AARoads Forum

Seems the Congressional Review Act is being used to possibly block the 2035 PHEV mandate.  This next goes before the Senate.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-votes-block-california-banning-153626939.html

Similarly Congress went after EPA Waivers aimed at the trucking industry yesterday:

https://www.overdriveonline.com/equipment/article/15744533/congress-moves-closer-to-revoking-carb-emissions-waivers

Assuming the Senate agrees (and the President) I'm not fully clear on what potential legal hurdles there might be but I can't imagine this won't go unchallenged and in Federal Courts.   I know there is a lot of interest in the outcome in the road community given the rules CARB sets often have ramifications for other states that follow California Emissions standards.

The 2035 mandates countrywide are probably pie-in-the-sky mandates anyway that would have been delayed regardless of who the Prez is.  If not now, then in the future.

The Trucking mandates are different though, and they probably will be successfully challanged.

Delaware's governor wants to pull the plug on its mandate.

http://whyy.org/articles/delaware-electric-vehicle-mandate-meyer/

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2025, 01:52:03 PMThe 2035 mandates countrywide are probably pie-in-the-sky mandates anyway that would have been delayed regardless of who the Prez is.  If not now, then in the future.

I'll be interested to see if the Congressional Review Act is the mechanism which can really be used to toss/delay prior EPA waiver approvals (a lot of opinion out there suggests it can't).  The Republicans control the Senate so I don't really expect there to be much objection there.

The Senate parliamentarian (who is a non-partisan official who more or less acts like a referee) has stated that she doesn't believe Congress has the power to override the state mandate. While whichever committee it's referred to could theoretically place the bill on the schedule anyway, there are only so many hours in the day and so the parliamentarian's opinion could discourage them from spending time on it.

If it does end up passing, it is likely it will end up in court. It is hard to see a judge accepting an argument that a state is not free to enact stricter regulations than the federal government regarding what is available for sale in that state. (Regulation of interstate commerce being the domain of the federal government does not mean that a state has to accept any product from out of state as being legal in that state—just off the top of my head Virginia bans radar detectors, and nobody has ever said that is interfering with interstate commerce, because that's stupid.)

On a related note last November Governor Newsom declined (via veto) to enact stricter safety standards for cars in California.  In the statement he released it said something about he believed safety standards were the domain of Federal regulators.  I fully suspect what he said to come back up if the CARB EPA waiver issue ends up in court. 

https://apnews.com/article/california-speed-alert-cars-bill-veto-588605f3980c952c894756da6579bf3d

I think banning gas cars for all-electric cars is a stupid idea. Electric cars are too expensive, and the refueling process takes far too long for it to be practical (as well as inadequate for emergencies). I would be okay if all cars of the future were hybrids, but until you can recharge an electric car's batteries as fast as filling up a gas car's empty gas tank with gasoline, electric cars will not become the norm.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2025, 07:09:08 PMI think banning gas cars for all-electric cars is a stupid idea. Electric cars are too expensive, and the refueling process takes far too long for it to be practical (as well as inadequate for emergencies). I would be okay if all cars of the future were hybrids, but until you can recharge an electric car's batteries as fast as filling up a gas car's empty gas tank with gasoline, electric cars will not become the norm.

This isn't a true full on EV Mandate in California for 2035.  If I recall correctly something like 35% of the passenger sales mix was assigned to Plug-In Hybrid vehicles (hence PHEV).  CARB was criticized locally by California environmental groups for not upping their standards on what a Zero Emissions Vehicle was as part of the 2035 mandate.

Worth noting, registration of conventional new ICE cars in California come 2035 wasn't banned either.  In theory one could purchase out of state and bring it back to California to register.  I want to say Washington was the only State that did put an end date on new ICE car registrations.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2025, 07:09:08 PMI think banning gas cars for all-electric cars is a stupid idea. Electric cars are too expensive...

You haven't been new car shopping lately, have you?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2025, 07:09:08 PM...and the refueling process takes far too long for it to be practical (as well as inadequate for emergencies). I would be okay if all cars of the future were hybrids, but until you can recharge an electric car's batteries as fast as filling up a gas car's empty gas tank with gasoline, electric cars will not become the norm.

Today, yes.  But technologies improve over time.  Compare charging times from 10 years ago to now.  It's about half the time.  In another 10 years, figure at least twice as fast as now.

EVs also have the advantage of being charged at home and at work, and those people are saving more time to charge their car compared to someone who needs to stop and pump gas.  Some businesses also offer charging stations while you shop.  There are some apartment & condo complexes that offer EV charging, and there's even stations for those that need to parallel park on streets.

As for emergencies...take a look at Florida when people evacuated due to this year's hurricanes.  Many cars ran out of gas on the street because gas stations kept running out of gas.  If these people prepared properly, they would've gotten gas at the first notice of a possible storm.  EV owners also have to plan ahead and charge their cars nightly. I never understand this "emergencies" argument as for 100 years, people ran out of gas, yet the moment EVs arrived, suddenly people against EVs act as if running out of gas has never happened.

Speaking of new car sales, man am I glad that bought something last year.  There is a lot of competition out there to buy new cars before this quarter ends due to "other recent events" driving buying decisions.  I tried to steer my wife towards buying a Hybrid RAV4 at the beginning of the year but it didn't work out.

To that end I ended selling my old Impreza my wife's niece.  It was probably the right thing to do given she wasn't going to be able to afford anything else used.  All the same I think now would be as good as time as any to hold onto an extra paid for vehicle.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2025, 07:40:44 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2025, 07:09:08 PMI think banning gas cars for all-electric cars is a stupid idea. Electric cars are too expensive...

You haven't been new car shopping lately, have you?

