprosium, which are used in the high-output motors of most electric vehicles.
And yet there is so much talk about sourcing all these minerals at home or in friendly countries... Like it will happen overnight and with no effort whatsoever.
My ICE car, a BMW X3 diesel costs $30 NZD to complete a daily round trip of 100km and requires servicing 3 times a year not to mention additional maintenance. My EV a BMW i3 costs $4 to complete the same trip, is a joy to drive and requires servicing once every two years. Also with far less moving parts I expect the maintenance requirements to be significantly less then the ICE car. A no brainer really.
For you, maybe. For places with more expensive electricity it is a no brainer in the other direction.
Why does a BMW need servicing three times a year? Because it's German? Once a year is the standard here unless, of course, there's something wrong with the car.
Every 10,000 km for a diesel. I drive 30,000 km pa
we live in the center of a medium sized us city - for us I could see not owning a vehicle at all but utilizing autonomous rental vehicle for daily needs and renting a vehicle for longer trips/vacations - but real world "now" we own quite new ice
Anyone interested in the subject of vehicle CO2 emissions should have a look at this paper.... It should be available for free download from the society of automotive engineers SAE. Senecal is the founder of convergent science, a company specialized in cfd software for combustion simulations. He is a proponent of hybrid vehicles with small battery packs. Have a look at his posts on LinkedIn as well.
A Data-Driven Greenhouse Gas
Emission Rate Analysis for Vehicle
Comparisons
Tristan Burton,1 Scott Powers,2 Cooper Burns,1 Graham Conway,3 Felix Leach,4 and Kelly Senecal 1
1
Convergent Science, Inc, USA
2Los Angeles Dodgers, USA
3Southwest Research Institute, USA
4University of Oxford, UK
I’ve driven a Tesla owned by a friend. It was an awesome drive. It would out-accelerate even the fastest muscle cars of my youth (the 60’s). But, I’m completely against owning one for all the reasons an engineer (me) and all environmentalists should be: it’s really a fossil-fueled car, which I don’t mind, but start being honest about it. The mining required for batteries is heinous. The power density is nowhere near comparable to gas or diesel. It’s a high entropy source, and not thermodynamically competent. It’s not proven to be safe (spontaneous combustion). Also, I have some long trips to drive in the Midwest. Not gonna sit in long lines at charging stations.
I drive economy, it’s 100% about range and cost to get me to and from work.
On my commute days (I work remote 3 days/week), that’s 105 miles each way, or 210 total.
It would take an enormous discount to current EV prices to get me to give up my 30 mpg Hyundai Elantra, and even then I wouldn’t trust it as much.
If they were cheap as a toyota corrolla i would buy one for the city but keep my Landrover for trips down south 200-450k away. (West Australia -Perth to Dunsborough or Albany) . Before we use up all the worlds Resources, maybe they should aim more for Plug in Hybrids charged from the roof at home and a range of 25k to get to work for most people and stop all the extreme aims. This would clean up the air in the city as a benefit
Excellent point about the extreme aims and targets that are only getting more extreme instead of less, as they should amid all the very real problems with the transition as currently planned.
The extreme views in my opinion are now getting entrenched in a kind of mainstream groupthink which is alarming and as you pointed out cheered on by the head of the UN !!. Certain subjects - Nuclear Power, mitigation, adaptation, further more efficient use of O&G are dismissed aggressively and get no airplay. This is not allowing logical debate to occur and we are seeing the results. Ripping down trees to put in solar stations made out of coal and are off 70% of the day. Energy situation in Europe. Have a look at the Sun Cable idea where they want to power Singapore with Solar and wind energy from Northern Australia. Investors are actually throwing money at it. (Doomberg did a good piece on a similar proposal from Morocco to UK) . I could go on but my blood pressure rises!!
Take a break, care for your health. :) I remember the Doomberg piece, as always excellent work.
Meanwhile, my bank is offering me a special hydrogen-focused investment fund...
Irina - You are correct! There is one more critical component. It is the CONTINUOUS (DYNAMIC) INTERACTION among software, electronics, and mechanical hardware elements that causes significant degradation leading to variety of failure modes difficult to diagnose. This causes the reliability to reduce to a point, when the user becomes heavily dependent on a centralized system for frequent repairs or replacement thus leading to the cost of ownership and significant increase in use of fossil fuel (primary foundational energy source) to mitigate these reliability problems....I do not think this is a viable solution by any means.
Spot on.
What the EV zealots also conveniently ignore is the energy-density of oil versus the energy-density of electricity.
Thus, to obtain the same AMOUNT of energy from electricity as is provided by oil costs significantly more.
That's why, for example, the battery pack in an EV is significantly bigger, more expensive, and more difficult to make than a petrol tank in an ICE vehicle.
