AARoads Forum

This was a question that I found myself pondering and I was curious what the group thoughts might be?

For me my situation probably is somewhat unique given my regular office is 38 miles from home and I drive a lot for recreation.  I have ten years in where I'm at and I need another ten for a maxium pension.  That being the case I plan on working where I am so I can get close enough to my max pension as possible.  For the time being I see issues that wouldn't make an EV worth it in my circumstances:

-  I tend to buy daily drivers that are closer to entry level segments.  Essentially I want something out of a daily driver I can wrack 200,000 plus miles on and toss away when I'm done with it.  Right now the EV market is usually in the 40k range on the lower end and that's way too much money to spend on something disposable. 
-  The amount of recreational driving coupled with longer commuting makes charging time and infrastructure an issue.  Right now charging speeds are not fast enough to really be able to drive on a whim for a day off or facilitate a quick change of plans.  Even in normal places charging infrastructure in my area (Central California) is basically non-existent and probably will remain so for a very long time.

It seems that there won't be much of a internal combustion presence in the non-commercial automotive market and it will be mandated out in California by 2035.  For sure I will need one more internal combustion engine daily driver and possibly a second depending how fast I would use it up.  Hopefully by then the cost of EVs will go down, the charge times will be reduced, charging infrastructure will be somewhat standardized and the range will be consistently over 400 miles reliably.  It kind of feels as though the EV market right now caters heavily to urban commuters that want near luxury vehicles.

When I can afford a decent one, but before the incentives run out. Washington is rolling out new rebates soon that might signal that it's time to get a hybrid.

Going full EV would require the right kind of car for me. Something with traditional controls and not burdened with all the proprietary shit that Tesla adds on.

Quote from: Bruce on December 17, 2021, 06:56:17 PM
When I can afford a decent one, but before the incentives run out. Washington is rolling out new rebates soon that might signal that it's time to get a hybrid.

Going full EV would require the right kind of car for me. Something with traditional controls and not burdened with all the proprietary shit that Tesla adds on.

I didn't list that in my post but that's something that bothers me with a lot of current EVs.  I get it that I'm not the target customer but I don't want a tech piece to drive around with lots of things I don't need or have to relearn how to use.  Oddly Tesla for the most part (Cyber Truck...) has had the most traditional styling up to now with EVs.  It seems like a lot of newer EVs are purposely meant to look "techy" or I guess what someone things is edgy?

Now that they've been out in the general public for a few years, I've been wondering what the long-term battery life is for these vehicles. Can the battery assembly have 90% (or greater?) of its initial range after five years of daily usage? How about 7-10 years?

How much is that replacement battery assembly going to set me back? Since there's less maintenance costs than an internal-combustion engine, am I just saving for that battery replacement?

How much is the range affected by using the A/C and heating system? I live in a climate in which I'll use one or the other for at least 80% of the time.

How long/much for a full or half charge in the future? This stuff isn't going to be free forever.

I'd like to see the range set to 400-500 miles for ideal driving circumstances, due to driving habits and A/C usage. That's a trip's worth for work plus something extra for some around-the-town errands.

Lastly, I really don't need a lot of gimmicks which I'll rarely need and that might suck out of the range. Having the ability to lighten the load would be nice, but not a deal-breaker. But at the rates new technology is added to cars, I think that just adds to physical bloat, complexity, and technical difficulties due to internal vehicle dependencies on its proper operation.

Quote from: formulanone on December 17, 2021, 07:00:20 PM
Now that they've been out in the general public for a few years, I've been wondering what the long-term battery life is for these vehicles. Can the battery assembly have 90% (or greater?) of its initial range after five years of daily usage? How about 7-10 years?

How much is that replacement battery assembly going to set me back? Since there's less maintenance costs than an internal-combustion engine, am I just saving for that battery replacement?

How much is the range affected by using the A/C and heating system? I live in a climate in which I'll use one or the other for at least 80% of the time.

How long/much for a full or half charge in the future? This stuff isn't going to be free forever.

I'd like to see the range set to 400-500 miles for ideal driving circumstances.

I think the long term life span on batteries will always be an issue with EVs to some degree.  The biggest question I have is how much will it cost for EV batteries to be replaced?  How long will OEM replacement batteries be produced or at least have manufacturer support?  It doesn't seem like this is the circumstance that will bode well if one is included to hang onto a car for ten-plus year.

When EVs are as convenient as gas vehicles in terms of refueling, mileage and towing.

I'm becoming more tempted for the idea of a plug in hybrid. The RAV4 Prime has 300 horses and sips fuel. Seems like a great option for a daily driver.

I suspect I won't make the switch until it becomes actively inconvenient and expensive to hang onto an internal-combustion car.  I see several ways this could happen--gas stations becoming as scarce as EV charging points are now, fuel taxes being increased to incentivize the transition to all-electric, and so on.

Quote from: formulanone on December 17, 2021, 07:00:20 PM
Now that they've been out in the general public for a few years, I've been wondering what the long-term battery life is for these vehicles. Can the battery assembly have 90% (or greater?) of its initial range after five years of daily usage? How about 7-10 years?

How much is that replacement battery assembly going to set me back? Since there's less maintenance costs than an internal-combustion engine, am I just saving for that battery replacement?

I can't speak to the experience with EVs. But the initial battery concerns about hybrids seem to have been overblown. The hybrid battery in my Prius (an early-generation model that's not plug-in) is still going strong after 315K miles and a dozen years. And the cost of replacing the hybrid battery, net of what you get for recycling the old battery, I've heard is in the $3K range. High, but not necessarily fatal, especially if the rest of the car is in good condition.

While that's semi-encouraging, the battery for a pure EV, with no help from a gasoline engine, will need to be much larger, and perhaps have a shorter lifespan.

I don't expect to be getting an EV anytime soon. No charging station yet near my apartment, no personal garage to install my own (which in any case would go against environmental objections to single-family housing), high-speed charging stations aren't yet as speedy as refueling a gas vehicle, not as prevalent as gas stations on the non-Interstate/freeway routes I prefer, and EVs don't yet have enough range to get to some favorite destinations from the nearest other fast-charging station. The infamous user-unfriendliness of Teslas (such as locking the wheels, when you need a tow) is also disconcerting, but other EV brands that don't make the news as often might be better.

Odds are all these things won't change in my lifetime, considering my age.

My current plan is to drive my Pontiac until it falls apart. When that happens, I plan to at least seriously consider an electric vehicle, as I am an ideal candidate for one unless my life somehow seriously changes between now and then. My job (which I have an ownership stake in, so it's not likely to be something that changes) is 20 miles one way, so it's in range of an EV. I own a garage I could install charging equipment in (and I can install solar panels to offset the increase to the electric bill), so charging is only apt to be an issue on a long road trip. I could just plug the car in overnight, which makes the wait time for charging irrelevant (and since I wouldn't be stopping at gas stations anymore, I'd actually spend less of my own time supplying energy to the car). Meanwhile, the lower maintenance requirements are very appealing–I'm not the sort of person who takes joy in tinkering with their own car.

The main questions will be availability and affordability by then. I have never bought a car new, and have little interest in doing so due to the massive premium doing so requires paying. I haven't ruled out a plugin hybrid, but the only situation in which my next car is full ICE would be if there simply are no electric cars of any kind available for a reasonable price when I am in a position to buy.

I've probably mentioned before, but I've had a running discussion with an acquaintance (friend of a friend) who owns a large truck-trick outfit in the Southeast.  We are both waiting on a diesel-hybrid pickup truck to hit the market.  It would be nice to have full EV capabilities to run ZEV (zero emissions) mode in environmentally sensitive areas (and rush hour).  I also mentioned that it would be nice to trick out the diesel-hybrid with a three-phase 240VAC inverter for backup house power in the case of major outages (which have occurred here about 6 times in the past 20 years). 

Amazingly, Ford recently came out with a 9.6kW Pro Power Onboard inverter option for its F-150 Lightning EV pickup.  This is only available with the extended range 19kW battery.  However, it only comes with one 240VAC outlet.  Even if you get a NEMA 6-30LR receptacle, the best you can get on the other end is about 6.5kW (somewhere between 6600 and 7200 kVA).  That's enough to handle our house (we do a pretty good job of load shedding), but it doesn't make good use of entire 9.6kW power output capability.  Unfortunately, an EV doesn't function as an inverter very long, especially when you don't have any power to plug in for a recharge.  Anybody out there want to touch the $86K price tag?  Way too hot for El Cheapo here.

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 17, 2021, 07:35:06 PM
I suspect I won't make the switch until it becomes actively inconvenient and expensive to hang onto an internal-combustion car.  I see several ways this could happen--gas stations becoming as scarce as EV charging points are now, fuel taxes being increased to incentivize the transition to all-electric, and so on.

That's pretty much where I'm at. I expect to buy a new primary car in the latter half of this decade which will very likely still be a gasoline vehicle, then expect that car to last until 2040 or so at which point I'm assuming it will become difficult to buy a new gas vehicle.

I likely will get at least a hybrid when for my next car.  Especially since the Wrangler 4xe's are out and I'm sure they'll be improved in 8-10 years.  I definitely want a car that can get me where I want to go in the mountains, and would prefer to do so more environmentally friendly.

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 17, 2021, 07:35:06 PM
I suspect I won't make the switch until it becomes actively inconvenient and expensive to hang onto an internal-combustion car.  I see several ways this could happen--gas stations becoming as scarce as EV charging points are now, fuel taxes being increased to incentivize the transition to all-electric, and so on.

I expect to be that way as well.  Maybe I'll get a hybrid for my next car; it's not like manuals are easy to find these days, anyways.  But while I do find EVs cool from a technology perspective, there are a few things that would have to happen for me to actually buy one:
1. I would need home charging at my apartment and when I visit my parents, and destination charging at any hotels I stay at on the road.
2. I would need the range to be long enough to get me between my apartment and my parents or between lunch and to/from home and/or hotels when on the road, even in winter, even when the car is older (I'm the type to keep a car until the car is no longer practical to maintain, so about 15 years or so).
3. I would need charging to be common enough and fast enough that I could just charge on a lunch break without making the break longer or restricting where I could get lunch, without having to prematurely wear out the battery by charging too much (which ties into point 2).
4. The price would have to come down (my current car was less than $20k, so even the cheaper EVs that aren't just compliance cars are much higher).
5. It would need to be a car that I could navigate and drive myself.  EVs seem to be leaning into the self-driving push, especially when it comes to navigation.  Especially with Teslas, but also with many other EVs, we're moving towards a paradigm where the car chooses the route and where to charge, not you.  Obviously, that doesn't work for a roadgeek.

Speaking of Tesla, they're far too much like Apple for my tastes.  They basically operate on the mantra of "we're forcing you to use X, redesigning Y feature, or removing Z because Elon thinks it's a great idea, and if you don't like it, too bad".  Reminds me of things like Apple removing the headphone jack, and not in a good way.  The cars are basically designed as tech devices that can be driven more than cars that happen to run on batteries.  As someone who doesn't really like the current state of the tech industry and it's way of moving further and further away from letting people control their "own" devices, that's not a positive.  There's a reason why I won't go anywhere near newer versions of Windows outside of work.

I hope not to be in the car market for quite some time, but if and when the time comes, I'm willing to consider an EV. "Consider" is the key word. Of course the biggest thing is how the market is constantly changing, so there's no way to know what will be available when the time comes. The biggest thing I find off-putting right now is the combination of lower range than a gas car and the longer charging time compared to the time needed to fill a gas tank. A common answer to that is "use an ICE vehicle for longer trips." That's certainly an option, and we currently have four ICE cars, but I don't think it's unreasonable to feel that if I'm going to spend over $50,000 on an EV, I want that vehicle to be my primary vehicle for all purposes. I don't want to spend $50,000 for something that's limited to local driving. On the plus side, since I don't normally have a commute, day-to-day range isn't an issue. (Edited to add: The comment from vdeane about manual transmissions resonates with me. Three of our current cars are manuals and I still very much prefer shifting for myself. I know the odds are that my next car won't have a manual, but it's a factor I'll consider when I look at what's available.)

For folks interested in EVs, there was an issue of Car and Driver this summer that was primarily devoted to that subject (the "EV of the Year" issue; if you're interested, I can find it upstairs to tell you which month's issue it was). Very worthwhile read. It defined a lot of the jargon, and they also staged a thousand-mile race that looped from Ann Arbor through Cincinnati, Morgantown, Pittsburgh, and northeastern Ohio, including an off-Interstate segment across southern Ohio. That article, in particular, was of interest to me (and I suspect to other members of this forum) because one of my concerns with an EV is whether road trips would be more limited in terms of route selection due to lack of charging points.

A similar EV-vs-gas-vs-hybrid race was staged by tech reviewer MKBHD from New York City to Buffalo and back:



Spoilers: The gas car was fastest, outpacing the Tesla by 40 minutes, and the hybrid took an extra 40 minutes on top of that. The hybrid crew ran into some difficulty with broken chargers, the Tesla crew had limited selection, and the gas journey was a bit more expensive.

A plug in hybrid, maybe.  Full electric - not at this time.

And it depends on what we could do for a home charger.  It would be outside, and the installation point might be difficult.

Quote from: vdeane on December 17, 2021, 10:59:49 PM
Speaking of Tesla, they're far too much like Apple for my tastes.  They basically operate on the mantra of "we're forcing you to use X, redesigning Y feature, or removing Z because Elon thinks it's a great idea, and if you don't like it, too bad".  Reminds me of things like Apple removing the headphone jack, and not in a good way.  The cars are basically designed as tech devices that can be driven more than cars that happen to run on batteries.  As someone who doesn't really like the current state of the tech industry and it's way of moving further and further away from letting people control their "own" devices, that's not a positive.  There's a reason why I won't go anywhere near newer versions of Windows outside of work.

This is an unfortunate trend that I feel like would be one of the only things that would actually be a dealbreaker to me when it comes to electric vehicles. I abhor giving such control to software companies, and don't use products like Windows that exhibit a need for it. My hope is that as more electric vehicles come on the market, especially more lower-end models, this tendency will be diminished.

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 18, 2021, 10:40:42 AM
The biggest thing I find off-putting right now is the combination of lower range than a gas car and the longer charging time compared to the time needed to fill a gas tank. A common answer to that is "use an ICE vehicle for longer trips." That's certainly an option, and we currently have four ICE cars, but I don't think it's unreasonable to feel that if I'm going to spend over $50,000 on an EV, I want that vehicle to be my primary vehicle for all purposes. I don't want to spend $50,000 for something that's limited to local driving.

I guess I look at it as no different than spending X dollars on a car that is not a pickup–one could argue that they don't want to spend that much money on a car that's limited to hauling no more than groceries. However, the instances where I need to haul furniture or whatever are so infrequent (no more than a two or three times per year), it makes more sense to buy a sedan, and then on the rare occasions I do need a pickup, ask for help from a friend or family member that has one, or else rent one.

Obviously, the practicality is going to differ based on how often one goes on longer trips, and to where. But even as a roadgeek I estimate that I actually get the chance to drive somewhere outside of EV range only once every few months or so. On a trip for pleasure, I don't think I'd really mind sitting in my car for 15 minutes or whatever dicking around on my phone while I wait for the car to charge. The main problem will be charging availability out in the country. But this is a problem that stands to get better rather than worse.

My plan is to drive my CR-V for as long as I genuinely can until maintenance costs get too high for it or until my needs outgrow it (6-10 years?). By then I would very much be in the market for a reliable used plug-in hybrid, gas hybrid, or even hydrogen powered if the price comes down (RAV4 Prime, Insight, and Clarity look like genuinely good cars). I'm personally not interested in an electric car at this time, primarily because of the refueling time and the fact that if power is not readily available, then you can't charge it unless you have solar panels where you are at. Also, electric vehicles are too expensive.

That being said, I want my next car to deliver over 35 mpg combined. I admire Toyota's recent efforts to make the only engine option a hybrid (Sienna, Venza) instead of fully committing to electric.

When they are more widely distributed. My dad did consider of moving to a hybrid car but I don't know when that'll be...

I just bought a 2017 Honda Accord Hybrid, I figure I'll keep it for 3-5 years and then costs will have fallen enough for me to afford an EV. I'm sick of the staggering waste of energy inherent in the internal combustion engine.

I'll unhelpfully add that I don't know.  Next time I'm ready to replace a vehicle, I'll weigh the options based on many of the factors mentioned by others: relative up-front and long-term costs, limitations on operating based on availability of charging, etc.  Hopefully that decision is a number of years down the line, as I'm very happy driving my A3, which just passed 58K miles today.

As far as environmental concerns, I'd also be curious about true environmental costs of each option, and how one would get an honest evaluation of such.  The oversimplified view just factors in MPG or direct emissions.  I would like to see an honest comparison that includes impacts of manufacturing and eventually safely disposing of all those batteries, the true impacts of the electricity and how it's actually generated, weighed against costs of gasoline production, distribution, and combustion.