Their cost is intrinsically higher because of the cost of the batteries, which isn't likely to drop very much in the forseeable future. But their price is artificially low because of the subsidies and mandates that lead manufacturers to discount them. Meanwhile supply and demand is slowly pushing up the price of ICE cars, which is what most people prefer.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2025, 07:40:44 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2025, 07:09:08 PM...and the refueling process takes far too long for it to be practical (as well as inadequate for emergencies). I would be okay if all cars of the future were hybrids, but until you can recharge an electric car's batteries as fast as filling up a gas car's empty gas tank with gasoline, electric cars will not become the norm.

Today, yes.  But technologies improve over time.  Compare charging times from 10 years ago to now.  It's about half the time.  In another 10 years, figure at least twice as fast as now.

They'll still have an order of magnitude to go. If they get it down to 20 minutes for a full charge, that's still 10x the time to fill a tank, and fast charges waste energy as heat and stress the batteries. You can stand next to your car for 2 minutes, but 20 minutes means you need to get coffee or something. And if it takes as little as 10x as long, the world will need at least 10x as many charging stations as we now have gas pumps.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2025, 07:40:44 PMAs for emergencies...take a look at Florida when people evacuated due to this year's hurricanes.  Many cars ran out of gas on the street because gas stations kept running out of gas.  If these people prepared properly, they would've gotten gas at the first notice of a possible storm.  EV owners also have to plan ahead and charge their cars nightly. I never understand this "emergencies" argument as for 100 years, people ran out of gas, yet the moment EVs arrived, suddenly people against EVs act as if running out of gas has never happened.

I interpreted that as a more quotidian kind of emergency, where you suddenly have to go somewhere and your battery is near empty. That happens a lot more often than hurricanes.

We have a few charging stations where I work, and for all I know it works out fine because there are only a few people who want to use them. But if there were more, consider the ridiculous logistics: You get to work, and there is no charger available. So you use a phone app to reserve time. At some point, another driver will get a notice that his battery is charged, but he's in the middle of a meeting, and can't go move his car. Or you're in a meeting, and can't go move your car, meaning you're holding up whoever is next in line after you. You can imagine the same thing at motels: get a notice at 2:30am that you need to move your car.

I'd rather see continued use of ICE cars, with renewable liquid fuels perhaps derived from algae, grown under LED light powered by nukes. Maybe someone will discover a way to use electricity to directly convert carbon from atmospheric CO2, plus hydrogen from water, into liquid fuel, with no intervening photosynthesis.

Quote from: pderocco on May 01, 2025, 09:11:54 PMYou can stand next to your car for 2 minutes, but 20 minutes means you need to get coffee or something. And if it takes as little as 10x as long, the world will need at least 10x as many charging stations as we now have gas pumps.

This is why I'd love to see restaurants/convenience stores that service people on roadtrips to have chargers at every parking space.  That would solve the roadtrip problem.  As for regular commuting and the like, most EV owners charge at home.  It's more convenient and charging slower overnight is better for long-term battery health.

Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2025, 09:33:30 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 01, 2025, 09:11:54 PMYou can stand next to your car for 2 minutes, but 20 minutes means you need to get coffee or something. And if it takes as little as 10x as long, the world will need at least 10x as many charging stations as we now have gas pumps.

This is why I'd love to see restaurants/convenience stores that service people on roadtrips to have chargers at every parking space.  That would solve the roadtrip problem.  As for regular commuting and the like, most EV owners charge at home.  It's more convenient and charging slower overnight is better for long-term battery health.

Exactly. There's no need to replace gas pump capacity 1:1 since anyone who charges their EV at home should only ever use a public EV charger when on a road trip.

(And on a road trip, I've timed my stops at gas stations and rest areas and they are almost always 15 minutes or longer, so I'd argue that the fastest chargers available now are sufficient. There's still a ways to go until you can road trip without planning your stops though.)

Quote from: pderocco on May 01, 2025, 09:11:54 PMThey'll still have an order of magnitude to go. If they get it down to 20 minutes for a full charge, that's still 10x the time to fill a tank, and fast charges waste energy as heat and stress the batteries. You can stand next to your car for 2 minutes, but 20 minutes means you need to get coffee or something. And if it takes as little as 10x as long, the world will need at least 10x as many charging stations as we now have gas pumps.

Most EV owners have charge times of 0 minutes—they plug it in and then go inside their house instead of hovering in the garage next to the car watching it charge like a weirdo. The vast majority of trips people take do not exceed the range of the car and therefore charge times just are not relevant to them.

EVs really only don't work for people that don't live somewhere that supports EV charging (e.g. an apartment), or who regularly go on long trips (which is most people on the forum, but not very many off of it). For most people, the tech is there today.

With road trips...people that have said they haven't had a vacation in years suddenly say they can't take a roadtrip with an EV because of all the stopping and charging.  Other than a vacation or two a year, most people aren't driving more than 100 miles a day, so plenty of time to charge vehicles at home in the evening.

While people may be traveling more, many of those trips are via air. People can still get to the airport and home on a single charge.

Quote from: pderocco on May 01, 2025, 09:11:54 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2025, 07:40:44 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2025, 07:09:08 PMI think banning gas cars for all-electric cars is a stupid idea. Electric cars are too expensive...

You haven't been new car shopping lately, have you?

Their cost is intrinsically higher because of the cost of the batteries, which isn't likely to drop very much in the forseeable future.

How much do the batteries cost? 

And I was talking sticker price.  You never actually answered the question - have you been car shopping lately.

Quote...And if it takes as little as 10x as long, the world will need at least 10x as many charging stations as we now have gas pumps.

Except, you ignored my point where charging can take place at home.