EV battery packs are not only far more costly to make than ICE vehicle petrol tanks, they require enormous amounts of the Earth's resources - lithium, cobalt, cadmium, carbon - far, far more than petrol tanks.
Moreover, as has been mentioned many times, the electricity infrastructure needed to provide the SAME amount of energy as is currently provided by petrol will have to be significantly greater than it is now. Thus the COST of electricity will rise commensurately, putting more and more people in the cold and dark.
This is all because of the energy-density of the two types of energy sources, i.e., electricity vs. oil.
As I mentioned, this is a completely human-caused AND avoidable disaster waiting to happen.
Battery Vehicles remind me of electric lawn mowers.
Notice that one does not see too many battery lawn mowers being used in city parks to cut grass.
We've had electric (battery AND wired) lawn mowers for years and yet cities still use gas-powered lawn mowers in their parks (especially those mowers with 4 turning blades).
Why?
If battery technology is so advanced, why don't we see cities using battery lawn mowers to cut the lawns in their parks?
Because electricity simply does not have anywhere near the energy-density - and therefore the POWER - that petrol does.
Therefore Battery Vehicles, just like electric lawn mowers, when compared to ICE vehicles, are highly limited both in range (e.g., just in urban areas) and in what they can "carry".
I see Battery Vehicles as just toys for the wealthy.
One major objection I have to EVs is this: governments are bribing people - sorry, "incentivizing" them - into buying EVs.
If EVs are so wonderful, why do governments have to end up bribing people into buying them?
Oh, and guess where our governments get the money to bribe people into buying EVs?
One guess.
Hint: You and me.
The more I see how much our governments are pushing people - even bribing them - to get them into driving EVs, the more it reminds me of Stalin's push to industrialize the Soviet Union.
And don't forget that Pete Buttigieg, secretary of the US DoT, is a communist like his father, Joseph Buttigieg, was.
Ira,
Electricity, per se, is not the problem; making ENOUGH RELIABLE electricity is the problem.
1. Electricity is secondary energy, not primary energy. Sometimes, it is tertiary energy (wind). Each stage loses efficiency.
2. The grid must more than double to transmit the added power ONLY for battery storage autos. For TOTAL energy demand, the grid must grow SIX times.
Invest in copper.
3. On average, 250 watts/m2 of solar energy reaches the ground; a few percent is convertable into electricity, and one-third of that is lost getting the electricity to a battery.
4. Potential renewable energy to replace fossil fuels, then, is insufficient to charge two billion batteries, light -heat homes, etc. Forget about trucks, buses, and airplanes.
5. Renewable energy is erratic: diurnally, seasonally, annually, and over multiple years to decades AND THEREFORE, requires an equal backup system.
6. The required backup does NOT exist, even in principle, except as fossil fuel/nuclear.
Then, of course, there is no need for the erratic renewable energy!
The direct answer to "who likes EV's", then, is " virtue signalers wishing to avoid petrol taxes" (a temporary situation).
Bill
Reliable and affordable.
As for who likes EVs, I think there are also people who genuinely believe they are better for the environment because they do not produce exhaust gases. All the rest of it that all of you here have already pointed out is not something a lot pf people care about.
Personally, I respect those who choose an EV for things like handling and acceleration, or convenience in urban driving -- no virtue-signalling there, that's genuine informed decision-making.
Hi Ira,
Anyone who wishes to purchase a battery energy storage auto, can do so. I have no objection.
My sister did. Now, she parks her Tesla outside the garage, for fear of burning down her home, and charges with a BIG extension cord.
For the same money, I can purchase a Porshe and get REAL acceleration. In fact, I have done. WHEEEE!
People need to be educated about REAL pollution. Low information people believe a lot of rubbish. The EXHAUST of the battery EV occurs during fabrication and at the power plant - out of sight - out of mind. That is what I name 'virtue signalling". The vanity plates - "NO EMISSION"- cause me to chuckle over the knuckleheads who believe that nonsense. The battery components: mining, fabrication, etc. cost more than 100,000 miles worth of CO2 (assuming CO2 is a pollutant which it is not). (SEE: https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761, and many similar comparison analyses). A detailed accounting always reveals the "MISINFORMATION' promoted by manufacturers. Of course, it is in the interest of the manufacturer to tout the product so as to sell the product. That does not make it factual.
The Battery EV handles well since the center of gravity is very close to the road, just like my Porsche. The MASSIVE 1000 kg battery is the reason. A Tesla has the same curb weight as my 1/2 ton truck. Tires wear out quickly in Teslas. Did you ever consider "tire pollution" or battery recycling? Neither did Tesla.
So, forgive me, it is not "informed decision making". It is just great advertising/indoctrination.