Quote from: Jim on December 18, 2021, 04:08:56 PM
As far as environmental concerns, I'd also be curious about true environmental costs of each option, and how one would get an honest evaluation of such.  The oversimplified view just factors in MPG or direct emissions.  I would like to see an honest comparison that includes impacts of manufacturing and eventually safely disposing of all those batteries, the true impacts of the electricity and how it's actually generated, weighed against costs of gasoline production, distribution, and combustion.

Obviously your opinion may vary, but I've come to the conclusion that the while the potential environmental impacts of battery usage (potential contamination of lithium mine sites, disposal of spent batteries) are bad, those impacts are at least limited to a localized area. If those locations are recorded, they could be remediated later as the technology to do so develops. On the other hand, emissions and their impacts are dispersed globally and are next to impossible to reverse.

when they are affordable to those of us in the bottom tier of income. i just don't have $20-$30k to shell out for a car, and can't finance it.

when i can find a used prius for $1200, i'll consider it. not likely to happen anytime soon.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 17, 2021, 06:47:45 PM
This was a question that I found myself pondering and I was curious what the group thoughts might be?

For me my situation probably is somewhat unique given my regular office is 38 miles from home and I drive a lot for recreation.  I have ten years in where I'm at and I need another ten for a maxium pension.  That being the case I plan on working where I am so I can get close enough to my max pension as possible.  For the time being I see issues that wouldn't make an EV worth it in my circumstances:

-  I tend to buy daily drivers that are closer to entry level segments.  Essentially I want something out of a daily driver I can wrack 200,000 plus miles on and toss away when I'm done with it.  Right now the EV market is usually in the 40k range on the lower end and that's way too much money to spend on something disposable. 
-  The amount of recreational driving coupled with longer commuting makes charging time and infrastructure an issue.  Right now charging speeds are not fast enough to really be able to drive on a whim for a day off or facilitate a quick change of plans.  Even in normal places charging infrastructure in my area (Central California) is basically non-existent and probably will remain so for a very long time.

It seems that there won't be much of a internal combustion presence in the non-commercial automotive market and it will be mandated out in California by 2035.  For sure I will need one more internal combustion engine daily driver and possibly a second depending how fast I would use it up.  Hopefully by then the cost of EVs will go down, the charge times will be reduced, charging infrastructure will be somewhat standardized and the range will be consistently over 400 miles reliably.  It kind of feels as though the EV market right now caters heavily to urban commuters that want near luxury vehicles.

Where is Mich Ravera when you need him?

Quote from: michravera on December 18, 2021, 04:29:17 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 17, 2021, 06:47:45 PM
This was a question that I found myself pondering and I was curious what the group thoughts might be?

For me my situation probably is somewhat unique given my regular office is 38 miles from home and I drive a lot for recreation.  I have ten years in where I'm at and I need another ten for a maxium pension.  That being the case I plan on working where I am so I can get close enough to my max pension as possible.  For the time being I see issues that wouldn't make an EV worth it in my circumstances:

-  I tend to buy daily drivers that are closer to entry level segments.  Essentially I want something out of a daily driver I can wrack 200,000 plus miles on and toss away when I'm done with it.  Right now the EV market is usually in the 40k range on the lower end and that's way too much money to spend on something disposable. 
-  The amount of recreational driving coupled with longer commuting makes charging time and infrastructure an issue.  Right now charging speeds are not fast enough to really be able to drive on a whim for a day off or facilitate a quick change of plans.  Even in normal places charging infrastructure in my area (Central California) is basically non-existent and probably will remain so for a very long time.

It seems that there won't be much of a internal combustion presence in the non-commercial automotive market and it will be mandated out in California by 2035.  For sure I will need one more internal combustion engine daily driver and possibly a second depending how fast I would use it up.  Hopefully by then the cost of EVs will go down, the charge times will be reduced, charging infrastructure will be somewhat standardized and the range will be consistently over 400 miles reliably.  It kind of feels as though the EV market right now caters heavily to urban commuters that want near luxury vehicles.

Where is Mich Ravera when you need him?

I feel I'm missing some context or a reference I'm not getting?

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2021, 04:39:56 PM

Quote from: michravera on December 18, 2021, 04:29:17 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 17, 2021, 06:47:45 PM
This was a question that I found myself pondering and I was curious what the group thoughts might be?

For me my situation probably is somewhat unique given my regular office is 38 miles from home and I drive a lot for recreation.  I have ten years in where I'm at and I need another ten for a maxium pension.  That being the case I plan on working where I am so I can get close enough to my max pension as possible.  For the time being I see issues that wouldn't make an EV worth it in my circumstances:

-  I tend to buy daily drivers that are closer to entry level segments.  Essentially I want something out of a daily driver I can wrack 200,000 plus miles on and toss away when I'm done with it.  Right now the EV market is usually in the 40k range on the lower end and that's way too much money to spend on something disposable. 
-  The amount of recreational driving coupled with longer commuting makes charging time and infrastructure an issue.  Right now charging speeds are not fast enough to really be able to drive on a whim for a day off or facilitate a quick change of plans.  Even in normal places charging infrastructure in my area (Central California) is basically non-existent and probably will remain so for a very long time.

It seems that there won't be much of a internal combustion presence in the non-commercial automotive market and it will be mandated out in California by 2035.  For sure I will need one more internal combustion engine daily driver and possibly a second depending how fast I would use it up.  Hopefully by then the cost of EVs will go down, the charge times will be reduced, charging infrastructure will be somewhat standardized and the range will be consistently over 400 miles reliably.  It kind of feels as though the EV market right now caters heavily to urban commuters that want near luxury vehicles.

Where is Mich Ravera when you need him?

I feel I'm missing some context or a reference I'm not getting?

See my comments on "The Ravera Criteria". Most recently at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28939.msg2591333#msg2591333

Of course, you could go back to m.t.r and my earlier comments when I lived in Sacramento.

Quote from: Jim on December 18, 2021, 04:08:56 PM
As far as environmental concerns, I'd also be curious about true environmental costs of each option, and how one would get an honest evaluation of such.  The oversimplified view just factors in MPG or direct emissions.  I would like to see an honest comparison that includes impacts of manufacturing and eventually safely disposing of all those batteries, the true impacts of the electricity and how it's actually generated, weighed against costs of gasoline production, distribution, and combustion.

I'm very curious about this as well. Sure, an EV instead of a ICE does take emissions off the road, but that doesn't mean that the power station that effectively powers the EV removes emissions from the whole picture. As Scott5114 said, emissions' impacts are dispersed globally, so even if the car isn't making the emissions, the world is still affected by what emissions power plants produce.

I have an issue of Motor Trend with an interesting article (specifically August 2011, "Future Shock") that has an interesting graph that compared on a state-by-state level how much CO2 a Toyota Prius made versus how much a Nissan Leaf made. In states such as California and Vermont that use wind and nuclear power, the Leaf made less CO2 overall, as you would expect, but in states like West Virginia that rely on coal and oil, the Prius actually made less net CO2 than the Leaf did because the plants in those states were more polluting than the Prius was per capita. Of course this was 10 years ago, so I would like to see a similar comparison made today.

Quote from: CoreySamson on December 18, 2021, 07:18:25 PM

Quote from: Jim on December 18, 2021, 04:08:56 PM
As far as environmental concerns, I'd also be curious about true environmental costs of each option, and how one would get an honest evaluation of such.  The oversimplified view just factors in MPG or direct emissions.  I would like to see an honest comparison that includes impacts of manufacturing and eventually safely disposing of all those batteries, the true impacts of the electricity and how it's actually generated, weighed against costs of gasoline production, distribution, and combustion.

I'm very curious about this as well. Sure, an EV instead of a ICE does take emissions off the road, but that doesn't mean that the power station that effectively powers the EV removes emissions from the whole picture. As Scott5114 said, emissions' impacts are dispersed globally, so even if the car isn't making the emissions, the world is still affected by what emissions power plants produce.

I have an issue of Motor Trend with an interesting article (specifically August 2011, "Future Shock") that has an interesting graph that compared on a state-by-state level how much CO2 a Toyota Prius made versus how much a Nissan Leaf made. In states such as California and Vermont that use wind and nuclear power, the Leaf made less CO2 overall, as you would expect, but in states like West Virginia that rely on coal and oil, the Prius actually made less net CO2 than the Leaf did because the plants in those states were more polluting than the Prius was per capita. Of course this was 10 years ago, so I would like to see a similar comparison made today.

Of course, if reducing one's personal emissions responsibility is the primary concern, a property owner can reduce their reliance on the local coal-fired power plant by installing solar panels on the roof before switching to an EV. Of course, the real change that needs to happen long-term is for power plants running on non-renewables to be replaced by cleaner alternatives.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2021, 07:49:29 PM

Quote from: CoreySamson on December 18, 2021, 07:18:25 PM

Quote from: Jim on December 18, 2021, 04:08:56 PM
As far as environmental concerns, I'd also be curious about true environmental costs of each option, and how one would get an honest evaluation of such.  The oversimplified view just factors in MPG or direct emissions.  I would like to see an honest comparison that includes impacts of manufacturing and eventually safely disposing of all those batteries, the true impacts of the electricity and how it's actually generated, weighed against costs of gasoline production, distribution, and combustion.

I'm very curious about this as well. Sure, an EV instead of a ICE does take emissions off the road, but that doesn't mean that the power station that effectively powers the EV removes emissions from the whole picture. As Scott5114 said, emissions' impacts are dispersed globally, so even if the car isn't making the emissions, the world is still affected by what emissions power plants produce.

I have an issue of Motor Trend with an interesting article (specifically August 2011, "Future Shock") that has an interesting graph that compared on a state-by-state level how much CO2 a Toyota Prius made versus how much a Nissan Leaf made. In states such as California and Vermont that use wind and nuclear power, the Leaf made less CO2 overall, as you would expect, but in states like West Virginia that rely on coal and oil, the Prius actually made less net CO2 than the Leaf did because the plants in those states were more polluting than the Prius was per capita. Of course this was 10 years ago, so I would like to see a similar comparison made today.

Of course, if reducing one's personal emissions responsibility is the primary concern, a property owner can reduce their reliance on the local coal-fired power plant by installing solar panels on the roof before switching to an EV. Of course, the real change that needs to happen long-term is for power plants running on non-renewables to be replaced by cleaner alternatives.

Noting it perfect. Solar panels use toxic chemicals and disrupt air traffic as well as creating a heat source (and the sun goes away at least half of the time). Hydro disrupts the flow of rivers. Nuclear transfers heat and we have to deal with the waste. Coal puts more radioactive elements into the environment than nuclear. Natural gas has to be transported somehow. Wind power kills birds and disrupts the skyline (and the wind doesn't always blow when we want it to). Burning petroleum products has its problems. We certainly aren't going back to pre-electricity times. Can some alternatives help? Sure!

Speaking of West Virginia, the state's economy is doubly screwed to become even more shit as time progresses given it is highly reliant on the coal industry.  What else substantial does West Virginia have to offer economically aside from recreation?

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2021, 11:14:20 PM
Speaking of West Virginia, the state's economy is doubly screwed to become even more shit as time progresses given it is highly reliant on the coal industry.  What else substantial does West Virginia have to offer economically aside from recreation?

Thing is, coal will still have to be mined even if we stop using it completely in the US for energy production.  It is highly critical to the production of coke for the steel industry, and therefore, for making steel.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2021, 11:14:20 PM
Speaking of West Virginia, the state's economy is doubly screwed to become even more shit as time progresses given it is highly reliant on the coal industry.  What else substantial does West Virginia have to offer economically aside from recreation?

If you're an undertaker in WV, you're probably doing land office business right now.

I'll switch to an EV when it makes financial sense to do so. I won't be in the market for a new daily driver until at least 2025 or so. With my Aristo, there's enough aftermarket support for it that I can easily (well, as easily as possible for a 30 year old foreign market car) switch it to run E85, and I'm sure whatever synthetic fuels come out in the near future will be able to be adapted to its platform.

And be prepared!
(https://i.redd.it/uoviot3zxc681.jpg)

Quote from: michravera on December 18, 2021, 06:54:07 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2021, 04:39:56 PM

Quote from: michravera on December 18, 2021, 04:29:17 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 17, 2021, 06:47:45 PM
This was a question that I found myself pondering and I was curious what the group thoughts might be?

For me my situation probably is somewhat unique given my regular office is 38 miles from home and I drive a lot for recreation.  I have ten years in where I'm at and I need another ten for a maxium pension.  That being the case I plan on working where I am so I can get close enough to my max pension as possible.  For the time being I see issues that wouldn't make an EV worth it in my circumstances:

-  I tend to buy daily drivers that are closer to entry level segments.  Essentially I want something out of a daily driver I can wrack 200,000 plus miles on and toss away when I'm done with it.  Right now the EV market is usually in the 40k range on the lower end and that's way too much money to spend on something disposable. 
-  The amount of recreational driving coupled with longer commuting makes charging time and infrastructure an issue.  Right now charging speeds are not fast enough to really be able to drive on a whim for a day off or facilitate a quick change of plans.  Even in normal places charging infrastructure in my area (Central California) is basically non-existent and probably will remain so for a very long time.

It seems that there won't be much of a internal combustion presence in the non-commercial automotive market and it will be mandated out in California by 2035.  For sure I will need one more internal combustion engine daily driver and possibly a second depending how fast I would use it up.  Hopefully by then the cost of EVs will go down, the charge times will be reduced, charging infrastructure will be somewhat standardized and the range will be consistently over 400 miles reliably.  It kind of feels as though the EV market right now caters heavily to urban commuters that want near luxury vehicles.

Where is Mich Ravera when you need him?

I feel I'm missing some context or a reference I'm not getting?

See my comments on "The Ravera Criteria". Most recently at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28939.msg2591333#msg2591333

Of course, you could go back to m.t.r and my earlier comments when I lived in Sacramento.

Ah, I get it now. 

I'm trying to find the video but there was a EV kit car that you could buy in the 1970s/1980s era.  It was intended to be something cheap that someone could build and bypass Federal crash standards.  I want to say the battery was lead-acid and only had a max speed of about 40 MPH.  I want to say Regular Car Reviews did a video on it but I can't find it for some reason.

Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2021, 04:40:54 PM
And be prepared!
(https://i.redd.it/uoviot3zxc681.jpg)

Oh no, watch out for that windshield wiper!

No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2021, 08:02:02 PM
No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

But does the car shown in Kalvado's post actually prevent you from opening the hood? I hope the owner doesn't have to visit the dealership just to replenish the windshield washer fluid.

Quote from: oscar on December 19, 2021, 08:06:33 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2021, 08:02:02 PM
No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

But does the car shown in Kalvado's post actually prevent you from opening the hood? I hope the owner doesn't have to visit the dealership just to replenish the windshield washer fluid.

Assuming the vehicle is a Tesla it wouldn't be out of line for a luxury car owner (of any brand) to do something like that.  I recall one of my worker's Audi A3 had something in the manual saying "take me to the dealership"  pertaining changing the headlight bulb.  Considering we had to remove the air intake to replace said bulb odd/unfriendly packaging in a luxury brand wouldn't surprise me.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2021, 08:02:02 PM
No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

Damn, and just when I was thinking of getting in the habit of chewing on the power steering hose so I wouldn't have to stop for snacks or drinks.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 19, 2021, 08:21:46 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2021, 08:02:02 PM
No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

Damn, and just when I was thinking of getting in the habit of chewing on the power steering hose so I wouldn't have to stop for snacks or drinks.

I'm still surprised that I was able to get the Subaru dealer to take said label off when I bought my Impreza.  They gave me some fight until told them that I wasn't going to take delivery with it on my window.  I was totally bluffing but it saved me the effort of doing it myself and buying adhesive remover.

Quote from: oscar on December 19, 2021, 08:06:33 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2021, 08:02:02 PM
No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

But does the car shown in Kalvado's post actually prevent you from opening the hood? I hope the owner doesn't have to visit the dealership just to replenish the windshield washer fluid.

It's Mercedes EQS.

QuoteThe EQS' hood is not designed to be opened by the customer, so the filler for the wiper fluid is below the rear-view mirror in the driver's-side door.

It makes some sense as electric system has different set of hazards, and supposingly requires less service - and what is required cannot be done without special tools to control power distribution components

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2021, 08:18:17 PM

Quote from: oscar on December 19, 2021, 08:06:33 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2021, 08:02:02 PM
No more silly than a Prop 65 label on every new car sold in California.  Just don't eat parts or drink stuff from your car if you don't want cancer from it.

But does the car shown in Kalvado's post actually prevent you from opening the hood? I hope the owner doesn't have to visit the dealership just to replenish the windshield washer fluid.

Assuming the vehicle is a Tesla it wouldn't be out of line for a luxury car owner (of any brand) to do something like that.  I recall one of my worker's Audi A3 had something in the manual saying "take me to the dealership"  pertaining changing the headlight bulb.  Considering we had to remove the air intake to replace said bulb odd/unfriendly packaging in a luxury brand wouldn't surprise me.