QuoteWe have a few charging stations where I work, and for all I know it works out fine because there are only a few people who want to use them. But if there were more, consider the ridiculous logistics: You get to work, and there is no charger available. So you use a phone app to reserve time. At some point, another driver will get a notice that his battery is charged, but he's in the middle of a meeting, and can't go move his car. Or you're in a meeting, and can't go move your car, meaning you're holding up whoever is next in line after you. You can imagine the same thing at motels: get a notice at 2:30am that you need to move your car.

Except, you ignored my point where charging can take place at home.

There are a lot more EVs on the road now than there were 10 years ago.  Yet, it's rare to see lines and waits at charging stations. Why? Because they keep building more charging stations. In your "ridiculous" logistics example above, you believe everything is fine now, but won't be in the future.  Why wouldn't your company just add charging stations? Isn't that a benefit to current employees and an incentive for future employees?

I know your answer will be "they don't have the money to keep installing charging stations". Well, they have the money for other benefits, don't they?  Companies have daycares and gyms to encourage people to work for those companies. They can spend the money on charging stations as well. 

The EV argument has long centered on "this is what we have now; but we'll go with the theory if people keep buying EVs they won't expand EV charging and we'll all be in a huge line to charge our vehicles".

Those against EVs also think EV people will use up all the electricity.  That argument has been made in the past as well with other technologies. About the only time we see the effects is on very hot days when everyone is running air conditioning.  They blamed the power company in the past for not keeping up. Now they blame EVs...even though most EV owners charge their vehicles in the evening...during non-peak periods.

The range and charging of EVs might be coming more into line as tolerable things to live with.  Both have certainly gotten better in the half decade we've on/off discussed this topic.

The thing that I can't get past with full EVs is average price of entry (even with tax credits).  I can't speak for others, but I'm not inclined to purchase a 50k plus daily driver from a volume manufacturer.  I'm even less inclined when those same automakers offer economy or hybrid options a far lower price point.

I've never seen the point of forcing the automotive market to grow towards EVs through regulation.  I see even less of a point when it was already naturally happening before the 2035 PHEV mandate. 

Of course, we haven't touched on the matter of electrical grid expansion the State of California wanted to aid facilitation of the 2035 PHEV mandate.  The State wants to rely fully on renewable sources of power which requires massive infrastructure projects like the Morro Bay Wind Farm.  Said wind farm was/is expected to produce 15GW electricity by 2035 to support the PHEV mandate.  The project really hasn't even gotten started and in all probability isn't coming fully online any time close to 2035.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2025, 10:53:15 PMI know your answer will be "they don't have the money to keep installing charging stations". Well, they have the money for other benefits, don't they?  Companies have daycares and gyms to encourage people to work for those companies. They can spend the money on charging stations as well. 

The EV argument has long centered on "this is what we have now; but we'll go with the theory if people keep buying EVs they won't expand EV charging and we'll all be in a huge line to charge our vehicles".

That isn't my answer. Of course they'll increase the number of charging stations. But if ICE vehicles went the way of the dodo, we would need a staggering number of charging stations to avoid the musical chairs problem, and a staggering infrastructure to support them, and each charger would only be used for a small fraction of the time. I don't think that's economically feasible. And since you can't store significant amounts of electricity cheaply, whenever someone is charging his car, that electricity will have to be generated somewhere else at that same moment, which in a green world doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Not like gasoline sitting in a big underground tank, available whenever it's needed.

The only thing good about EVs is that they "save the planet". The list of downsides is quite long: the fact that trips often have to be planned around the need to spend time recharging, the loss of capacity in the cold, the initial cost of batteries compared to the cost of a gas tank, the fact that batteries eventually need to be replaced, the fact that they're made of toxic materials rather than metal or fiberglass, the fact that the energy has to be distributed by a huge number of new power lines rather than a modest number of tanker trucks on existing roads, etc. The motivated belief that all this and more can all be handled somehow seems of a piece with the motivated belief in the efficacy of windmills and solar panels.

Quote from: pderocco on May 02, 2025, 12:12:48 AMI'm going to pretend half the thread doesn't exist because it makes my position look silly.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 01, 2025, 11:07:15 PMI'm not inclined to purchase a 50k plus daily driver from a volume manufacturer. 

Not all electric cars are that expensive. The Hyundai Kona EV starts at $32k (without accounting for any incentives). Granted, the ICE version is still cheaper at $25k, but arguably you could make that cost difference up fairly quickly if electricity is cheap and gas is expensive.

Quote from: pderocco on May 02, 2025, 12:12:48 AMBut if ICE vehicles went the way of the dodo, we would need a staggering number of charging stations to avoid the musical chairs problem, and a staggering infrastructure to support them, and each charger would only be used for a small fraction of the time.

You're still completely ignoring the fact that 90+% of charging will be done at home and therefore not require any chargers to be built!

Quote from: pderocco on May 02, 2025, 12:12:48 AMthe fact that they're made of toxic materials rather than metal or fiberglass, the fact that the energy has to be distributed by a huge number of new power lines rather than a modest number of tanker trucks on existing roads, etc.

Sure batteries are made of some rather harsh chemicals, but you manufacture the battery ONE TIME and then you can drive with it for 10+ years. You mustn't forget that EVERY TIME you go to fill a car up with gasoline, you need to produce that toxic material. You likely use hundreds of times more material producing gasoline to power an ICE car compared to producing one lithium battery, especially when considering that batteries can be reliably recycled.

EVs are nowhere near ready to be the only option by 2035.

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 02, 2025, 02:32:22 AMEVs are nowhere near ready to be the only option by 2035.