Definitely not unique to luxury ones. I had a certain bulb on my baseline Civic, where replacement procedure started with "lift the car on a jack and remove the wheel".

When do I plan to switch? Never. Of course, I'm 60 years old now and don't expect to live more than a decade longer, if that.

I'm having serious regrets about buying my Saturn Vue hybrid. I still haven't diagnosed the problem with the hybrid system that keeps the alternator from charging the 12-volt system as well as the 36-volt "mild hybrid" system. If it's the battery energy control module, that costs around $800. If it's the hybrid battery, the cost jumps into four figures. And I cannot afford those repairs. I've learned that it is possible to disconnect the hybrid system and run the vehicle on the gasoline engine alone, but I still can't figure out how to do it, nor can i find anyone who knows how to do it.

Other than the hybrid system, that Vue is in good mechanical shape, although it does consume a little oil.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2021, 10:59:14 PM
I'm having serious regrets about buying my Saturn Vue hybrid. I still haven't diagnosed the problem with the hybrid system that keeps the alternator from charging the 12-volt system as well as the 36-volt "mild hybrid" system. If it's the battery energy control module, that costs around $800. If it's the hybrid battery, the cost jumps into four figures. And I cannot afford those repairs. I've learned that it is possible to disconnect the hybrid system and run the vehicle on the gasoline engine alone, but I still can't figure out how to do it, nor can i find anyone who knows how to do it.

Other than the hybrid system, that Vue is in good mechanical shape, although it does consume a little oil.

I had some unusual problems with the hybrid system in my Toyota Prius, which perplexed the mechanics at my dealership for several months. It turned out that the hybrid drive has its own cooling system I didn't know about, and its separate water pump was failing. Replacing that pump solved my problem, and I'm still driving it (but just for local travel, now that it's over 315K miles).

But when it came time to replace my full-size pickup truck after three breakdowns one summer, I replaced it with a non-hybrid compact SUV, in part because there's less to go wrong without a hybrid drive.

A pure EV is probably mechanically simpler than a gas-electric hybrid, so problems with the latter might not apply to EVs. 

Never. I don't want an electric vehicle until they are capable of going at least 400 miles on a charge, and can be fully recharged in 15 minutes or less. By the time that technology arrives, I'll be dead.

Quote from: bugo on December 19, 2021, 11:35:32 PM
Never. I don't want an electric vehicle until they are capable of going at least 400 miles on a charge at highway speeds or in mountainous terrain, and can be fully recharged in 15 minutes or less. By the time that technology arrives, I'll be dead.

I bolded the part of this that I have always added when pondering the pros and cons.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 20, 2021, 11:24:44 AM

Quote from: bugo on December 19, 2021, 11:35:32 PM
Never. I don't want an electric vehicle until they are capable of going at least 400 miles on a charge at highway speeds or in mountainous terrain, and can be fully recharged in 15 minutes or less. By the time that technology arrives, I'll be dead.

I bolded the part of this that I have always added when pondering the pros and cons.

Put me in as part of the "never" crowd. I'm 51 now, which means that by your logic, I will also be dead when the improvements come.

I question the use of an electric vehicle for off-road / off-grid purposes...unless you live very close to the places you're camping or exploring, the ability to plug in and charge your vehicle away from the crowds is presently very limited.

Quote from: Henry on December 20, 2021, 11:35:12 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 20, 2021, 11:24:44 AM

Quote from: bugo on December 19, 2021, 11:35:32 PM
Never. I don't want an electric vehicle until they are capable of going at least 400 miles on a charge at highway speeds or in mountainous terrain, and can be fully recharged in 15 minutes or less. By the time that technology arrives, I'll be dead.

I bolded the part of this that I have always added when pondering the pros and cons.

Put me in as part of the "never" crowd. I'm 51 now, which means that by your logic, I will also be dead when the improvements come.

A piece of personal experience: once I say "never!" clock starts ticking. Usually I am doing that stuff full time in less than 10 years.

For my wife's car, I'd pull the trigger now if a. her current car (2009 Subaru Impreza) was no longer working and needed replacing, and b. the cost of an EV made sense. She pretty much drives that car to work and back (20 miles RT), and to run a few nearby errands, and that's it. In the ~5 years we've owned the car, I don't think it's ever been driven more than 30-40 miles away from home, and probably haven't put more than 100 miles on it in a single day. So range is almost no concern.

For my car, there's still some progress that needs to be made, but we're getting closer. We need a car that we can take long road trips on. And living in Boise, that means it needs to be able to drive long distances in the middle of nowhere. The 240 miles of US-95 between Nampa and Winnemucca is sparse even for gas stations, and definitely has no viable EV chargers right now. Meaning a road trip to California in an EV is impractical unless heading the long way through Utah. Heading north towards Lewiston isn't much better. US-20 west to Burns and Bend is in the middle of nowhere, but I believe at least Tesla is installing a charger in Burns which would be enough to make that highway usable (in a Tesla). But for me to buy an EV for our road trip car, there needs to be good fast charging coverage on more than just the interstates. US-20, US-95, US-93, etc. for our area.

I'd also want to see standardization in charging technology (I believe Europe already has this). The fact that Tesla chargers aren't compatible with non-Tesla EVs is pretty ridiculous. And some combinations of vehicles and chargers require adapters which is an unnecessary inconvenience.

Quote from: SkyPesos on December 20, 2021, 01:59:55 PM
Haven't bought my first car yet (been using one of my parent's old car so far), but EVs are not completely off the table for me yet. Probably not a Tesla though, for many reasons.

I think I'm the most open to an EV of anyone that's posted in this thread, and even I wouldn't touch a Tesla with a 10-foot pole. The software is too restrictive. My initial inclination would be to probably get one from GM or Ford.

Quote from: doorknob60 on December 20, 2021, 03:52:04 PM
For my wife's car, I'd pull the trigger now if a. her current car (2009 Subaru Impreza) was no longer working and needed replacing, and b. the cost of an EV made sense. She pretty much drives that car to work and back (20 miles RT), and to run a few nearby errands, and that's it. In the ~5 years we've owned the car, I don't think it's ever been driven more than 30-40 miles away from home, and probably haven't put more than 100 miles on it in a single day. So range is almost no concern.

My wife's driving patterns are similar.  But I doubt she would try an EV.  She'd be too worried about running the battery out, even though she'd seldom get below 75%.

When getting her current vehicle, she wouldn't consider a start-stop model.  When we test-drove one, she almost freaked out every time we came to a stop, worrying that it wouldn't start up again.

Some things are just outside people's comfort zones.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2021, 04:57:29 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on December 20, 2021, 01:59:55 PM
Haven't bought my first car yet (been using one of my parent's old car so far), but EVs are not completely off the table for me yet. Probably not a Tesla though, for many reasons.

I think I'm the most open to an EV of anyone that's posted in this thread, and even I wouldn't touch a Tesla with a 10-foot pole. The software is too restrictive. My initial inclination would be to probably get one from GM or Ford.

I'm hoping for an EV that doesn't have Tesla's software restrictions, but can also charge as fast as a  Tesla with a supercharger. Might take a few years, but it'll take that long before I'm in the market for a new car. Also, more competition = better for us consumers. At least 300 miles on a freeway under a full charge would be nice too; that'll be enough for me to drive to Chicago from Cincy.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2021, 04:57:29 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on December 20, 2021, 01:59:55 PM
Haven't bought my first car yet (been using one of my parent's old car so far), but EVs are not completely off the table for me yet. Probably not a Tesla though, for many reasons.

I think I'm the most open to an EV of anyone that's posted in this thread, and even I wouldn't touch a Tesla with a 10-foot pole. The software is too restrictive. My initial inclination would be to probably get one from GM or Ford.

Same here. An EV makes good sense for me given the local cost of fuel ($4/gal versus $0.104/kWh), but I've driven my friend's Tesla a few times and come away very unimpressed. The screen is cumbersome to use and trying to change things like temperature controls while driving is extremely distracting.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2021, 04:57:29 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on December 20, 2021, 01:59:55 PM
Haven't bought my first car yet (been using one of my parent's old car so far), but EVs are not completely off the table for me yet. Probably not a Tesla though, for many reasons.

I think I'm the most open to an EV of anyone that's posted in this thread, and even I wouldn't touch a Tesla with a 10-foot pole. The software is too restrictive. My initial inclination would be to probably get one from GM or Ford.

I'd consider a Nissan, which has been building EVs for a bit, before most other brands. I'm waiting to see how Toyota and Honda enter the market. Right now Honda has an EV called the e in Europe and Japan, but it isn't coming to the US. Like you, I won't touch a Tesla. The cult of personality around the brand makes Mazda Miata owners look sane.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2021, 04:57:29 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on December 20, 2021, 01:59:55 PM
Haven't bought my first car yet (been using one of my parent's old car so far), but EVs are not completely off the table for me yet. Probably not a Tesla though, for many reasons.

I think I'm the most open to an EV of anyone that's posted in this thread, and even I wouldn't touch a Tesla with a 10-foot pole. The software is too restrictive. My initial inclination would be to probably get one from GM or Ford.

Yeah, I don't like how Tesla forces users to go through the touchscreen for most everything, changes around other controls, and is going all-in on a yoke that nobody wants.  Plus there are known QC issues with their cars and customer service doesn't have a great reputation.  And you have to order the car online, even if you go to a sales center; you can't test drive a car on the lot and then buy that specific car (and given the experience my parents had with our 1997 Accord, I don't understand why one would buy a car they can't test drive first).  It's too bad, given how much better the Supercharger experience is than CCS chargers.

GM though... their reputation wasn't exactly great even before the Bolt issues with batteries catching on fire (Dad avoids them like the plague).

I'm also curious how things will go with Honda, though I'm disappointed that their first EVs (at least in the US) will basically be GM cars that they happen to sell.

2/3 of the ICE cars I've owned have been GMs, and they've basically been problem-free, especially compared to the hell on Earth that was my experience with owning a Chrysler. That doesn't mean that their EVs are any good, I suppose.

My wife owns a Civic and loves it, and it's also been problem-free, so I guess I should look into their eventual EV offerings as well.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2021, 10:29:50 PM
2/3 of the ICE cars I've owned have been GMs, and they've basically been problem-free, especially compared to the hell on Earth that was my experience with owning a Chrysler. That doesn't mean that their EVs are any good, I suppose.

My wife owns a Civic and loves it, and it's also been problem-free, so I guess I should look into their eventual EV offerings as well.

Weirdly every GM cars (4 total) I've owned has always had problems either rooted in build quality or mechanical issue.  The build quality on my 2010 Camaro and 2014 were so bad that they are only cars I've bought new that I sold before 100,000 miles.  The two Fords I've owned and the one Chrysler have largely been problem free.  My wife has a lot of problems with mechanical reliability on her Forester whereas I haven't had any with my Impreza.  Sometimes I think it's just luck of the draw in terms of quality and reliability with volume automakers.  To that end I would prefer to go with whatever manufacturer had the most parts availability for an EV.  The domestic automakers tend to in my experience have the cheapest and easiest to obtain OEM and third party parts.

Quote from: formulanone on December 20, 2021, 11:48:11 AM
I question the use of an electric vehicle for off-road / off-grid purposes...unless you live very close to the places you're camping or exploring, the ability to plug in and charge your vehicle away from the crowds is presently very limited.

you could always bring a generator  :bigass:

wait.

Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on December 21, 2021, 10:38:32 AM

Quote from: formulanone on December 20, 2021, 11:48:11 AM
I question the use of an electric vehicle for off-road / off-grid purposes...unless you live very close to the places you're camping or exploring, the ability to plug in and charge your vehicle away from the crowds is presently very limited.

you could always bring a generator  :bigass:

wait.

Speaking of things like that I might just buy a generator for myself.  We have a ton at work given everyone thinks we'll get a Hurricane for some reason in Central California.  They usually hit clearance eventually given they sit forever and I can imagine a generator being a hot commodity in coming years.

Before The Plague, I was starting to think the next vehicle might be electric for me.  But working from home changes the calculus.  (That's a permanent change for my employer.)  I'm putting WAY fewer miles on my existing vehicle, using less gas, and needing maintenance less frequently.  If I end up only using a vehicle for mostly weekend stuff for the next several years, that reduces the incentive for me to make the switch.  I'm back to 'commuting' with my feet, which I loved back when I lived and worked in Milwaukee.

That wasn't possible with my current gig until the plague (suburban office parks are not livable spaces. :-D )
If a tree falls on my ride tomorrow, I'd probably get another gas car.
If it's four years from now and my wheels are on their last legs, I think I'll have to do the math and see if it makes sense for me financially and ethically.

As to the OP's question, never. 

The purpose of science is to determine what IS true, not to invent whatever some person or group wishes was.

IMHO, science seems to be provings that:

An electric car, with the capabilities of a modern gasoline car, cannot be made at a price that ordinary people can afford.

IMHO, the only way to market such vehicles is via tax subsidy.  At least in the USA, the nature of the tax subsidy is that it only applies to very rich people, who are thus the only people who can afford such vehicles, and since there is a 99.999% certainty I will never be in such a situation, I will never own one.  Further, I believe that the backers of such vehicles would rather ordinary people like myself be pushed in to communal transit (or simply told to stay home and like it) and would thus push such policies rather than extend such subsidies to ordinary people.

As to the side discussion:

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2021, 11:14:20 PM
Speaking of West Virginia, the state's economy is doubly screwed to become even more shit as time progresses given it is highly reliant on the coal industry.  What else substantial does West Virginia have to offer economically aside from recreation?

Well, the blunt fact is that MUCH of WV has a topography that is unusable.  Find places with similar topography, but no coal, and pretty much nobody ever lived there, or ever will.  This is why, IMHO, all the talk about redeveloping such areas with other industries is so much ho-ha.

But MUCH, is not ALL.  There still are plenty of places with potential.  The problems, IMHO, have been:

- The state spent 100 years treating job creators like garbage.  Can't just move a coal mine to Texas, now can you?  That is changing, but it will take time to change.

- The public schools are awful.  Education is the key to GTFO of the bad parts of the state, and thus people who are smart get out, leaving behind the remnant with marginally qualified teachers.

- The remnant itself.  The actual number of people who should live in a place like McDowell County is ZERO.  9 out of 10 have left.  The 1 that remains, with high demands for services and no prospects for work, are a problem.

- The higher ed system is quite bad. 

- For 2/3rds of the state, the airport is Charleston's, and it is awful.  High prices and day long connections.  Businesses just won't subject themselves to it.

- The state, and county, governments taxed coal and funded the whole government on that.  With coal gone, the tax structure is just broken.

Quote from: SP Cook on December 21, 2021, 04:12:16 PM
As to the OP's question, never. 

The purpose of science is to determine what IS true, not to invent whatever some person or group wishes was.

IMHO, science seems to be provings that:

An electric car, with the capabilities of a modern gasoline car, cannot be made at a price that ordinary people can afford.

IMHO, the only way to market such vehicles is via tax subsidy.  At least in the USA, the nature of the tax subsidy is that it only applies to very rich people, who are thus the only people who can afford such vehicles, and since there is a 99.999% certainty I will never be in such a situation, I will never own one.  Further, I believe that the backers of such vehicles would rather ordinary people like myself be pushed in to communal transit (or simply told to stay home and like it) and would thus push such policies rather than extend such subsidies to ordinary people.

This post is so thoroughly incorrect and so divorced with reality, it's hard to even know where to start with replying to it.

For one thing, science has nothing to do with the price of anything. That's a matter of economics and business. A good chunk of the reason the price of electric cars is so high right now is because one company (Tesla) is explicitly marketing them as luxury goods, and the rest of the market is currently not large enough to create the economies of scale necessary to make them affordable. As the technology and charging infrastructure progresses to the point that they are more appealing to the average consumer, the price will drop.

In 1981, the first IBM PC cost $1,565 (equivalent to $4,455 adjusted for inflation). I'm sure there was some guy in 1981 griping that a computer cannot be made at a price that ordinary people can afford. Now you can get a computer that blows that one out of the water in processing power for $300.

Hell, look at the history of automotives. The first modern car was built in 1878. Cars weren't considered accessible to the general public until the Model T in 1908. That's a 30 year period where some guy was griping that a car cannot be made at a price that ordinary people can afford. (Good luck finding a new car for the $3,837 adjusted-for-inflation price of a Model T, though.)

I also don't see how electric cars would help push people to transit. In fact, widespread deployment of electric cars would undercut the argument for transit, as the most effective criticism of driving is its environmental impact. Take that away, and you just have the general arguments against suburban development patterns, which don't resonate with nearly as many people (if they did, people wouldn't willingly live in the suburbs).

I'm actually a little surprised that conservatives aren't just as gung-ho on electric cars as liberals are, because electric cars would mean the price of oil literally becomes a non-issue for anyone that isn't in an industry like plastics, which means (for better or worse) never having to give a shit about the Middle East or Venezuela ever again. All of that economic activity would shift to power-generating companies that are necessarily going to have to produce their electricity in the United States (it would be inefficient as all hell to generate the power overseas and wire it to the US). What's not to like?