California banning things is good for my state's economy, so I'm all in favor of it.  :D

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 02, 2025, 04:29:20 AM

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 02, 2025, 02:32:22 AMEVs are nowhere near ready to be the only option by 2035.

California banning things is good for my state's economy, so I'm all in favor of it.  :D

They're banning cancer so the tobacco industry can thrive in Vegas.

Regarding the Kona, the conventional ICE variant doesn't have very good mileage.  The EPA rating I'm looking at is 26-31 MPG.  Yes, the 304 mile claimed range is on the lower end of what I would consider acceptable. 

All the same, I ended up getting a Corolla Hybrid last year for close to the starting price of the base Kona.  The car I got is rated at 47-50 MPG and doesn't have the compromise of having to charge it.  I guess if I really wanted a CUV/EV I probably would have considered the Kona. 

The Kona surprisingly on has 6.7 inches of ground clearance.  I was surprised to see how close it was to my Corolla which has 5.7 inches.  Both vehicles are probably going to be restricted to the same kinds of roads.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2025, 09:09:34 AMRegarding the Kona, the conventional ICE variant doesn't have very good mileage.  The EPA rating I'm looking at is 26-31 MPG.  Yes, the 304 mile claimed range is on the lower end of what I would consider acceptable. 

All the same, I ended up getting a Corolla Hybrid last year for close to the starting price of the base Kona.  The car I got is rated at 47-50 MPG and doesn't have the compromise of having to charge it.  I guess if I really wanted a CUV/EV I probably would have considered the Kona. 

The Kona surprisingly on has 6.7 inches of ground clearance.  I was surprised to see how close it was to my Corolla which has 5.7 inches.  Both vehicles are probably going to be restricted to the same kinds of roads.

I know I've asked you before, but how would you match type of road (pavement, packed dirt, two-track) to how much ground clearance you need?  I still haven't come across a good definition of "high clearance vehicle."

Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2025, 09:30:42 AMI still haven't come across a good definition of "high clearance vehicle."

Any vehicle that the dealership is trying to get rid of because it's not the current model year.

Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2025, 09:30:42 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2025, 09:09:34 AMRegarding the Kona, the conventional ICE variant doesn't have very good mileage.  The EPA rating I'm looking at is 26-31 MPG.  Yes, the 304 mile claimed range is on the lower end of what I would consider acceptable. 

All the same, I ended up getting a Corolla Hybrid last year for close to the starting price of the base Kona.  The car I got is rated at 47-50 MPG and doesn't have the compromise of having to charge it.  I guess if I really wanted a CUV/EV I probably would have considered the Kona. 

The Kona surprisingly on has 6.7 inches of ground clearance.  I was surprised to see how close it was to my Corolla which has 5.7 inches.  Both vehicles are probably going to be restricted to the same kinds of roads.

I know I've asked you before, but how would you match type of road (pavement, packed dirt, two-track) to how much ground clearance you need?  I still haven't come across a good definition of "high clearance vehicle."

I haven't really found a good definition myself either.  It is something I tend to question as an automotive truism given how many supposedly "high clearance roads" I've gotten cars through. 

I tend to look at vehicles like the CrossTrek as something that meets the criteria I would consider high clearance.  Apparently the minimum clearance on that model is 8.7 inches.

https://www.caranddriver.com/subaru/crosstrek/specs

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2025, 09:41:12 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2025, 09:30:42 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2025, 09:09:34 AMRegarding the Kona, the conventional ICE variant doesn't have very good mileage.  The EPA rating I'm looking at is 26-31 MPG.  Yes, the 304 mile claimed range is on the lower end of what I would consider acceptable. 

All the same, I ended up getting a Corolla Hybrid last year for close to the starting price of the base Kona.  The car I got is rated at 47-50 MPG and doesn't have the compromise of having to charge it.  I guess if I really wanted a CUV/EV I probably would have considered the Kona. 

The Kona surprisingly on has 6.7 inches of ground clearance.  I was surprised to see how close it was to my Corolla which has 5.7 inches.  Both vehicles are probably going to be restricted to the same kinds of roads.

I know I've asked you before, but how would you match type of road (pavement, packed dirt, two-track) to how much ground clearance you need?  I still haven't come across a good definition of "high clearance vehicle."

I haven't really found a good definition myself either.  It is something I tend to question as an automotive truism given how many supposedly "high clearance roads" I've gotten cars through. 

I tend to look at vehicles like the CrossTrek as something that meets the criteria I would consider high clearance.  Apparently the minimum clearance on that model is 8.7 inches.

https://www.caranddriver.com/subaru/crosstrek/specs

Thanks.

Apparently the National Park Service defines High Clearance as a minimum of 8 inches.  Seems there is no real consensus definition though:

https://www.nps.gov/deva/planyourvisit/upload/508-Backcountry-and-Wilderness-Access-map_.pdf

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 02, 2025, 02:32:22 AMEVs are nowhere near ready to be the only option by 2035.

I don't really think a mandate is the course of action to be honest, but it is important to note that even under California's mandate, EVs would not be the only option! As the title of this thread says, it's only a PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle) mandate. A PHEV is basically just a regular hybrid with a large battery that can be charged directly with electricity like a full EV so it can run on electricity for a short to medium range before starting to burn gas. And really there's nothing stopping you from ignoring the charging capability and just driving it like a pain ICE car if you're stubborn, so you still have plenty of options even after 2035.

Is there even a 50% plus 1 requirement in the US?  Given our two-party system, I'm not even sure.  For Canada, I imagine it would require either a runoff or ranked choice voting.

Canada already has a Senate, modeled after the UK House of Lords.  In theory it operates like the US Senate except for how senators are appointed and the term they serve, and the part where the US Senate confirms officials and judges appointed by the Presidents.  In practice it's largely ceremonial.  It does sometimes veto bills passed by the House of Commons, however.

Quote from: stevashe on May 01, 2025, 09:48:00 PMExactly. There's no need to replace gas pump capacity 1:1 since anyone who charges their EV at home should only ever use a public EV charger when on a road trip.

(And on a road trip, I've timed my stops at gas stations and rest areas and they are almost always 15 minutes or longer, so I'd argue that the fastest chargers available now are sufficient. There's still a ways to go until you can road trip without planning your stops though.)

Indeed.  Aside from blanketing the interstate-side restaurants and convenience stores (along with Turnpike service areas) with charging in all the parking spots, I'd say the main things we'd need are to update building codes to have similar charging at apartments (and maybe a government program similar to NEVI to get them installed at existing sites) and high enough range available/affordable that one could leave in the morning, stop for lunch, and get to their destination without needing to add additional stops (even in hot/cold weather or on a hilly road).  It still wouldn't make the "I go through the drive thru and eat in the car because I want to be moving 100% of the time" crowd happy, but outside of this forum they're such a sharp minority that it's probably not worth bothering to cater to them (and given that drowsy driving is a problem, we probably shouldn't).  That would leave people who need street parking; I'm not quite sure how to handle that issue, to be honest.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2025, 10:53:15 PMThere are a lot more EVs on the road now than there were 10 years ago.  Yet, it's rare to see lines and waits at charging stations.

Too be fair, there are a couple circumstances where lines have been a problem:
1. Holiday travel when everyone's on the road
2. California (where EV adoption is the highest)

Both would be solved by making sure people home charge and moving to a "park in any spot and charge at road trip stops" model over the current "go to dedicated charging station or the few dedicated spots set aside somewhere else" model.  I'd also ban the "X miles of free charging" incentives many automakers are giving out, since it drives people to take up charging spots rather than home charge because it's free.

Quote from: pderocco on May 01, 2025, 09:11:54 PMTheir cost is intrinsically higher because of the cost of the batteries

This is my anecdotal experience: I'm about 2½ years into owning an EV. When I was shopping for it the cost for the replacement battery was going to be $10K-$12K. That cost is down to around $9K now, so if/when I replace it (in, say, 8 years) it's reasonable to assume that cost will be closer to $7K-$8K or less. Of course, it could be longer before I replace it, since I've used a fast charger maybe three times per year, and I've only ever charged to 100% maybe six times total (beginning of road trips), so I'm very conscious about battery health; and based on my current usage, after 10 years I'll be at around 140,000 miles.

This is not an exact science given fluctuations in prices and usage, but my net savings in daily usage (no gas or oil changes, but increase in electricity bill) has been around $65 per month, or $780 per year. After 10 years, that's $7,800.

And yes, the EV model was more expensive than the ICE model, but I did get the tax credit. And at least for now, the ability to use the HOV lanes is definitely a tangible benefit in terms of time saved.

So everyone's story will be different, but for me, no, the cost is not/will not be intrinsically higher.

There's a part of me that would *love* to have an electric vehicle at some point, but there's just too many factors working against it for it to be viable right now. I live in an apartment and there's no way the landlord is going to spring for a charger, plus there's no EV chargers anywhere near my office. I drive a lot for work (to visit construction sites, often in the middle of nowhere), and (ironically) because a lot of our construction involves *adding* EV chargers to existing sites, they're usually installed but not yet switched on when I get there. Finally, there's currently no electric vehicle with the battery range to make it from Southern California to Albuquerque without needing to stop for an extended recharge time, and that's a drive I make at least twice a year and will continue to make as long as my parents are alive.

Don't get me wrong, I *want* electric vehicles to be a more viable option, there's just still a lot of infrastructural hurdles that are hindering wider EV acceptance.

I remember when the Prius came about, people were against hybrids because people will need to replace the batteries; batteries were expensive, and they wouldn't last.

Today, people are all for hybrids because they're no longer expensive. There's so few people that actually replaced the batteries to the point it's not even much of a thought, and they generally give excellent fuel mileage compared to a normal fully gasoline powered vehicle.

Quote from: tawnuskgrevy on May 02, 2025, 04:15:21 PMThere's a part of me that would *love* to have an electric vehicle at some point, but there's just too many factors working against it for it to be viable right now. I live in an apartment and there's no way the landlord is going to spring for a charger, plus there's no EV chargers anywhere near my office. I drive a lot for work (to visit construction sites, often in the middle of nowhere), and (ironically) because a lot of our construction involves *adding* EV chargers to existing sites, they're usually installed but not yet switched on when I get there. Finally, there's currently no electric vehicle with the battery range to make it from Southern California to Albuquerque without needing to stop for an extended recharge time, and that's a drive I make at least twice a year and will continue to make as long as my parents are alive.

Don't get me wrong, I *want* electric vehicles to be a more viable option, there's just still a lot of infrastructural hurdles that are hindering wider EV acceptance.

And these are perfectly valid reasons. 

I've made the comparison in the past of buying a pickup truck - it's great for hauling stuff; not so great if you have a family of 5 when there's only a single bench seat.  People that are against EVs discuss it as EVs are bad for everyone.  Single row pickups aren't bad for everyone, but they're not practical for everyone either.

Doesn't hurt the warranty on a Toyota hybrid battery is now 200,000 miles.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 01, 2025, 05:57:33 PMOn a related note last November Governor Newsom declined (via veto) to enact stricter safety standards for cars in California.  In the statement he released it said something about he believed safety standards were the domain of Federal regulators.  I fully suspect what he said to come back up if the CARB EPA waiver issue ends up in court. 

https://apnews.com/article/california-speed-alert-cars-bill-veto-588605f3980c952c894756da6579bf3d

See The Ravera Criteria https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28939.msg2591333#msg2591333

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2025, 04:22:59 PMDoesn't hurt the warranty on a Toyota hybrid battery is now 200,000 miles.