As for tax subsidies, there are tons of them in products you use every day. Ever wonder why Mexican Coke uses real sugar but in the US we have high-fructose corn syrup? It's because corn is subsidized. Take away the corn subsidy, and sugar is cheaper than corn syrup.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2021, 04:43:42 PM
....

I'm actually a little surprised that conservatives aren't just as gung-ho on electric cars as liberals are, because electric cars would mean the price of oil literally becomes a non-issue for anyone that isn't in an industry like plastics, which means (for better or worse) never having to give a shit about the Middle East or Venezuela ever again. All of that economic activity would shift to power-generating companies that are necessarily going to have to produce their electricity in the United States (it would be inefficient as all hell to generate the power overseas and wire it to the US). What's not to like?

....

As someone who generally (though not always) leans conservative, I think part of the issue may relate to concern about the best appropriate means to tax EVs. The gas tax is flawed, no question about it, and it obviously doesn't account adequately for EVs. But I think many, perhaps most, conservatives have a serious beef with the idea of GPS logging for purposes of a miles-driven tax, which is one of the primary alternatives you see recommended, because many conservatives abhor the idea of having their location being monitored in that fashion. I'm mildly surprised that more liberals don't oppose that sort of taxation concept for a different reason–racial disparity and the concern of misuse of location data (example: a burglary takes place in a wealthy white neighborhood and the GPS logging shows that a black man was there at the time, so he immediately becomes the prime suspect regardless of the reason why he was there–surely that sort of scenario ought to be problematic to most reasonable people).

I don't want to go further with that discussion because I'm concerned it would derail the thread into a political war that would end with it being locked.

I think the best solution is to simply have the state check the odometer whenever you renew your tag and tax you on the mileage driven since the last tag renewal. If you drive in a state you're not registered in, oh well; it's not much different than gassing up in Las Vegas and driving to St. George without stopping at an Arizona gas station along the way. If certain states throw a fit about that solution, then do the mileage accounting as part of your annual tax return and have FHWA dole out the resulting revenue as they do with the federal gas tax.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2021, 05:04:54 PM
I think the best solution is to simply have the state check the odometer whenever you renew your tag and tax you on the mileage driven since the last tag renewal. If you drive in a state you're not registered in, oh well; it's not much different than gassing up in Las Vegas and driving to St. George without stopping at an Arizona gas station along the way. If certain states throw a fit about that solution, then do the mileage accounting as part of your annual tax return and have FHWA dole out the resulting revenue as they do with the federal gas tax.

Odometer fraud is already a concern.
Of course, it is possible to integrate things deeper into electric vehicle and have motor controllers account for power spent, for example. That quickly becomes an arms race with hacking, as John Deere learnt. 
And spread out payments are mentally easier than once-a-year payment (another reason for having paycheck deduction).

This all can be accommodated.  Cost - including resource-driven costs and constrains (Li, Cu, Sm, Co, Nd) - are a hurdle.

The best way to tax EV usage would be to someone manage to separate out the electricity used to charge the car from the rest of the power used in a home, and add a surtax to it. That would have to be done via the charging device.

I'm not sure how the Tesla charging stations work at commercial facilities like Sheetz (which has banks of the chargers at many of its locations.) Is there a meter and do you pay for a kilowatt-hour the same way you pay for a gallon of gas, with a certain amount of tax paid for each gallon?

I certainly don't favor some sort of blanket tax on electricity to fund roads.

Quote from: kalvado on December 21, 2021, 05:16:42 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2021, 05:04:54 PM
I think the best solution is to simply have the state check the odometer whenever you renew your tag and tax you on the mileage driven since the last tag renewal. If you drive in a state you're not registered in, oh well; it's not much different than gassing up in Las Vegas and driving to St. George without stopping at an Arizona gas station along the way. If certain states throw a fit about that solution, then do the mileage accounting as part of your annual tax return and have FHWA dole out the resulting revenue as they do with the federal gas tax.

Odometer fraud is already a concern.

Odometer fraud may be a concern, but is it a concern on a larger scale than fraud by using untaxed fuel (sometimes available for limited purposes) for road vehicles?

Quote from: tmthyvs on December 21, 2021, 06:48:23 PM

Quote from: kalvado on December 21, 2021, 05:16:42 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2021, 05:04:54 PM
I think the best solution is to simply have the state check the odometer whenever you renew your tag and tax you on the mileage driven since the last tag renewal. If you drive in a state you're not registered in, oh well; it's not much different than gassing up in Las Vegas and driving to St. George without stopping at an Arizona gas station along the way. If certain states throw a fit about that solution, then do the mileage accounting as part of your annual tax return and have FHWA dole out the resulting revenue as they do with the federal gas tax.

Odometer fraud is already a concern.

Odometer fraud may be a concern, but is it a concern on a larger scale than fraud by using untaxed fuel (sometimes available for limited purposes) for road vehicles?

I suspect tax free fuel accounting goes through sanity checks which can catch significant abuse. Year to year trends, fleet size, acreage for farms seem like no brainer.
Odometer fraud has no obvious checks, and affect private parties mostly - so feel free to hire a lawyer, this is a small concern for government. Would be difficult to enforce when it becomes a significant one.

Quote from: kalvado on December 21, 2021, 05:16:42 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2021, 05:04:54 PM
I think the best solution is to simply have the state check the odometer whenever you renew your tag and tax you on the mileage driven since the last tag renewal. If you drive in a state you're not registered in, oh well; it's not much different than gassing up in Las Vegas and driving to St. George without stopping at an Arizona gas station along the way. If certain states throw a fit about that solution, then do the mileage accounting as part of your annual tax return and have FHWA dole out the resulting revenue as they do with the federal gas tax.

Odometer fraud is already a concern.
Of course, it is possible to integrate things deeper into electric vehicle and have motor controllers account for power spent, for example. That quickly becomes an arms race with hacking, as John Deere learnt. 

Tax fraud is already a concern too, but that doesn't stop us from throwing up our hands and not collect taxes. The Venn diagram of people with the technical aptitude for hacking their car to avoid taxes, and people with the lack of moral fiber (and fear of going to jail if caught) to go ahead with doing it, has to have a pretty slim center. The vast majority of people are going to pay the correct amount of taxes due, which should be enough to cover it. If not, send IRS agents after suspected cheats and fine their asses into bankruptcy. That should pay for a few nice bridges.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2021, 06:26:19 PM
The best way to tax EV usage would be to someone manage to separate out the electricity used to charge the car from the rest of the power used in a home, and add a surtax to it. That would have to be done via the charging device.

Doable, but would require the use of some sort of standardized government-regulated charging device. Elon Musk would burst into tears.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2021, 06:26:19 PM
I certainly don't favor some sort of blanket tax on electricity to fund roads.

Why not? Suppose the average household pays $W in gas taxes every year and drives X miles, an electric car uses Y kWh to go X miles, and the average household uses Z kWh per year. Couldn't you use those four values to compute an acceptable per-kWh amount that would be equal to the amount they pay now? (This would also mean that crypto farms would actually contribute something to society by funding infrastructure, so we'd actually get more infrastructure funding by this model than we do now.)

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2021, 04:43:42 PM

This post is so thoroughly incorrect and so divorced with reality, it's hard to even know where to start with replying to it.

For one thing, science has nothing to do with the price of anything.

Then please send me a gold making machine, such that the price per ounce is reduced to three cents.

The very purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  We are now learning that electric cars cannot exist, absent subsidy.  Science.

QuoteA good chunk of the reason the price of electric cars is so high right now is because one company (Tesla) is explicitly marketing them as luxury goods, and the rest of the market is currently not large enough to create the economies of scale necessary to make them affordable.

Or, the only people that can afford such a plaything, in the USA economic system, are the very rich, AKA people who buy "luxury goods" .    Ordinary people cannot afford such things, because they are the ones that pay the tax subsidy, rather than the ones who receive its benefits.

QuoteAs the technology and charging infrastructure progresses to the point that they are more appealing to the average consumer, the price will drop.

The accountant's fallacy.  You ASSUME that what you wish, WILL be invented.  Again the purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  Perhaps, the the "technology"  NEVER "progresses" .  If you disagree, then please send me a light saber, a transporter, and a raise people from the dead device along with my gold making machine.

Quote
I also don't see how electric cars would help push people to transit.

Basic public policy.  With gasoline and new gasoline powered cars priced out of the range of the average person, and electric cars, with or without the massive subsidy, only available to the rich, the average person is forced into communal transit.  The goal.

Quote

I'm actually a little surprised that conservatives aren't just as gung-ho on electric cars as liberals are...

It isn't really so much a left-right issue, it is just science.  ASSUMING that in some unnamed future era, something that DOES NOT EXIST TODAY will exist, and exist in an economically viable way, is no way to run a society.  You might as well say that "well, in ten years, when we can make food out of used tires, we won't need farms, so..." . Gibberish, and bad public policy.

Quote
As for tax subsidies, there are tons of them in products you use every day.

Ah, the reverse camel's nose fallacy.  In a discussion of one public policy, one bring up some unrelated issue and says "well, this is X, so thus you must automatically support every other X" .

Nope.  The existence of one tax subsidy, has no bearing on whether another is good public policy or not.

Quote from: SP Cook on December 22, 2021, 09:17:07 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2021, 04:43:42 PM

This post is so thoroughly incorrect and so divorced with reality, it's hard to even know where to start with replying to it.

For one thing, science has nothing to do with the price of anything.

Then please send me a gold making machine, such that the price per ounce is reduced to three cents.

The very purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  We are now learning that electric cars cannot exist, absent subsidy.  Science.

QuoteA good chunk of the reason the price of electric cars is so high right now is because one company (Tesla) is explicitly marketing them as luxury goods, and the rest of the market is currently not large enough to create the economies of scale necessary to make them affordable.

Or, the only people that can afford such a plaything, in the USA economic system, are the very rich, AKA people who buy “luxury goods”.    Ordinary people cannot afford such things, because they are the ones that pay the tax subsidy, rather than the ones who receive its benefits.

QuoteAs the technology and charging infrastructure progresses to the point that they are more appealing to the average consumer, the price will drop.

The accountant’s fallacy.  You ASSUME that what you wish, WILL be invented.  Again the purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  Perhaps, the the “technology” NEVER “progresses”.  If you disagree, then please send me a light saber, a transporter, and a raise people from the dead device along with my gold making machine.

Quote
I also don't see how electric cars would help push people to transit.

Basic public policy.  With gasoline and new gasoline powered cars priced out of the range of the average person, and electric cars, with or without the massive subsidy, only available to the rich, the average person is forced into communal transit.  The goal.

Quote

I'm actually a little surprised that conservatives aren't just as gung-ho on electric cars as liberals are…

It isn’t really so much a left-right issue, it is just science.  ASSUMING that in some unnamed future era, something that DOES NOT EXIST TODAY will exist, and exist in an economically viable way, is no way to run a society.  You might as well say that “well, in ten years, when we can make food out of used tires, we won’t need farms, so…”. Gibberish, and bad public policy.

Quote
As for tax subsidies, there are tons of them in products you use every day.

Ah, the reverse camel’s nose fallacy.  In a discussion of one public policy, one bring up some unrelated issue and says “well, this is X, so thus you must automatically support every other X”.

Nope.  The existence of one tax subsidy, has no bearing on whether another is good public policy or not.

Honestly speaking, economy is not a science.
If there is a huge source of gold found somewhere in depths of pacific tomorrow, it is quite possible gold wiring will become a new standard. Or any other resource.  Technology wise, EVs are not out of reach.

As for EVs... I can think of an evolutionary path to make them very feasible in a different paradigm. Aluminum coils, sodium batteries, much smaller overall (that already happens with ICE elsewhere), lots of software protections to enable crash avoidance instead of beefy metal crash survival. Range of 50 miles, cost and size of a fraction of regular car. Can be used for commute, long haul vehicles can be rented as needed, or limited to 1 per family. Nothing unscientific about it. 

BUT, I suspect problem has to addressed even differently.

It's worth noting that a lot of people are perfectly happy with the EV technology that exists today.  We now have cars that can go 200-300 miles from a regular charge and can get the battery to 80% charge in the time it takes to eat lunch.  It's mainly a question of actually building enough chargers to support travel and people who don't have access to home charging for whatever reason, and for companies to source enough supply of batteries.  These are business and infrastructure problems, not technology problems.

Quote from: SP Cook on December 22, 2021, 09:17:07 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2021, 04:43:42 PM

This post is so thoroughly incorrect and so divorced with reality, it's hard to even know where to start with replying to it.

For one thing, science has nothing to do with the price of anything.

Then please send me a gold making machine, such that the price per ounce is reduced to three cents.

The very purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  We are now learning that electric cars cannot exist, absent subsidy.  Science.

QuoteA good chunk of the reason the price of electric cars is so high right now is because one company (Tesla) is explicitly marketing them as luxury goods, and the rest of the market is currently not large enough to create the economies of scale necessary to make them affordable.

Or, the only people that can afford such a plaything, in the USA economic system, are the very rich, AKA people who buy "luxury goods" .    Ordinary people cannot afford such things, because they are the ones that pay the tax subsidy, rather than the ones who receive its benefits.

QuoteAs the technology and charging infrastructure progresses to the point that they are more appealing to the average consumer, the price will drop.

The accountant's fallacy.  You ASSUME that what you wish, WILL be invented.  Again the purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  Perhaps, the the "technology"  NEVER "progresses" .  If you disagree, then please send me a light saber, a transporter, and a raise people from the dead device along with my gold making machine.

Quote
I also don't see how electric cars would help push people to transit.

Basic public policy.  With gasoline and new gasoline powered cars priced out of the range of the average person, and electric cars, with or without the massive subsidy, only available to the rich, the average person is forced into communal transit.  The goal.

Quote

I'm actually a little surprised that conservatives aren't just as gung-ho on electric cars as liberals are...

It isn't really so much a left-right issue, it is just science.  ASSUMING that in some unnamed future era, something that DOES NOT EXIST TODAY will exist, and exist in an economically viable way, is no way to run a society.  You might as well say that "well, in ten years, when we can make food out of used tires, we won't need farms, so..." . Gibberish, and bad public policy.

Quote
As for tax subsidies, there are tons of them in products you use every day.

Ah, the reverse camel's nose fallacy.  In a discussion of one public policy, one bring up some unrelated issue and says "well, this is X, so thus you must automatically support every other X" .

Nope.  The existence of one tax subsidy, has no bearing on whether another is good public policy or not.

OK Malthus.  Incidentally, Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos could easily crash the gold market if they wanted to.  The reason we don't mine materials from asteroid also isn't a technology problem so much as a business problem - namely, there's so much material, if we did start mining it, the price would go down to practically zero from over-supply and make any investment in the mining basically worthless.

Quote from: SP Cook on December 22, 2021, 09:17:07 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2021, 04:43:42 PM

This post is so thoroughly incorrect and so divorced with reality, it's hard to even know where to start with replying to it.

For one thing, science has nothing to do with the price of anything.

Then please send me a gold making machine, such that the price per ounce is reduced to three cents.

The very purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  We are now learning that electric cars cannot exist, absent subsidy.  Science.

Science has nothing to do with the price of anything. The price of my house has increased $40,000 since I bought it. That has jack shit to do with science; I'm not in here enriching uranium or whatever the hell you think scientists do to magically influence the market.

Since the rest of your post proceeds from a false claim, it's not worth the effort to even bother reading in its entirety. Ciao!

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 01:53:35 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on December 22, 2021, 09:17:07 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2021, 04:43:42 PM

This post is so thoroughly incorrect and so divorced with reality, it's hard to even know where to start with replying to it.

For one thing, science has nothing to do with the price of anything.

Then please send me a gold making machine, such that the price per ounce is reduced to three cents.

The very purpose of science is to prove what IS TRUE.  We are now learning that electric cars cannot exist, absent subsidy.  Science.

Science has nothing to do with the price of anything. The price of my house has increased $40,000 since I bought it. That has jack shit to do with science; I'm not in here enriching uranium or whatever the hell you think scientists do to magically influence the market.

Since the rest of your post proceeds from a false claim, it's not worth the effort to even bother reading in its entirety. Ciao!

One can argue that there is some scientific justification for some prices.  Element abundance pretty clearly shows why gold and platinum are expensive, and copper is more expensive than steel or aluminum
(https://www.periodni.com/pictures/relative_abundance_of_chemical_elements.jpg)

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 21, 2021, 04:51:30 PMAs someone who generally (though not always) leans conservative, I think part of the issue may relate to concern about the best appropriate means to tax EVs. The gas tax is flawed, no question about it, and it obviously doesn't account adequately for EVs. But I think many, perhaps most, conservatives have a serious beef with the idea of GPS logging for purposes of a miles-driven tax, which is one of the primary alternatives you see recommended, because many conservatives abhor the idea of having their location being monitored in that fashion. I'm mildly surprised that more liberals don't oppose that sort of taxation concept for a different reason–racial disparity and the concern of misuse of location data (example: a burglary takes place in a wealthy white neighborhood and the GPS logging shows that a black man was there at the time, so he immediately becomes the prime suspect regardless of the reason why he was there–surely that sort of scenario ought to be problematic to most reasonable people).