Businesses design their warranties so they're generally out of reach of most issues, so if Toyota's warranty is now 200k, then those batteries are lasting at least 200k.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2025, 05:08:51 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2025, 04:22:59 PMDoesn't hurt the warranty on a Toyota hybrid battery is now 200,000 miles.

Businesses design their warranties so they're generally out of reach of most issues, so if Toyota's warranty is now 200k, then those batteries are lasting at least 200k.

Which conveniently coincides around the typical life cycle of when I pull a daily driver from duty. 

Quote from: stevashe on May 02, 2025, 02:14:02 AM

QuoteBut if ICE vehicles went the way of the dodo, we would need a staggering number of charging stations to avoid the musical chairs problem, and a staggering infrastructure to support them, and each charger would only be used for a small fraction of the time.

You're still completely ignoring the fact that 90+% of charging will be done at home and therefore not require any chargers to be built!

I don't mean to ignore that. I think it will be far less than 90+%, given the existence of apartment buildings where it will be close to zero. But even if people do charge at home, infrastructure is still required for that. It's less complicated because they're not retail chargers that anyone can use, but the large amount of energy still has to get there, and then get into the cars. And since most households have multiple cars, you still could have a musical chairs problem.

And all for what? I don't think forcing everyone into EVs will be necessary to "save the planet", and I don't think people who say it will should be taken seriously if they're opposed to nuclear power. That could eventually supply all our non-mobile energy needs, which is also a huge producer of carbon, which would reduce the need to switch to EVs.

Technological advances usually increase convenience. EVs introduce an inconvenience which people who are passionate proponents are willing to take on, but most people will have varying degrees of resistance to it, and the new technology will feel like a step backward.

Quote from: stevashe on May 02, 2025, 02:14:02 AMSure batteries are made of some rather harsh chemicals, but you manufacture the battery ONE TIME and then you can drive with it for 10+ years. You mustn't forget that EVERY TIME you go to fill a car up with gasoline, you need to produce that toxic material. You likely use hundreds of times more material producing gasoline to power an ICE car compared to producing one lithium battery, especially when considering that batteries can be reliably recycled.

You're ignoring what it takes to produce the energy to charge the batteries.

These days, an awful lot of EVs are actually running on coal, which is worse than gasoline.

Quote from: pderocco on May 02, 2025, 05:40:41 PM

Quote from: stevashe on May 02, 2025, 02:14:02 AM

QuoteBut if ICE vehicles went the way of the dodo, we would need a staggering number of charging stations to avoid the musical chairs problem, and a staggering infrastructure to support them, and each charger would only be used for a small fraction of the time.

You're still completely ignoring the fact that 90+% of charging will be done at home and therefore not require any chargers to be built!

I don't mean to ignore that. I think it will be far less than 90+%, given the existence of apartment buildings where it will be close to zero. But even if people do charge at home, infrastructure is still required for that. It's less complicated because they're not retail chargers that anyone can use, but the large amount of energy still has to get there, and then get into the cars. And since most households have multiple cars, you still could have a musical chairs problem.

It can be super un-complicated. I had a 240v outlet installed in my garage in three hours, and it charges my car while I'm sleeping. New construction can easily accommodate this, whether it's in a garage or at an outdoor spot, and for existing buildings, a small increase in rent would cover the cost relatively quickly, and then it's an amenity that will make the building more attractive to tenants.

QuoteTechnological advances usually increase convenience. EVs introduce an inconvenience which people who are passionate proponents are willing to take on, but most people will have varying degrees of resistance to it, and the new technology will feel like a step backward.

Many technological advances introduce an inconvenience to some portion of the population - we've seen it on this forum when people bemoan smartphones - like it or not, "Western" society is advancing on the assumption that everyone has a smartphone. You could say the same for the switch to DTV, or email becoming the primary form of communication, texting instead of calling, etc. College students (and lots of high school students as well) do all of their assignments, communicate with teachers, track their grades, etc. through an app or online portal, meaning it's a necessity to have a computer. An increasing number of business no longer take cash.

Even 15 or 20 years ago, people complained about drops in cell phone coverage, even in dense urban areas - you'd pick your service provider based on whether you could get a signal in your home and/or office (and often you couldn't get both). It was a definite inconvenience in adopting a new technology, but it didn't stop people from getting cell phones, or from recognizing that they were the inevitable evolution in personal communication.

Some technologies have become more inconvenient as time has gone on, even if it's for supposedly good reasons - flying is much more of a hassle than it used to be, or the increase in two-factor authentication and other online security (as well as companies wanting to better track you) makes using large portions of the internet more complicated than before.

I'm not saying that EVs (or even hybrids) are the only way to go moving forward - but I think it's a bit disingenuous to simply cry "it's too hard, therefore it will always be too hard, therefore it's bad/a conspiracy/an infringement on my liberties." I don't think that's what you're doing here, but I sure do see/hear it all the time.

Quote from: pderocco on May 02, 2025, 05:47:33 PM

Quote from: stevashe on May 02, 2025, 02:14:02 AMSure batteries are made of some rather harsh chemicals, but you manufacture the battery ONE TIME and then you can drive with it for 10+ years. You mustn't forget that EVERY TIME you go to fill a car up with gasoline, you need to produce that toxic material. You likely use hundreds of times more material producing gasoline to power an ICE car compared to producing one lithium battery, especially when considering that batteries can be reliably recycled.

You're ignoring what it takes to produce the energy to charge the batteries.

These days, an awful lot of EVs are actually running on coal, which is worse than gasoline.

Oops.

https://evadoption.com/are-evs-charged-mostly-by-coal-power-in-the-us/

A pretty common trick in Las Vegas is to get an EV and solar panels on the house. The amount you save by elimitanting both your transportation and your air conditioning costs more than makes up for the cost of the panels.

Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2025, 08:08:34 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 02, 2025, 05:47:33 PM

Quote from: stevashe on May 02, 2025, 02:14:02 AMSure batteries are made of some rather harsh chemicals, but you manufacture the battery ONE TIME and then you can drive with it for 10+ years. You mustn't forget that EVERY TIME you go to fill a car up with gasoline, you need to produce that toxic material. You likely use hundreds of times more material producing gasoline to power an ICE car compared to producing one lithium battery, especially when considering that batteries can be reliably recycled.

You're ignoring what it takes to produce the energy to charge the batteries.

These days, an awful lot of EVs are actually running on coal, which is worse than gasoline.

Oops.

https://evadoption.com/are-evs-charged-mostly-by-coal-power-in-the-us/

Also, a power plant is much more efficient than a moving vehicle, because it doesn't have to deal with friction and wind resistance. Heat and chemical losses are repurposed (because a power plant takes up a vast amount of space). A vehicle's internal combustion engine and ancillary equipment cannot perform in any considerable amount of expelled energy regeneration (exhaust gas recirculation via mandate, a small amount of heat exchanged back into the HVAC's heater core, and hybrid vehicles' motor-generators are exceptions).

If I had a dollar for every time I have to repeat this EV haters, I'd have...well, at least two more dollars a week.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2025, 05:08:51 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2025, 04:22:59 PMDoesn't hurt the warranty on a Toyota hybrid battery is now 200,000 miles.

Businesses design their warranties so they're generally out of reach of most issues, so if Toyota's warranty is now 200k, then those batteries are lasting at least 200k.

FWIW, even the hybrid battery in my 2008 Prius was still going strong until the car was totaled in a parking accident, just short of 320K.

Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2025, 08:08:34 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 02, 2025, 05:47:33 PM

Quote from: stevashe on May 02, 2025, 02:14:02 AMSure batteries are made of some rather harsh chemicals, but you manufacture the battery ONE TIME and then you can drive with it for 10+ years. You mustn't forget that EVERY TIME you go to fill a car up with gasoline, you need to produce that toxic material. You likely use hundreds of times more material producing gasoline to power an ICE car compared to producing one lithium battery, especially when considering that batteries can be reliably recycled.

You're ignoring what it takes to produce the energy to charge the batteries.

These days, an awful lot of EVs are actually running on coal, which is worse than gasoline.

Oops.

https://evadoption.com/are-evs-charged-mostly-by-coal-power-in-the-us/

An even if they were running on 100% coal, the fact that an EV has the equivalent efficiency of 200+mpg means that they would still produce less pollution per mile driven, which just goes to show how relatively inefficient a gas powered engine is at converting energy to motion.

Quote from: pderocco on May 02, 2025, 12:12:48 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2025, 10:53:15 PMI know your answer will be "they don't have the money to keep installing charging stations". Well, they have the money for other benefits, don't they?  Companies have daycares and gyms to encourage people to work for those companies. They can spend the money on charging stations as well. 

The EV argument has long centered on "this is what we have now; but we'll go with the theory if people keep buying EVs they won't expand EV charging and we'll all be in a huge line to charge our vehicles".

That isn't my answer. Of course they'll increase the number of charging stations. But if ICE vehicles went the way of the dodo, we would need a staggering number of charging stations to avoid the musical chairs problem, and a staggering infrastructure to support them, and each charger would only be used for a small fraction of the time. I don't think that's economically feasible. And since you can't store significant amounts of electricity cheaply, whenever someone is charging his car, that electricity will have to be generated somewhere else at that same moment, which in a green world doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Not like gasoline sitting in a big underground tank, available whenever it's needed.

The only thing good about EVs is that they "save the planet". The list of downsides is quite long: the fact that trips often have to be planned around the need to spend time recharging, the loss of capacity in the cold, the initial cost of batteries compared to the cost of a gas tank, the fact that batteries eventually need to be replaced, the fact that they're made of toxic materials rather than metal or fiberglass, the fact that the energy has to be distributed by a huge number of new power lines rather than a modest number of tanker trucks on existing roads, etc. The motivated belief that all this and more can all be handled somehow seems of a piece with the motivated belief in the efficacy of windmills and solar panels.

Also try to build new power plants and power lines (can you say "NIMBY"?  I meant " N I M B Y ! ! ! " ? ).

As I have said many times before, straight battery-electric car tech has not been thought through and will fail in the market now just like it did in both the early-mid 1970s as well as in the earliest days of automobility - and for the same basic reasons.

We are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?
 
Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2025, 10:42:15 AMWe are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

One would hope, but I imagine that will work itself out regardless once the thieves figure out that the cables won't actually make them any money.

Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2025, 10:42:15 AMWe are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2025, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2025, 10:42:15 AMWe are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

Quote from: oscar on May 03, 2025, 04:26:37 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2025, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2025, 10:42:15 AMWe are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

The feasible market for electric vehicles seems rather niche compared to ICE vehicles given this thread...

Quote from: oscar on May 03, 2025, 04:26:37 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2025, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2025, 10:42:15 AMWe are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

According to https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-with-the-most-single-family-homes there is only one state where single-family homes are less than half of the housing stock, and that's New York. (Granted not all single-family homes have a garage, but in my experience SFH built after 1960 or so generally do have a garage.)

In California, which is the state being discussed here, 65.2% of housing units are single-family homes.