I don't want to go further with that discussion because I'm concerned it would derail the thread into a political war that would end with it being locked.

My own view, as a person who generally identifies as liberal, is that attitudes toward automated mass surveillance tend to run crosswise to the liberal/conservative divide as usually defined.  There are plenty of elements in the liberal coalition that have reason to distrust the ever-seeing, ever-remembering eye that can never be held accountable--e.g., supporters of abortion rights.

There have been proposals to finesse the EV taxation issue short of resorting to always-on GPS logging.  For example, several years ago Oregon DOT was working on a scheme that would have relied on a network of roadside receivers to measure the amount of travel a vehicle does annually.  The privacy impact of this would be more comparable to E-ZPass than 100% logging because travel between nodes in the network would not be recorded.

As the technology evolves, I expect two things to be true.  First, in some cases it will be necessary to trade off privacy to realize some gains:  for example, if you want to reduce your time lost in congestion by allowing your vehicle to join an automated platoon, you will likely give up a measure of anonymity to do so since your vehicle will be more readily identifiable.  And second, people will be more willing to entertain these tradeoffs if they have ironclad legal protections (comparable to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the doctrine of fruit of the poisoned tree, but extended to private as well as state actors; Big Tech is just as much of a potential threat as the government) against any information thus gained being used to their disadvantage.

Roger McNamee's Zucked (arguing for users' ownership of the data they generate) and Jon Fasman's We See It All (describing how private and law enforcement use of mass surveillance tools has grown) both have pointers on how to negotiate the permissible use of data-gathering technologies as they continue to evolve.  Key themes are to regulate monopolies and demand democratic accountability.

Quote from: kalvado on December 22, 2021, 02:56:11 PM
One can argue that there is some scientific justification for some prices.  Element abundance pretty clearly shows why gold and platinum are expensive, and copper is more expensive than steel or aluminum

Well, yes, but it's a leap across the Grand Canyon from "some elements are rare in nature" to "Science Says™ a complex consumer product made of a dozen different types of material can NEVER be made less expensive".

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 03:11:21 PM

Quote from: kalvado on December 22, 2021, 02:56:11 PM
One can argue that there is some scientific justification for some prices.  Element abundance pretty clearly shows why gold and platinum are expensive, and copper is more expensive than steel or aluminum

Well, yes, but it's a leap across the Grand Canyon from "some elements are rare in nature" to "Science Says™ a complex consumer product made of a dozen different types of material can NEVER be made less expensive".

Oh, come on. "zis iz sajens" mob successfully taken over any logic. Science is becoming a new religion - often preached by those  with high school diploma at most.

Quote from: kalvado on December 22, 2021, 03:25:22 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 03:11:21 PM

Quote from: kalvado on December 22, 2021, 02:56:11 PM
One can argue that there is some scientific justification for some prices.  Element abundance pretty clearly shows why gold and platinum are expensive, and copper is more expensive than steel or aluminum

Well, yes, but it's a leap across the Grand Canyon from "some elements are rare in nature" to "Science Says™ a complex consumer product made of a dozen different types of material can NEVER be made less expensive".

Oh, come on. "zis iz sajens" mob successfully taken over any logic. Science is becoming a new religion - often preached by those  with high school diploma at most.

This is such a non-sequitur, I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me, SP Cook, both, or neither.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 05:26:14 PM

Quote from: kalvado on December 22, 2021, 03:25:22 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 03:11:21 PM

Quote from: kalvado on December 22, 2021, 02:56:11 PM
One can argue that there is some scientific justification for some prices.  Element abundance pretty clearly shows why gold and platinum are expensive, and copper is more expensive than steel or aluminum

Well, yes, but it's a leap across the Grand Canyon from "some elements are rare in nature" to "Science Says™ a complex consumer product made of a dozen different types of material can NEVER be made less expensive".

Oh, come on. "zis iz sajens" mob successfully taken over any logic. Science is becoming a new religion - often preached by those  with high school diploma at most.

This is such a non-sequitur, I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me, SP Cook, both, or neither.

Something like this mob:
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/E92E/production/_95749695_sciencedc.jpg)
For me these are a symbol of religious mob rule under the color of science
Signed:
Kalvado, PhD, research scientist.

What does that have to do with anything we were talking about, though? I'm not following the chain of logic.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 05:44:48 PM
What does that have to do with anything we were talking about, though? I'm not following the chain of logic.

I am talking about "Science proves  that!" and similar arguments being a clear sign that there is nothing beyond some religious beliefs behind that statement for the person saying that. Such belief can be right, wrong, or totally irrelevant - either way it is still just a religious belief.

Quote from: kalvado on December 22, 2021, 05:54:20 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 05:44:48 PM
What does that have to do with anything we were talking about, though? I'm not following the chain of logic.

I am talking about "Science proves  that!" and similar arguments being a clear sign that there is nothing beyond some religious beliefs behind that statement for the person saying that. Such belief can be right, wrong, or totally irrelevant - either way it is still just a religious belief.

I think it's more nuanced than that. Generally stating a belief in "trusting the science" or similar is merely stating that decisions should be made by taking into account the data currently available to science, and the current understanding of the state of the world and how it works derived from the data available. What trips people up is that the best data available will necessarily change, due to technological advancement, previous data suggesting a new area of inquiry that was overlooked before, or even just straight up conditions on the ground changing. That means that "what science says" can sometimes differ substantially from "what science said" a year ago. And that's a good thing–it means our understanding of what is being studied is being continually refined and updated with the best information available to us. A true willingness to believe in science, then, must therefore also be accompanied by a willingness to throw out what you believed to be true a year ago and reassess things.

A religion, on the other hand, is generally based on unchanging, foundational beliefs. Christianity, for instance, is based on a belief that there is a God who created the universe, Jesus was the son of said God, etc. These beliefs do not change because if they did it wouldn't be Christianity any longer, it would be some other belief system. Further, religions are a matter of faith, rather than acting on measurable data. You will not ever hear the Pope come out on the balcony and say "We have new data that proves that God is thirteen feet tall and exclusively wears orange T-shirts", because that's not how religions work.

Some people do unfortunately latch on to certain scientific data or theories as unshakable dogma, and that misses the point of science entirely. These people are fools, because inevitably this data or these theories will be refined or replaced by something that is more accurate. Science is as much about disproving old ideas as it is proving new ones.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 01:49:48 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2021, 06:26:19 PM
I certainly don't favor some sort of blanket tax on electricity to fund roads.

Why not? Suppose the average household pays $W in gas taxes every year and drives X miles, an electric car uses Y kWh to go X miles, and the average household uses Z kWh per year. Couldn't you use those four values to compute an acceptable per-kWh amount that would be equal to the amount they pay now? (This would also mean that crypto farms would actually contribute something to society by funding infrastructure, so we'd actually get more infrastructure funding by this model than we do now.)

Possible, but consider this. Your electricity bill is $X in a month. You buy an EV and the applicable charging equipment. All things being equal (no temperature extremes requiring excessive use of AC or electric heat, no excessive use of electricity for anything else, your electric bill goes up to $X plus $100. It's pretty easy to assume that the extra $100 went to charge the vehicle. But then say you make drastic cutbacks in your use of electricity to make up the difference - you turn your thermostat up in the summer or down in the winter, you do less laundry, you shower less often requiring less water to be heated, you turn off lights, you turn off the TV, etc.) to get your electricity bill back down to $X. You've effectively cut your tax bill back to what it was, but you're wearing out the roads with an EV that isn't paying anything extra.

True, you pay gas tax when you fill up the cans for your lawn mower, but the bulk of your gas purchases are for your vehicles which use the roads. With electricity, the bulk of your use is NOT going to highway usage.

The compromise would be a mileage tax on EVs, but that won't fly for the same reasons so many are opposed to it for gas and diesel vehicles.The other compromise is higher annual licensing fees, and there's going to be a pretty intense lobbying effort against that if it costs you $26 to license/register your Chevy Gasomatic each year, but $260 to license/register your Chevy Kilowatt.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 22, 2021, 07:02:28 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 01:49:48 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2021, 06:26:19 PM
I certainly don't favor some sort of blanket tax on electricity to fund roads.

Why not? Suppose the average household pays $W in gas taxes every year and drives X miles, an electric car uses Y kWh to go X miles, and the average household uses Z kWh per year. Couldn't you use those four values to compute an acceptable per-kWh amount that would be equal to the amount they pay now? (This would also mean that crypto farms would actually contribute something to society by funding infrastructure, so we'd actually get more infrastructure funding by this model than we do now.)

Possible, but consider this. Your electricity bill is $X in a month. You buy an EV and the applicable charging equipment. All things being equal (no temperature extremes requiring excessive use of AC or electric heat, no excessive use of electricity for anything else, your electric bill goes up to $X plus $100. It's pretty easy to assume that the extra $100 went to charge the vehicle. But then say you make drastic cutbacks in your use of electricity to make up the difference - you turn your thermostat up in the summer or down in the winter, you do less laundry, you shower less often requiring less water to be heated, you turn off lights, you turn off the TV, etc.) to get your electricity bill back down to $X. You've effectively cut your tax bill back to what it was, but you're wearing out the roads with an EV that isn't paying anything extra.

True, you pay gas tax when you fill up the cans for your lawn mower, but the bulk of your gas purchases are for your vehicles which use the roads. With electricity, the bulk of your use is NOT going to highway usage.

The compromise would be a mileage tax on EVs, but that won't fly for the same reasons so many are opposed to it for gas and diesel vehicles.The other compromise is higher annual licensing fees, and there's going to be a pretty intense lobbying effort against that if it costs you $26 to license/register your Chevy Gasomatic each year, but $260 to license/register your Chevy Kilowatt.

Your last argument can easily be countered by reducing gas tax and making all regs $300.
But then someone using a clunker to (barely) make it to work pays as much as long haul recreational driver of a luxury car.
Things are so much easier if they were settled before we were born!

Quote from: hbelkins on December 22, 2021, 07:02:28 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 01:49:48 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2021, 06:26:19 PM
I certainly don't favor some sort of blanket tax on electricity to fund roads.

Why not? Suppose the average household pays $W in gas taxes every year and drives X miles, an electric car uses Y kWh to go X miles, and the average household uses Z kWh per year. Couldn't you use those four values to compute an acceptable per-kWh amount that would be equal to the amount they pay now? (This would also mean that crypto farms would actually contribute something to society by funding infrastructure, so we'd actually get more infrastructure funding by this model than we do now.)

Possible, but consider this. Your electricity bill is $X in a month. You buy an EV and the applicable charging equipment. All things being equal (no temperature extremes requiring excessive use of AC or electric heat, no excessive use of electricity for anything else, your electric bill goes up to $X plus $100. It's pretty easy to assume that the extra $100 went to charge the vehicle. But then say you make drastic cutbacks in your use of electricity to make up the difference - you turn your thermostat up in the summer or down in the winter, you do less laundry, you shower less often requiring less water to be heated, you turn off lights, you turn off the TV, etc.) to get your electricity bill back down to $X. You've effectively cut your tax bill back to what it was, but you're wearing out the roads with an EV that isn't paying anything extra.

This is a good point, but
1. For most people, there is a baseline level of electrical consumption beyond which it is very unpleasant to cut back. Sure, you can save some money by dropping the thermostat from 72° to 70° in the winter. But if that's not enough to offset your car's electrical usage, are you willing to cut it back to 68°? 65°? 60°? At some point, my wife is going to set the thermostat back to something reasonable when I'm not looking. And a great deal of electrical usage is non-discretionary, anyway–I use the Internet in the course of my job, so I basically have to draw power to run the computer, modem, and router no matter how much I'd like to save electricity.
2. Some would argue this isn't actually a problem at all, since reducing energy consumption of any kind has desirable effects of reducing environmental impact and allowing the unused energy to be allocated elsewhere, thus easing demands on electricity infrastructure. It makes no functional difference if someone makes that for altruistic reasons or if they have a financial incentive.
3. Home users intentionally cutting back on power usage to save would be more than offset by the same tax applying to much larger energy consumers that benefit from public roads but don't actually pay for their upkeep. A casino, for example, pays no gas tax except when on backup generator power, yet uses a tremendous amount of electricity to power thousands of slot machines 24/7. (I am not sure how true it is, but I remember hearing when I was in the industry that the casinos I worked in tended to have a monthly power bill of over $100,000.) Of course, a casino does benefit from the existence of public roads, as that is how nearly every one of their customers will arrive.

The biggest problem an electricity tax would present, in my estimation, would be its impact on those people who do use electricity but truly don't use the public road system at all, because they walk or take a subway. A rebate of some kind would be the ideal solution, but how do you prove that someone doesn't touch a public road with so much as a bike? And of course those people do benefit second-hand from the public road system (the shops they're walking to are probably stocked by truck).

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 07:23:50 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 22, 2021, 07:02:28 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 01:49:48 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2021, 06:26:19 PM
I certainly don't favor some sort of blanket tax on electricity to fund roads.

Why not? Suppose the average household pays $W in gas taxes every year and drives X miles, an electric car uses Y kWh to go X miles, and the average household uses Z kWh per year. Couldn't you use those four values to compute an acceptable per-kWh amount that would be equal to the amount they pay now? (This would also mean that crypto farms would actually contribute something to society by funding infrastructure, so we'd actually get more infrastructure funding by this model than we do now.)

Possible, but consider this. Your electricity bill is $X in a month. You buy an EV and the applicable charging equipment. All things being equal (no temperature extremes requiring excessive use of AC or electric heat, no excessive use of electricity for anything else, your electric bill goes up to $X plus $100. It's pretty easy to assume that the extra $100 went to charge the vehicle. But then say you make drastic cutbacks in your use of electricity to make up the difference - you turn your thermostat up in the summer or down in the winter, you do less laundry, you shower less often requiring less water to be heated, you turn off lights, you turn off the TV, etc.) to get your electricity bill back down to $X. You've effectively cut your tax bill back to what it was, but you're wearing out the roads with an EV that isn't paying anything extra.

This is a good point, but
1. For most people, there is a baseline level of electrical consumption beyond which it is very unpleasant to cut back. Sure, you can save some money by dropping the thermostat from 72° to 70° in the winter. But if that's not enough to offset your car's electrical usage, are you willing to cut it back to 68°? 65°? 60°? At some point, my wife is going to set the thermostat back to something reasonable when I'm not looking. And a great deal of electrical usage is non-discretionary, anyway–I use the Internet in the course of my job, so I basically have to draw power to run the computer, modem, and router no matter how much I'd like to save electricity.
2. Some would argue this isn't actually a problem at all, since reducing energy consumption of any kind has desirable effects of reducing environmental impact and allowing the unused energy to be allocated elsewhere, thus easing demands on electricity infrastructure. It makes no functional difference if someone makes that for altruistic reasons or if they have a financial incentive.
3. Home users intentionally cutting back on power usage to save would be more than offset by the same tax applying to much larger energy consumers that benefit from public roads but don't actually pay for their upkeep. A casino, for example, pays no gas tax except when on backup generator power, yet uses a tremendous amount of electricity to power thousands of slot machines 24/7. (I am not sure how true it is, but I remember hearing when I was in the industry that the casinos I worked in tended to have a monthly power bill of over $100,000.) Of course, a casino does benefit from the existence of public roads, as that is how nearly every one of their customers will arrive.

Another can of worms is replacing dedicated traffic related tax with a more generic one. I believe raiding gas tax for non road purposes does happen, but electric one would go straight to the general fund anyway.

Quote from: kalvado on December 22, 2021, 07:27:55 PM
I believe raiding gas tax for non road purposes does happen, but electric one would go straight to the general fund anyway.

Ha, in Oklahoma it happens in broad daylight. Our last gas tax increase was explicitly directed into the education fund.

Same in New York.  Our gas tax goes straight to the general fund.

I have no issues with an electricity tax to replace the gas tax.  Sure, not all electricity is used for charging, but we really need to modernize the grid and make it more resilient, so simply estimate the proportion of the energy that's used for charging, treat that portion of the tax the same way as the gas tax is treated, and send the rest into a new fund to upgrade and improve the grid.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 01:53:35 PM
I'm not in here enriching uranium or whatever the hell you think scientists do to magically influence the market.

Blood sacrifice (2:34):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yar3x6tyh3M

Cognito Inc. is clearly not friendly with Alanland.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 06:35:06 PM


That means that "what science says" can sometimes differ substantially from "what science said" a year ago.

Which is why basing public policy, any public policy, on some faith that something just IS going to be invented is foolish.  Likewise, so is basing public policy on theories about the future state of the earth.

Quote from: SP Cook on December 23, 2021, 08:58:49 AM
Which is why basing public policy, any public policy, on some faith that something just IS going to be invented is foolish.  Likewise, so is basing public policy on theories about the future state of the earth.

I detect about a dozen kernals of truth in that first sentence.  :hmm:

Did someone say enriched Uranium?

I'm intrigued by EVs, and tend to consider enviornmental impact on certain decisions. 

However, my pre-pandemic commute was roughly 300 miles, and when I take periodic road trips, I want the option to spend the daylight hours driving (but-for brief bio-breaks, of course).

I'm not interested in having two vehicles (an "around the town" one, and a "long distance" one).  I have no desire to maintain and insure two vehicles.

I'll consider an EV as a next vehicle when my needs become more modest, when EV ranges are reliably long enough to do my commute with a comfortable margin, or when rapid charging requiring not much longer than a bio-break is sufficiently common.

If I ever have enough money

Quote from: SP Cook on December 23, 2021, 08:58:49 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 06:35:06 PM


That means that "what science says" can sometimes differ substantially from "what science said" a year ago.

Which is why basing public policy, any public policy, on some faith that something just IS going to be invented is foolish.  Likewise, so is basing public policy on theories about the future state of the earth.

In terms of climate change, keep in mind that the scientific theories are based upon the analysis of the evidence at hand rather than being just ideas that still need to be tested.

Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2021, 11:18:58 AM

Quote from: SP Cook on December 23, 2021, 08:58:49 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 06:35:06 PM


That means that "what science says" can sometimes differ substantially from "what science said" a year ago.

Which is why basing public policy, any public policy, on some faith that something just IS going to be invented is foolish.  Likewise, so is basing public policy on theories about the future state of the earth.

In terms of climate change, keep in mind that the scientific theories are based upon the analysis of the evidence at hand rather than being just ideas that still need to be tested.

So you're using Roger Bacon definition of science, rather than more modern one from Karl Popper?

Apparently some dude thought it was more cost effective to dynamite his 2013 Model S rather than replace the motor (apparently $20,000 Euros if the post is accurate):

https://fb.watch/a4CAXCg0cW/

Quote from: kalvado on December 23, 2021, 12:23:19 PM

Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2021, 11:18:58 AM

Quote from: SP Cook on December 23, 2021, 08:58:49 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 06:35:06 PM


That means that "what science says" can sometimes differ substantially from "what science said" a year ago.

Which is why basing public policy, any public policy, on some faith that something just IS going to be invented is foolish.  Likewise, so is basing public policy on theories about the future state of the earth.

In terms of climate change, keep in mind that the scientific theories are based upon the analysis of the evidence at hand rather than being just ideas that still need to be tested.

So you're using Roger Bacon definition of science, rather than more modern one from Karl Popper?

I am using the generally accepted definition of a scientific theory.

Quote from: SP Cook on December 23, 2021, 08:58:49 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 06:35:06 PM


That means that "what science says" can sometimes differ substantially from "what science said" a year ago.

Which is why basing public policy, any public policy, on some faith that something just IS going to be invented is foolish.  Likewise, so is basing public policy on theories about the future state of the earth.

That's why they only put up lamp posts during the night. You can't be sure the sun is going to set.

Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2021, 03:57:10 PM

Quote from: kalvado on December 23, 2021, 12:23:19 PM

Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2021, 11:18:58 AM

Quote from: SP Cook on December 23, 2021, 08:58:49 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2021, 06:35:06 PM


That means that "what science says" can sometimes differ substantially from "what science said" a year ago.

Which is why basing public policy, any public policy, on some faith that something just IS going to be invented is foolish.  Likewise, so is basing public policy on theories about the future state of the earth.

In terms of climate change, keep in mind that the scientific theories are based upon the analysis of the evidence at hand rather than being just ideas that still need to be tested.

So you're using Roger Bacon definition of science, rather than more modern one from Karl Popper?

I am using the generally accepted definition of a scientific theory.

And which one is that?

When a Tesla Model, Hyundai Ioniq 5, or some comparable electric AWD hatchback/CUV drop to about $20-$25K used without being clapped out.  I'm guessing that I'll be waiting a while as I don't buy new vehicles in general.  I do hope to retire in 20 years or so after all and new cars are a great way to get poor.

When do I plan to switch to an EV?  Well, with a little luck I've got a good long time to think about it and wait for EVs and charging networks to improve.  My internal combustion Accord is only three years old with 18k miles, so it'll probably last me 12-15 years.  God knows if I'll be alive and driving then, or even if there will be any other meaningful choice than electric.

My miles per year looks low so far.  But I enjoy road trips and would like to do more, mostly the pandemic came along and that's why my mileage is so low.

I also like to drive to a campsite in an out of the way place and sit and think and watch the stars at night.  If I charge the EV and drive it 100 miles and then park it for a week, how much charge will be left?  enough to drive the 100 miles back?

Quote from: kkt on December 29, 2021, 12:22:19 AM
When do I plan to switch to an EV?  Well, with a little luck I've got a good long time to think about it and wait for EVs and charging networks to improve.  My internal combustion Accord is only three years old with 18k miles, so it'll probably last me 12-15 years.  God knows if I'll be alive and driving then, or even if there will be any other meaningful choice than electric.

My miles per year looks low so far.  But I enjoy road trips and would like to do more, mostly the pandemic came along and that's why my mileage is so low.

I also like to drive to a campsite in an out of the way place and sit and think and watch the stars at night.  If I charge the EV and drive it 100 miles and then park it for a week, how much charge will be left?  enough to drive the 100 miles back?

I feel like that's where the EV crowd would say "you'll need to change your trip to stop at chargers in between, periodically go to a charger while camping, and/or get a campsite with power".

Quote from: vdeane on December 29, 2021, 01:00:03 PM

Quote from: kkt on December 29, 2021, 12:22:19 AM
When do I plan to switch to an EV?  Well, with a little luck I've got a good long time to think about it and wait for EVs and charging networks to improve.  My internal combustion Accord is only three years old with 18k miles, so it'll probably last me 12-15 years.  God knows if I'll be alive and driving then, or even if there will be any other meaningful choice than electric.

My miles per year looks low so far.  But I enjoy road trips and would like to do more, mostly the pandemic came along and that's why my mileage is so low.

I also like to drive to a campsite in an out of the way place and sit and think and watch the stars at night.  If I charge the EV and drive it 100 miles and then park it for a week, how much charge will be left?  enough to drive the 100 miles back?

I feel like that's where the EV crowd would say "you'll need to change your trip to stop at chargers in between, periodically go to a charger while camping, and/or get a campsite with power".

Well, I hope not, because there are times when I really want the wilderness experience not shared with other campers who want the music and lots of lights at night experience.  Perhaps a hybrid with a jerrycan strapped on would work.

All these issues regarding availability and speed of charging are where a plug-in hybrid starts to sound appealing. With one of those, you can run the car on purely electric power, but if you don't have time to wait for it to charge or good access to a charger, you can just fill up the gas tank and keep going. And even when burning gas, you still get the efficiency benefit of regenerative braking.

On another note, I'm waiting to see if someone will go ahead and make a car with solar panels on it. This won't generate enough electricity to fully power the car even on a sunny day in Hawaii, but it would potentially help extend the car's range and it would also allow the car to (slowly) recharge while parked even if there isn't a charger available.

Quote from: Duke87 on December 30, 2021, 06:40:55 PM
All these issues regarding availability and speed of charging are where a plug-in hybrid starts to sound appealing. With one of those, you can run the car on purely electric power, but if you don't have time to wait for it to charge or good access to a charger, you can just fill up the gas tank and keep going. And even when burning gas, you still get the efficiency benefit of regenerative braking.

^ Exactly what my thoughts are. Sadly it seems automakers are pivoting to pure EVs. I saw recently Hyundai completely disbanded their internal combustion engineering team in favor of EVs. I think the problem with plug-in hybrids is that the task of fitting a battery, electric motors, an engine, and a fuel tank means that the car does not have the seating and cargo capacity of a gas or electric car.

Quote
On another note, I'm waiting to see if someone will go ahead and make a car with solar panels on it. This won't generate enough electricity to fully power the car even on a sunny day in Hawaii, but it would potentially help extend the car's range and it would also allow the car to (slowly) recharge while parked even if there isn't a charger available.

Fisker already tried it with their Karma. The solar roof only made enough power to power certain accessories, not enough to recharge the battery.

It's obvious from reading this thread that 90% of the responders don't really have a handle on the current state of EV technology. In 2012, most of the concerns about driving an EV were absolutely true. There was no nationwide charging station network. The idea of a EV that could go 200 miles or more was a daydream (one that Tesla improbably made true).

In 2022, that all has changed, and for many drivers the EV is MORE convenient than a ICE vehicle now. 90% of the time, my Grand Cherokee drives 2.5 miles to work, and 2.5 miles home. Maybe I go out to lunch on the other side of town, and tack on another 6 or 8 miles. I could do that commute in any electric vehicle charging overnight off a 110V outlet. Even if I go back to the commute I had 10 years ago of 90-100 miles a day, an overnight charge on 220V would easily keep me charged up without having to charge at the office or hit a 3rd party charger. I literally never have to go to a 3rd party charging source until or unless I take a road trip.

Speaking of the few occasions I need to road trip, I could solve the problem by either a) renting a gas vehicle (if I didn't keep my Grand Cherokee), or b) putting in a modicum of planning to ensure I reach my charging stops and spend as little time as possible at each one, charging (with a buffer) just enough to make the next charger.

Where's the "more convenient" part come in with EVs? They don't have to get a tune-up or an oil change. No transmissions or transfer cases that require maintenance. Their brakes don't require replacement pads or rotors for many years since most braking is regenerative. Never have to go to a gas station or pay attention to how much fuel I have in it (I'm charging every night, remember). And I can charge at home for absurdly cheap relative to filling up a gas powered vehicle.

It's also just a better drive. Almost every EV has great low-end torque and has more performance than most drivers will routinely use. The battery weight sits low, and contributes to stable ride and handling. Many EVs are able to provide a frunk for additional storage space since it doesn't need to accommodate a ICE powertrain.

Out of Spec Motoring on YouTube demonstrates life with an EV really well, particularly with road trips with an EV. An example is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikheO2Nb3-k&t=4s

As for when *I* will get an EV? I'm planning to buy a house in the next couple of years; at that point I'll pick up a cheap used EV for commuter duty. My current residence and employer don't have provision to allow me to charge an EV, so it's not practical for my situation.

Quote from: JREwing78 on January 01, 2022, 07:58:16 PM
It's obvious from reading this thread that 90% of the responders don't really have a handle on the current state of EV technology. In 2012, most of the concerns about driving an EV were absolutely true. There was no nationwide charging station network. The idea of a EV that could go 200 miles or more was a daydream (one that Tesla improbably made true).

This is my point.  With an EV on a road trip you have to plan everything out - where are you going for lunch where there's a charging station.  Where are you going for the night where there's a charging station.  The joy of road trips is spontaneuously doing something unplanned and out of the way, knowing that there's gas stations just about everywhere.

No one is denying the practicality of EVs as routine short distance commuting vehicles and errand runners.

Quote from: JREwing78 on January 01, 2022, 07:58:16 PM
It's obvious from reading this thread that 90% of the responders don't really have a handle on the current state of EV technology. In 2012, most of the concerns about driving an EV were absolutely true. There was no nationwide charging station network. The idea of a EV that could go 200 miles or more was a daydream (one that Tesla improbably made true).

In 2022, that all has changed, and for many drivers the EV is MORE convenient than a ICE vehicle now. 90% of the time, my Grand Cherokee drives 2.5 miles to work, and 2.5 miles home. Maybe I go out to lunch on the other side of town, and tack on another 6 or 8 miles. I could do that commute in any electric vehicle charging overnight off a 110V outlet. Even if I go back to the commute I had 10 years ago of 90-100 miles a day, an overnight charge on 220V would easily keep me charged up without having to charge at the office or hit a 3rd party charger. I literally never have to go to a 3rd party charging source until or unless I take a road trip.

Speaking of the few occasions I need to road trip, I could solve the problem by either a) renting a gas vehicle (if I didn't keep my Grand Cherokee), or b) putting in a modicum of planning to ensure I reach my charging stops and spend as little time as possible at each one, charging (with a buffer) just enough to make the next charger.

Where's the "more convenient" part come in with EVs? They don't have to get a tune-up or an oil change. No transmissions or transfer cases that require maintenance. Their brakes don't require replacement pads or rotors for many years since most braking is regenerative. Never have to go to a gas station or pay attention to how much fuel I have in it (I'm charging every night, remember). And I can charge at home for absurdly cheap relative to filling up a gas powered vehicle.

It's also just a better drive. Almost every EV has great low-end torque and has more performance than most drivers will routinely use. The battery weight sits low, and contributes to stable ride and handling. Many EVs are able to provide a frunk for additional storage space since it doesn't need to accommodate a ICE powertrain.

Out of Spec Motoring on YouTube demonstrates life with an EV really well, particularly with road trips with an EV. An example is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikheO2Nb3-k&t=4s

Yeah, I've noticed that some people around here seem to have exaggerated EV issues based on lack of knowledge, though I think it's also fair to say that the issues can't just be swept aside, either.  I live in an apartment, so no home charging for me.  And we're roadgeeks here, so a lot of us have long trips with a fair frequency.  I average more than one a month, sometimes nested if I decide to do a clinching daytrip on one of my trips to Rochester (a 225 mile drive each way that I currently do without stopping, by the way).  And when I'm on the road, I'd rather get lunch somewhere nicer than WalMart (and dealing with the issues Kyle regularly has with EA sounds like it would be maddening; also, it would be nice if charge stations would put the windshield squeegees there, as I'm not sure where EV owners are supposed to clean their windshield while on the road, which I currently do nearly every single time I get gas).  I suspect the crowd that goes through the drive thru and eats in the car while driving will never be happy with EV charging.  I'm also not sure why I should buy a car that's only at its best when driving around town and have to rent a car for longer trips.  My co-worker actually became a car owner specifically because the cost of renting even once every other month was more than the cost of buying a used Prius.  It's also a hassle.

I'll admit, I lucked out in having a good gas station right on my way home, so it's just a quick stop when I need to gas up.  And due to the length of my commute combined with my Civic's gas mileage, barring roadtrips that's only 1-2 times a month, depending on whether I feel like letting it run close to E or top off at around half a tank (the former in the summer, the latter in winter).  A charge stop would be far more inconvenient, especially given my lack of home charging.

Incidentally, most of what I know about EVs comes from watching Out of Spec Motoring videos.  EVs are certainly fascinating to learn about, even if they aren't for me at this time.

Quote from: kkt on January 01, 2022, 11:20:24 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on January 01, 2022, 07:58:16 PM
It's obvious from reading this thread that 90% of the responders don't really have a handle on the current state of EV technology. In 2012, most of the concerns about driving an EV were absolutely true. There was no nationwide charging station network. The idea of a EV that could go 200 miles or more was a daydream (one that Tesla improbably made true).

This is my point.  With an EV on a road trip you have to plan everything out - where are you going for lunch where there's a charging station.  Where are you going for the night where there's a charging station.  The joy of road trips is spontaneuously doing something unplanned and out of the way, knowing that there's gas stations just about everywhere.

No one is denying the practicality of EVs as routine short distance commuting vehicles and errand runners.

Heck, I plan my trips out to that degree, and even I find that the current state of charging to be an issue.  There are many trips where I have a hard enough time finding a good spot for lunch as it is, simply because my natural lunch time doesn't always fall when I'm passing through a sufficiently large urban area (and I don't like to divert too far off route for meals, either).  Having to limit lunch stops to charging locations would be even more limiting, given the current state of things.  I'll settle for McDonald's or Subway when I have to (though I haven't been to a McDonald's since the pandemic began, as many locations went drive-thru-only and I'm not sure of the current state of things), but I'm not interested in having them become my sole source of roadtrip food (given that non-Tesla cars are mostly charging at WalMart since that's where the EA stations are).

Congressman Thomas Massie lives in Lewis County, Ky. (between Maysville and South Shore/Portsmouth, Ohio), which is about an 8-hour drive to DC. He's been driving from home to DC and back since the airlines implemented various covid-related restrictions with which he disagrees. He typically drives his Tesla back and forth. I saw a recent social media comment in which he said it takes him more than 10 hours to make the drive with a couple of strategically placed/timed charging stops. I'm sure the proliferation of Sheetz charging stations helps him out. So the charging time adds a couple of hours to the trip, whereas he'd probably only have to take about 15 minutes tops for fuel-ups driving a gas or diesel vehicle.

Having recently tested a plug-in hybrid, I've come to the conclusion that neither it nor an EV would be practical for me given the hills, back roads, lengthy drives, and wintertime that I experience.

Quote from: hbelkinsI'm sure the proliferation of Sheetz charging stations helps him out. So the charging time adds a couple of hours to the trip, whereas he'd probably only have to take about 15 minutes tops for fuel-ups driving a gas or diesel vehicle.

I imagine he (and like-situated EV drivers) could plug the car in when they get there and go inside to get whatever they need.  Saves some time versus us "old school gas users" who officially (i.e. legally) have to stay with the car while it's gassing up.

One thing that would make EVs far more practical for everyone would be if the batteries got smaller and lighter. If they were the size of an ICE car battery, even apartment dwellers could take them inside and charge them. If you were going on a long trip, you could just charge up six of them and swap them out as needed. Downtime wouldn't be much more than it is at a gas station, and you could do it anywhere, even on the shoulder of the road if you wanted, giving you even more freedom since you could swap out batteries even in desolate areas with no gas station.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2022, 12:56:44 AM
One thing that would make EVs far more practical for everyone would be if the batteries got smaller and lighter. If they were the size of an ICE car battery, even apartment dwellers could take them inside and charge them. If you were going on a long trip, you could just charge up six of them and swap them out as needed. Downtime wouldn't be much more than it is at a gas station, and you could do it anywhere, even on the shoulder of the road if you wanted, giving you even more freedom since you could swap out batteries even in desolate areas with no gas station.

Setting up charging stations is a cost a lot of apartment complexes would have to embrace at some point. Probably with pay per kwt and a fee, for an overall profit. Not that different from laundry facilities many places have.
How would that affect grid connection is another story.

Quote from: kalvado on January 02, 2022, 08:18:58 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2022, 12:56:44 AM
One thing that would make EVs far more practical for everyone would be if the batteries got smaller and lighter. If they were the size of an ICE car battery, even apartment dwellers could take them inside and charge them. If you were going on a long trip, you could just charge up six of them and swap them out as needed. Downtime wouldn't be much more than it is at a gas station, and you could do it anywhere, even on the shoulder of the road if you wanted, giving you even more freedom since you could swap out batteries even in desolate areas with no gas station.

Setting up charging stations is a cost a lot of apartment complexes would have to embrace at some point. Probably with pay per kwt and a fee, for an overall profit. Not that different from laundry facilities many places have.
How would that affect grid connection is another story.

Not enough room in the parking areas a lot of them have.

Quote from: Rothman on January 02, 2022, 08:38:01 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 02, 2022, 08:18:58 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2022, 12:56:44 AM
One thing that would make EVs far more practical for everyone would be if the batteries got smaller and lighter. If they were the size of an ICE car battery, even apartment dwellers could take them inside and charge them. If you were going on a long trip, you could just charge up six of them and swap them out as needed. Downtime wouldn't be much more than it is at a gas station, and you could do it anywhere, even on the shoulder of the road if you wanted, giving you even more freedom since you could swap out batteries even in desolate areas with no gas station.

Setting up charging stations is a cost a lot of apartment complexes would have to embrace at some point. Probably with pay per kwt and a fee, for an overall profit. Not that different from laundry facilities many places have.
How would that affect grid connection is another story.

Not enough room in the parking areas a lot of them have.

You really don't need a lot of room to add charging to existing spots. Thing can be the size of a mailbox on a wall or a parking meter

There are clearly a lot of people on this thread who follow the issues related to EVs much more closely than I do.  We've talked about a lot of the limitations of the strictly plug-in vehicles.  If I was going to bet on a technology 10 or 15 years ago, I think it would have been hydrogen fuel cells.  Is there a limitation there that's been unexpectedly difficult to overcome?  I seem to recall the idea that one would simply swap out an empty hydrogen fuel cell for a full one and be on his or her way.  And that you could carry multiple cells for longer times/distances between chances to get full ones.  Is the main advantage of the plug-ins that we already have a widespread electrical grid to build on compared to some hydrogen infrastructure that would be harder to build out?  Or the plug-in vehicles are cheaper or easier to produce?

Quote from: kalvado on January 02, 2022, 08:47:49 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 02, 2022, 08:38:01 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 02, 2022, 08:18:58 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2022, 12:56:44 AM
One thing that would make EVs far more practical for everyone would be if the batteries got smaller and lighter. If they were the size of an ICE car battery, even apartment dwellers could take them inside and charge them. If you were going on a long trip, you could just charge up six of them and swap them out as needed. Downtime wouldn't be much more than it is at a gas station, and you could do it anywhere, even on the shoulder of the road if you wanted, giving you even more freedom since you could swap out batteries even in desolate areas with no gas station.

Setting up charging stations is a cost a lot of apartment complexes would have to embrace at some point. Probably with pay per kwt and a fee, for an overall profit. Not that different from laundry facilities many places have.
How would that affect grid connection is another story.

Not enough room in the parking areas a lot of them have.

You really don't need a lot of room to add charging to existing spots. Thing can be the size of a mailbox on a wall or a parking meter

Next time you're driving around a city, pay closer attention to the horrible parking available for a lot of the buildings. There's not even room for something the size of parking meters (and the infrastructure needed to connect such to the grid).

Quote from: Jim on January 02, 2022, 08:53:07 AM
There are clearly a lot of people on this thread who follow the issues related to EVs much more closely than I do.  We've talked about a lot of the limitations of the strictly plug-in vehicles.  If I was going to bet on a technology 10 or 15 years ago, I think it would have been hydrogen fuel cells.  Is there a limitation there that's been unexpectedly difficult to overcome?  I seem to recall the idea that one would simply swap out an empty hydrogen fuel cell for a full one and be on his or her way.  And that you could carry multiple cells for longer times/distances between chances to get full ones.  Is the main advantage of the plug-ins that we already have a widespread electrical grid to build on compared to some hydrogen infrastructure that would be harder to build out?  Or the plug-in vehicles are cheaper or easier to produce?

Tesla claims that their vehicles are designed to allow for an easy battery pack swap. In theory, if a supercharger location were equipped for it (none of them are right now), someone who's in a big hurry could pay to swap out the battery for another already-charged one rather than waiting to charge. I have no idea how practical that would be in reality, of course. I don't remember where I saw an article about this, although I assume it was either Car and Driver or Road & Track; either way, it wasn't a long article with much detail.

I know some people who wouldn't like that idea because presumably they'd charge up the removed battery and then swap it onto someone else's vehicle, so you wouldn't know if you're getting an older battery whose charging capacity may be reduced or the like. (I won't do "tank exchange" for the propane tanks for my grill. I take them to a place that refills the tank you bring.)


Edited to add: I did a Google search for "Tesla battery fast swap" and this was the first result:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/battery-swap-pilot-program

Later entries in the search list suggest Tesla abandoned this pilot program after a year or two.

Quote from: Rothman on January 02, 2022, 08:57:28 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 02, 2022, 08:47:49 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 02, 2022, 08:38:01 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 02, 2022, 08:18:58 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2022, 12:56:44 AM
One thing that would make EVs far more practical for everyone would be if the batteries got smaller and lighter. If they were the size of an ICE car battery, even apartment dwellers could take them inside and charge them. If you were going on a long trip, you could just charge up six of them and swap them out as needed. Downtime wouldn't be much more than it is at a gas station, and you could do it anywhere, even on the shoulder of the road if you wanted, giving you even more freedom since you could swap out batteries even in desolate areas with no gas station.

Setting up charging stations is a cost a lot of apartment complexes would have to embrace at some point. Probably with pay per kwt and a fee, for an overall profit. Not that different from laundry facilities many places have.
How would that affect grid connection is another story.

Not enough room in the parking areas a lot of them have.

You really don't need a lot of room to add charging to existing spots. Thing can be the size of a mailbox on a wall or a parking meter

Next time you're driving around a city, pay closer attention to the horrible parking available for a lot of the buildings. There's not even room for something the size of parking meters (and the infrastructure needed to connect such to the grid).

Infrastructure is a whole different story. But probably not too bad while EVs are 10% of the fleet or so.
And thinking about more outlying complexes, like one we lived at in Guilderland, those could reasonably get chargers if they chose to.
Albany proper would likely have less room and overloaded underground cables and fires from those extra loads. Not that they never have those fires as is, though.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 02, 2022, 09:25:49 AM

Quote from: Jim on January 02, 2022, 08:53:07 AM
There are clearly a lot of people on this thread who follow the issues related to EVs much more closely than I do.  We've talked about a lot of the limitations of the strictly plug-in vehicles.  If I was going to bet on a technology 10 or 15 years ago, I think it would have been hydrogen fuel cells.  Is there a limitation there that's been unexpectedly difficult to overcome?  I seem to recall the idea that one would simply swap out an empty hydrogen fuel cell for a full one and be on his or her way.  And that you could carry multiple cells for longer times/distances between chances to get full ones.  Is the main advantage of the plug-ins that we already have a widespread electrical grid to build on compared to some hydrogen infrastructure that would be harder to build out?  Or the plug-in vehicles are cheaper or easier to produce?

Tesla claims that their vehicles are designed to allow for an easy battery pack swap. In theory, if a supercharger location were equipped for it (none of them are right now), someone who's in a big hurry could pay to swap out the battery for another already-charged one rather than waiting to charge. I have no idea how practical that would be in reality, of course. I don't remember where I saw an article about this, although I assume it was either Car and Driver or Road & Track; either way, it wasn't a long article with much detail.

I know some people who wouldn't like that idea because presumably they'd charge up the removed battery and then swap it onto someone else's vehicle, so you wouldn't know if you're getting an older battery whose charging capacity may be reduced or the like. (I won't do "tank exchange" for the propane tanks for my grill. I take them to a place that refills the tank you bring.)


Edited to add: I did a Google search for "Tesla battery fast swap" and this was the first result:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/battery-swap-pilot-program

Later entries in the search list suggest Tesla abandoned this pilot program after a year or two.

I believe their later models do not even include provisions for quick swap. Best option I can think of would be rental booster battery, but even that would be a can of worms

My (obviously outdated) understanding was that it wouldn't be a battery swap but more along the lines of a small cell that contains the hydrogen.  The potential benefits I recall reading about way back included more efficiency since you don't have to transmit the electricity on the grid (co-locate hydrogen cell replenishment with electricity generation), not needing to overtax the grid with a new large demand, refueling faster than a current gas station since you'd just drop in/plug in a full cell.

Or maybe I'm just thinking of Doc Brown's plutonium pellets for his flux capacitor.  Until the Mr. Fusion comes along, of course.

Quote from: Jim on January 02, 2022, 09:56:36 AM
My (obviously outdated) understanding was that it wouldn't be a battery swap but more along the lines of a small cell that contains the hydrogen.  The potential benefits I recall reading about way back included more efficiency since you don't have to transmit the electricity on the grid (co-locate hydrogen cell replenishment with electricity generation), not needing to overtax the grid with a new large demand, refueling faster than a current gas station since you'd just drop in/plug in a full cell.

Or maybe I'm just thinking of Doc Brown's plutonium pellets for his flux capacitor.  Until the Mr. Fusion comes along, of course.

Hydrogen, despite a big push during Bush II, didn't really become popular in the US. Hydrogen cars gained some popularity elsewhere though - e.g. Korea.
Add-on hydrogen module seems like a big can of worms from the safety point of view, IMHO. Although adding basic provisions like internal power connection may be a reasonable way of future-proofing

edited for grammar

I read an article a year or two ago about people in Los Angeles who leased (Honda didn't "sell" the cars) hydrogen fuel cell vehicles Honda produced. The article said the customers almost universally regretted doing it because the infrastructure simply doesn't exist in any adequate way and they wind up leaving the vehicles parked at home more often than not.

Too bad, because apparently the Wankel engine does very well with hydrogen.

Quote from: Jim on January 02, 2022, 09:56:36 AM
Or maybe I'm just thinking of Doc Brown's plutonium pellets for his flux capacitor.  Until the Mr. Fusion comes along, of course.

Ahh, Helium-3 (³He).  If only we could get to Saturn and back with a dirigible.

Hydrogen isn't like Doc Brown's plutonium - it's basically like pumping gas (well, more like compressed natural gas than gasoline), but building those stations is more expensive than building a gas station, introducing a nasty catch 22 problem (it makes no sense to build a refueling station for cars nobody drives, but nobody's going to buy a car they can't refuel).  EVs don't have that issue since homeowners with driveways/garages who don't take long trips in that car don't need there to be any external infrastructure to support they car - they can just buy a charge port (which Tesla is happy to sell) and install it to charge off their own power.  Then there's the additional issue that hydrogen is made from either electrolysis of water (energy intensive) or from natural gas (kinda defeating the point), which made the climate activists not supportive of it.  Combine all this with Tesla making a big splash with EVs, and that pretty much killed off the idea of using hydrogen for personal cars.

In high school our teacher said something about hydrogen is a very small molecule, so seals that are watertight and airtight may still leak hydrogen.  Hard to work with, and when it leaks it tends to explode.

Quote from: kkt on January 02, 2022, 05:51:23 PM
In high school our teacher said something about hydrogen is a very small molecule, so seals that are watertight and airtight may still leak hydrogen.  Hard to work with, and when it leaks it tends to explode.

Pfft.  Only when exposed to a spark.

Quote from: kkt on January 02, 2022, 05:51:23 PM
In high school our teacher said something about hydrogen is a very small molecule, so seals that are watertight and airtight may still leak hydrogen.  Hard to work with, and when it leaks it tends to explode.

Absolutely true. It can qlso.leak straight through certain metals 
And nasty thing about hydrogen fires - flame is almost invisible. You can literally walk into the flame not noticing anything until there are severe burns. One of recommended strategies is to wave a wooden stick as you walk- if it starts burning, something must be wrong.
You can look up some hydrogen fire videos on YouTube.
There was a lot of work in Hydrogen sensors to make things better. I am still not very impressed with potential safety issues

Quote from: Rothman on January 02, 2022, 06:20:12 PM

Quote from: kkt on January 02, 2022, 05:51:23 PM
In high school our teacher said something about hydrogen is a very small molecule, so seals that are watertight and airtight may still leak hydrogen.  Hard to work with, and when it leaks it tends to explode.

Pfft.  Only when exposed to a spark.

There are lots of small sparks around. Electrostatic, wall switches, loose wiring, motors engaging and disconnecting, steel scraping on sand or concrete.
Those are small things which don't normally have any consequences...

Oh, the humanity!

Ouch.  For those unaware, an old-fashioned fusion reactor takes a major heat source (let's say powered by plutonium) to fuse hydrogen molecules together.  This has the problem that both the heat source (plutonium) and the raw material (hydrogen) release major quantities of deadly radiation in the process.   Helium-3 (³He) can be subject to the nuclear fusion process without the deadly radiation.  Hopefully, Doc Brown took that into consideration when using plutonium pellets and the flux capacitor in the Mr. Fusion machine.

Indeed, this is all way off topic of the hydrogen fuel cell technology.  At some point in time, we will progress beyond the use of highly flammable hydrogen as the anode fuel source.  Until then, we will be dealing with the impact of strip mining all of the lithium and manganese dioxide needed to create EV batteries (which are also quite flammable, but not as explosive). 

As stated before, my primary interest in EV technology involves the use of hybrid combustion power (preferably diesel) as a backup source for generating 240VAC as house power in the case of emergencies.  The additional cost of the EV battery (ergo, an $80K pickup truck) is simply not justified when only useful for transportation.  Not surprisingly, there have been a number of articles promoting the use of hybrid cars and trucks for this use during the past week or so.   I would definitely utilize EV mode when driving in urban settings, and might even be motivated to avoid using the ICE (internal combustion engine) on longer trips (although the hybrid mode would be awfully tempting when time is tight).

^^^
On the flip side of that discussion, you'all should keep an eye out for the Tesla battery/inverter combos being promoted for solar panel systems.  Right now, that is just a tad expensive for powering a full-sized house with a well pump, but the numbers are really close to making sense for a tiny house with a well pump, or alternatively a workshop with a well pump.  But you still need a backup power source for a full-sized house.  Generac (and a few other suppliers) also make some combination battery/inverter that simplify the puzzle.

I thought it was pretty clear I was not serious about plutonium or fusion!

Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 02, 2022, 09:43:19 PM
Ouch.  For those unaware, an old-fashioned fusion reactor takes a major heat source (let's say powered by plutonium) to fuse hydrogen molecules together.  This has the problem that both the heat source (plutonium) and the raw material (hydrogen) release major quantities of deadly radiation in the process.   Helium-3 (³He) can be subject to the nuclear fusion process without the deadly radiation.  Hopefully, Doc Brown took that into consideration when using plutonium pellets and the flux capacitor in the Mr. Fusion machine.

Indeed, this is all way off topic of the hydrogen fuel cell technology.  At some point in time, we will progress beyond the use of highly flammable hydrogen as the anode fuel source.  Until then, we will be dealing with the impact of strip mining all of the lithium and manganese dioxide needed to create EV batteries (which are also quite flammable, but not as explosive). 

As stated before, my primary interest in EV technology involves the use of hybrid combustion power (preferably diesel) as a backup source for generating 240VAC as house power in the case of emergencies.  The additional cost of the EV battery (ergo, an $80K pickup truck) is simply not justified when only useful for transportation.  Not surprisingly, there have been a number of articles promoting the use of hybrid cars and trucks for this use during the past week or so.   I would definitely utilize EV mode when driving in urban settings, and might even be motivated to avoid using the ICE (internal combustion engine) on longer trips (although the hybrid mode would be awfully tempting when time is tight).

Old fashioned fusion.... How life is in 22nd century?  Did you got covid under control?

Quote from: Jim on January 02, 2022, 10:15:06 PM
I thought it was pretty clear I was not serious about plutonium or fusion!

I don't think most of were mistaking you for a Kernals12 thread.

Quote from: CoreySamson on December 31, 2021, 02:01:57 PM
^ Exactly what my thoughts are. Sadly it seems automakers are pivoting to pure EVs. I saw recently Hyundai completely disbanded their internal combustion engineering team in favor of EVs. I think the problem with plug-in hybrids is that the task of fitting a battery, electric motors, an engine, and a fuel tank means that the car does not have the seating and cargo capacity of a gas or electric car.

I don't think that's really it. Plug-in hybrids have been made before (see for example the Chevy Volt), the space issue is resolved by having a battery that's larger than a regular hybrid's battery but still much smaller than a full EV's battery. Maybe you size it to offer ~50 miles of electric range, which is sufficient to cover most commutes or local errands.

The big thing I see going on here is that plug-in hybrids, while perhaps practical in concept, are something the market doesn't really currently have a niche for. Anyone willing and able to shell out for an electric powertrain right now most likely is not terribly concerned about the practical limitations of them and just wants the sexy factor of being able to say "I drive an electric car!", which they don't really get to say if it still has a gas tank. Indeed, smug EV owners look down their noses at plug-in hybrids.
Meanwhile if you are concerned about the practical limitations of an EV, you're probably just going to buy a gasoline-powered car since it will be substantially less expensive than a plug-in hybrid with no real loss in functionality or convenience.

Also, to a significant degree automakers going all-in on full EV development is political. There are regulatory edicts from several jurisdictions around the world that come 20XX all new vehicles shalt be completely zero-emissions. A plug-in hybrid, because it still consumes gasoline, is not compliant with most of these edicts as currently written. Companies based in jurisdictions that have issued such edicts will, in order to play nice, at least publicly present the image that their product offerings will comply completely by the stated deadline (what's actually being done behind the scenes may be a different matter).

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 02, 2022, 12:12:01 PM
I read an article a year or two ago about people in Los Angeles who leased (Honda didn't "sell" the cars) hydrogen fuel cell vehicles Honda produced. The article said the customers almost universally regretted doing it because the infrastructure simply doesn't exist in any adequate way and they wind up leaving the vehicles parked at home more often than not.

Too bad, because apparently the Wankel engine does very well with hydrogen.

A shitty engine goes well with a shitty fuel

Quote from: kernals12 on January 03, 2022, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 02, 2022, 12:12:01 PM
I read an article a year or two ago about people in Los Angeles who leased (Honda didn't "sell" the cars) hydrogen fuel cell vehicles Honda produced. The article said the customers almost universally regretted doing it because the infrastructure simply doesn't exist in any adequate way and they wind up leaving the vehicles parked at home more often than not.

Too bad, because apparently the Wankel engine does very well with hydrogen.

A shitty engine goes well with a shitty fuel

But the fuel in question "hydrogen" doesn't really cause much a pollution issue then fuel economy doesn't really matter all that much as an environmental problem. 

An issue with hydrogen cells is that emits water in the reaction.  The vehicle may not carry that waste water so it may dribble onto the pavement - not good in the winter.

Quote from: Big John on January 04, 2022, 12:11:29 AM
An issue with hydrogen cells is that emits water in the reaction.  The vehicle may not carry that waste water so it may dribble onto the pavement - not good in the winter.

Did you ever see condensation coming out of a tailpipe?

Quote from: kalvado on January 04, 2022, 04:31:29 AM

Quote from: Big John on January 04, 2022, 12:11:29 AM
An issue with hydrogen cells is that emits water in the reaction.  The vehicle may not carry that waste water so it may dribble onto the pavement - not good in the winter.

Did you ever see condensation coming out of a tailpipe?

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 06:49:52 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 04, 2022, 04:31:29 AM

Quote from: Big John on January 04, 2022, 12:11:29 AM
An issue with hydrogen cells is that emits water in the reaction.  The vehicle may not carry that waste water so it may dribble onto the pavement - not good in the winter.

Did you ever see condensation coming out of a tailpipe?

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

No, but I heard that it is even worse than education delivered in US schools.
BTW what is the membrane temperature these days? It was pretty hot when Apollo-13 tried to make fuel cells unpopular.
Fun fact: driver exhales about 1% of overall moisture emitted from the car during winter driving.

PS other than schools, it's all totally relevant to fuel cells topic. I didn't quite get the reference to prisons, though.

Quote from: kernals12 on January 03, 2022, 10:35:34 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 02, 2022, 12:12:01 PM
I read an article a year or two ago about people in Los Angeles who leased (Honda didn't "sell" the cars) hydrogen fuel cell vehicles Honda produced. The article said the customers almost universally regretted doing it because the infrastructure simply doesn't exist in any adequate way and they wind up leaving the vehicles parked at home more often than not.

Too bad, because apparently the Wankel engine does very well with hydrogen.

A shitty engine goes well with a shitty fuel

Have you ever owned a car with a Wankel?

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 06:49:52 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 04, 2022, 04:31:29 AM

Quote from: Big John on January 04, 2022, 12:11:29 AM
An issue with hydrogen cells is that emits water in the reaction.  The vehicle may not carry that waste water so it may dribble onto the pavement - not good in the winter.

Did you ever see condensation coming out of a tailpipe?

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Are you into Greco Roman Wrestling?

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 08:12:51 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 06:49:52 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 04, 2022, 04:31:29 AM

Quote from: Big John on January 04, 2022, 12:11:29 AM
An issue with hydrogen cells is that emits water in the reaction.  The vehicle may not carry that waste water so it may dribble onto the pavement - not good in the winter.

Did you ever see condensation coming out of a tailpipe?

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Are you into Greco Roman Wrestling?

Do you like movies about gladiators?

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 08:37:39 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 08:12:51 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 06:49:52 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 04, 2022, 04:31:29 AM

Quote from: Big John on January 04, 2022, 12:11:29 AM
An issue with hydrogen cells is that emits water in the reaction.  The vehicle may not carry that waste water so it may dribble onto the pavement - not good in the winter.

Did you ever see condensation coming out of a tailpipe?

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Are you into Greco Roman Wrestling?

Do you like movies about gladiators?

You ever see a grown man naked?

Mercedes just released specs for their new car with a 600+ mile range on one charge.

https://electrek.co/2022/01/03/mercedes-benz-unveils-vision-eqxx-prototype-with-over-620-mile-range-impressive-drag-coefficient-and-a-solar-roof/

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 10:18:06 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 08:37:39 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 08:12:51 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 06:49:52 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 04, 2022, 04:31:29 AM

Quote from: Big John on January 04, 2022, 12:11:29 AM
An issue with hydrogen cells is that emits water in the reaction.  The vehicle may not carry that waste water so it may dribble onto the pavement - not good in the winter.

Did you ever see condensation coming out of a tailpipe?

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Are you into Greco Roman Wrestling?

Do you like movies about gladiators?

You ever see a grown man naked?

Do you love to go wanderin' beneath the clear blue sky? (https://youtu.be/5uC8mRy2p9w)

This thread reminds me -- a couple of years ago, I made a "Blazing Saddles" reference in the break room at work. One of my co-workers -- I think she's in her late 30s -- gave me a funny look. She'd never seen the movie before.

Some of these references to classic movies such as "Airplane!" go over the heads of some of our younger members. I was able to work a "Spaceballs" reference into a work social media post the other day and I'm surprised so many people got it.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2022, 03:56:22 PM
This thread reminds me -- a couple of years ago, I made a "Blazing Saddles" reference in the break room at work. One of my co-workers -- I think she's in her late 30s -- gave me a funny look. She'd never seen the movie before.

Some of these references to classic movies such as "Airplane!" go over the heads of some of our younger members. I was able to work a "Spaceballs" reference into a work social media post the other day and I'm surprised so many people got it.

Yesterday my boss and I were talking about the Air Florida crash into the 14th Street Bridge. That was 40 years ago next week. Our younger colleague who was on the phone with us noted that it happened almost nine years before she was born.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2022, 03:56:22 PM
This thread reminds me -- a couple of years ago, I made a "Blazing Saddles" reference in the break room at work. One of my co-workers -- I think she's in her late 30s -- gave me a funny look. She'd never seen the movie before.

Some of these references to classic movies such as "Airplane!" go over the heads of some of our younger members. I was able to work a "Spaceballs" reference into a work social media post the other day and I'm surprised so many people got it.

It floors me that my wife barely gets classic comedy references.  She's picking up ok Airplane! after I had her watch it with me.  Sadly Blazing Saddles, Space Balls and even the likes Princess Bride go over her head.

Quote from: Takumi on January 04, 2022, 10:37:23 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 10:18:06 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 08:37:39 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 08:12:51 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 06:49:52 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 04, 2022, 04:31:29 AM

Quote from: Big John on January 04, 2022, 12:11:29 AM
An issue with hydrogen cells is that emits water in the reaction.  The vehicle may not carry that waste water so it may dribble onto the pavement - not good in the winter.

Did you ever see condensation coming out of a tailpipe?

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Are you into Greco Roman Wrestling?

Do you like movies about gladiators?

You ever see a grown man naked?

Do you love to go wanderin' beneath the clear blue sky? (https://youtu.be/5uC8mRy2p9w)

Have you ever visited a Chinatown section in a major city?

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 04, 2022, 04:22:36 PM

Quote from: Takumi on January 04, 2022, 10:37:23 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 10:18:06 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 08:37:39 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 08:12:51 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 06:49:52 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 04, 2022, 04:31:29 AM

Quote from: Big John on January 04, 2022, 12:11:29 AM
An issue with hydrogen cells is that emits water in the reaction.  The vehicle may not carry that waste water so it may dribble onto the pavement - not good in the winter.

Did you ever see condensation coming out of a tailpipe?

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Are you into Greco Roman Wrestling?

Do you like movies about gladiators?

You ever see a grown man naked?

Do you love to go wanderin' beneath the clear blue sky? (https://youtu.be/5uC8mRy2p9w)

Have you ever visited a Chinatown section in a major city?

Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2022, 03:56:22 PM
This thread reminds me -- a couple of years ago, I made a "Blazing Saddles" reference in the break room at work. One of my co-workers -- I think she's in her late 30s -- gave me a funny look. She'd never seen the movie before.

Some of these references to classic movies such as "Airplane!" go over the heads of some of our younger members. I was able to work a "Spaceballs" reference into a work social media post the other day and I'm surprised so many people got it.

I'm in my mid 30s and Airplane is one of my favorite movies.  My favorite scenes are the ones with Johnny. "Leon is getting Larger!"   And the scenes with Lloyd Bridges.  "I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue"  Robert Stack was so awesome in that movie as well.     

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2022, 04:24:00 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 04, 2022, 04:22:36 PM

Quote from: Takumi on January 04, 2022, 10:37:23 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 10:18:06 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 08:37:39 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2022, 08:12:51 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2022, 06:49:52 AM

Quote from: kalvado on January 04, 2022, 04:31:29 AM

Quote from: Big John on January 04, 2022, 12:11:29 AM
An issue with hydrogen cells is that emits water in the reaction.  The vehicle may not carry that waste water so it may dribble onto the pavement - not good in the winter.

Did you ever see condensation coming out of a tailpipe?

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Are you into Greco Roman Wrestling?

Do you like movies about gladiators?

You ever see a grown man naked?

Do you love to go wanderin' beneath the clear blue sky? (https://youtu.be/5uC8mRy2p9w)

Have you ever visited a Chinatown section in a major city?

Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Nice Batman reference.  The Joker.

This thread made me decide to take a look at where charger locations are actually located. Google led me to PlugShare (https://www.plugshare.com/), which is a map with pins where chargers are located.

If this map is correct, there are a lot more chargers in existence than I thought there were. With an EV, I could still pretty much take any sort of roadtrip anywhere in Oklahoma and find a charger along the way. Hell, there's a charger on fucking Black Mesa of all places. Might have to pay a little bit more attention to the charge level than I'm accustomed to with the gas needle, but it's probably way easier to find a charger in 2022 than it was to find a gas station in 1926.

I plotted out a trip to Kansas City just for funsies, since that's the long trip I take most frequently. There's a charging station at Towanda services on the Kansas Turnpike...and we usually stop at a KTA service area anyway (although we tend to prefer Belle Plaine as it's usually less crowded than Towanda is). So our trip to KC would be more or less unchanged in an EV, other than finding a place to charge up before we left town.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 05, 2022, 03:54:31 AM
This thread made me decide to take a look at where charger locations are actually located. Google led me to PlugShare (https://www.plugshare.com/), which is a map with pins where chargers are located.

If this map is correct, there are a lot more chargers in existence than I thought there were. With an EV, I could still pretty much take any sort of roadtrip anywhere in Oklahoma and find a charger along the way. Hell, there's a charger on fucking Black Mesa of all places. Might have to pay a little bit more attention to the charge level than I'm accustomed to with the gas needle, but it's probably way easier to find a charger in 2022 than it was to find a gas station in 1926.

Sure, but this is a case of "easy" versus just "doable". Sure, there are enough chargers out there that it's probably possible to make any drive in the lower 48 with an EV given enough time, but in many regions of the country you'll have to do your research and go to a website like that one ahead of time, hope it's accurate and not out of date, and remember where the chargers are in case your phone dies along the way. In order to get the masses to shift to EVs, you're going to have to eliminate that step and make chargers as common and reliable as gas stations are now.

It also doesn't solve the limitations of how long the car can go on a single charge, or how long a charge itself takes. Unless some other unforeseen circumstance happens (gas prices through the roof, government mandates, etc...) I don't think I'll consider an EV until we have technology that will allow it to 1) have a similar range as a traditional car and 2) charge in less time than it takes me to take a shit and buy a snack.

Quote from: XamotCGC on January 05, 2022, 01:21:39 AM

Quote
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Nice Batman reference.  The Joker.

That line is pretty good... but I think I prefer "Never rub another man's rhubarb" (even over "This town needs an enema!").

Quote from: US 89 on January 05, 2022, 12:18:45 PM
It also doesn't solve the limitations of how long the car can go on a single charge, or how long a charge itself takes. Unless some other unforeseen circumstance happens (gas prices through the roof, government mandates, etc...) I don't think I'll consider an EV until we have technology that will allow it to 1) have a similar range as a traditional car and 2) charge in less time than it takes me to take a shit and buy a snack.

That's why where the charger is located is a big deal.  If you can combine charging with having lunch (which usually takes me around half an hour), it's not an issue.  If you have to make a separate stop just to charge, then it's a huge issue.

Another issue with charging is that chargers are often down with issues and not all chargers are the same speed.  Many are only 50 kwh stations that will take hours to charge, rather than 300 kwh stations that could charge in 15-20 minutes.

Quote from: US 89 on January 05, 2022, 12:18:45 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 05, 2022, 03:54:31 AM
This thread made me decide to take a look at where charger locations are actually located. Google led me to PlugShare (https://www.plugshare.com/), which is a map with pins where chargers are located.

If this map is correct, there are a lot more chargers in existence than I thought there were. With an EV, I could still pretty much take any sort of roadtrip anywhere in Oklahoma and find a charger along the way. Hell, there's a charger on fucking Black Mesa of all places. Might have to pay a little bit more attention to the charge level than I'm accustomed to with the gas needle, but it's probably way easier to find a charger in 2022 than it was to find a gas station in 1926.

Sure, but this is a case of "easy" versus just "doable". Sure, there are enough chargers out there that it's probably possible to make any drive in the lower 48 with an EV given enough time, but in many regions of the country you'll have to do your research and go to a website like that one ahead of time, hope it's accurate and not out of date, and remember where the chargers are in case your phone dies along the way. In order to get the masses to shift to EVs, you're going to have to eliminate that step and make chargers as common and reliable as gas stations are now.

It also doesn't solve the limitations of how long the car can go on a single charge, or how long a charge itself takes. Unless some other unforeseen circumstance happens (gas prices through the roof, government mandates, etc...) I don't think I'll consider an EV until we have technology that will allow it to 1) have a similar range as a traditional car and 2) charge in less time than it takes me to take a shit and buy a snack.

See "The Ravera Criteria"

I read something that said the controversial "Build Back Better" bill being fought over in Congress would expand the EV tax credit and increase it to $12,500, though the article I read was unclear about what sort of "expansion" would be in order (for example, whether Teslas would be eligible, since they hit the sales threshold for the existing $7,500 tax credit to phase out) and whether it would be a refundable credit. If I were in the car market right now, that would be something that would both have me considering EVs and delaying my decision (if possible) so as to take advantage of the expanded credit if it were a realistic option.

I believe there was also something in there about a $900 tax credit for e-bike purchases. That has me interested because of some significant hills in our area.