If a given city has enough apartments that lack of secured parking to provide charging facilities is an issue, that city would probably be better served not faffing about with electric cars at all and should be building a train, since they clearly have the density for it.

(And if there's some bizarre city that somehow has nothing but apartments with unsecured parking but is also too low-density to support public transit, it was designed stupidly, so fix that first.)

Quote from: Rothman on May 03, 2025, 04:49:41 PM

Quote from: oscar on May 03, 2025, 04:26:37 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2025, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2025, 10:42:15 AMWe are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

The feasible market for electric vehicles seems rather niche compared to ICE vehicles given this thread...

Wouldn't call it "niche". But EVs work best for people with single-family homes. Only the enviros don't like SFHs , for reasons I consider cogent. But that preference is coming back to bite them, by getting in the way of wider EV adoption.

Quote from: oscar on May 03, 2025, 04:26:37 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2025, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2025, 10:42:15 AMWe are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

It will probably differ based on location and region, but EV Charging at apartment complexes seem to be a common feature.  https://www.apartments.com/cherry-hill-nj/ev-charging/ 

Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2025, 08:08:34 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 02, 2025, 05:47:33 PM

Quote from: stevashe on May 02, 2025, 02:14:02 AMSure batteries are made of some rather harsh chemicals, but you manufacture the battery ONE TIME and then you can drive with it for 10+ years. You mustn't forget that EVERY TIME you go to fill a car up with gasoline, you need to produce that toxic material. You likely use hundreds of times more material producing gasoline to power an ICE car compared to producing one lithium battery, especially when considering that batteries can be reliably recycled.

You're ignoring what it takes to produce the energy to charge the batteries.

These days, an awful lot of EVs are actually running on coal, which is worse than gasoline.

Oops.

https://evadoption.com/are-evs-charged-mostly-by-coal-power-in-the-us/

I didn't say "in the U.S.", I was thinking worldwide. For instance, China.

China does have the benefit of an EV market that tends to run far below the market prices we would expect domestically. 

Quote from: DTComposer on May 02, 2025, 07:54:36 PMMany technological advances introduce an inconvenience to some portion of the population - we've seen it on this forum when people bemoan smartphones - like it or not, "Western" society is advancing on the assumption that everyone has a smartphone. You could say the same for the switch to DTV, or email becoming the primary form of communication, texting instead of calling, etc. College students (and lots of high school students as well) do all of their assignments, communicate with teachers, track their grades, etc. through an app or online portal, meaning it's a necessity to have a computer. An increasing number of business no longer take cash.

Even 15 or 20 years ago, people complained about drops in cell phone coverage, even in dense urban areas - you'd pick your service provider based on whether you could get a signal in your home and/or office (and often you couldn't get both). It was a definite inconvenience in adopting a new technology, but it didn't stop people from getting cell phones, or from recognizing that they were the inevitable evolution in personal communication.

Some technologies have become more inconvenient as time has gone on, even if it's for supposedly good reasons - flying is much more of a hassle than it used to be, or the increase in two-factor authentication and other online security (as well as companies wanting to better track you) makes using large portions of the internet more complicated than before.

I'm not saying that EVs (or even hybrids) are the only way to go moving forward - but I think it's a bit disingenuous to simply cry "it's too hard, therefore it will always be too hard, therefore it's bad/a conspiracy/an infringement on my liberties." I don't think that's what you're doing here, but I sure do see/hear it all the time.

That's a different kind of problem, the problem of being part way down the adoption curve for a new technology that more and more people actually want. You can probaby make the same point about television, radio, the original telephone, the horseless carriage.

I can't think of a single example from history of governments going to such extraordinary lengths to impose a new technology on a reluctant people. If EVs look good, from the point of view of the user, then people will naturally switch to them over time, and there would be no need for government efforts to impose them on us. Governments would instead be forced by us to accommodate our new preferences, e.g., the way the emergence of automobiles pressured governments into paving roads.

I watch a lot of car ads, mostly because of my eccentric hobby of trying to identify locations in them, and the rate of advertising EVs is wildly disproportionate to their popularity. It's so obvious that car companies, threatened by fines from the government, are desperate to convince us to buy EVs, not that they're eagerly trying to satisfy our insatiable desires for EVs. Central planning has a long history of failures, and I don't think this will prove to be an exception.

Well, yeah. That's because current science on climate change says we're getting pretty damn close to the point of no return, so governments are trying to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions in any way possible. There isn't enough time to wait for the market to take its course naturally, so the options are "impose a new technology on reluctant people" or "watch everyone die, but at least they could buy an 8 MPG piece of shit before they croaked".

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2025, 06:18:45 PM

Quote from: oscar on May 03, 2025, 04:26:37 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2025, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2025, 10:42:15 AMWe are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

It will probably differ based on location and region, but EV Charging at apartment complexes seem to be a common feature.  https://www.apartments.com/cherry-hill-nj/ev-charging/ 

Common for the affluent...

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2025, 07:15:17 PMWell, yeah. That's because current science on climate change says we're getting pretty damn close to the point of no return, so governments are trying to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions in any way possible. There isn't enough time to wait for the market to take its course naturally, so the options are "impose a new technology on reluctant people" or "watch everyone die, but at least they could buy an 8 MPG piece of shit before they croaked".

I think about things like that when I visit Mexico and see so many crumbling thirty year old cars rolling around.  Even the vast majority of new vehicles down south are the entry level ICE variety.  I can't fathom that EVs will ever heavily proliferate unless something changes to make them more affordable compared to ICE vehicles. 

Most of the world probably is way closer to the Mexican market than it is the American one.  It tends me make me question how effective any automotive regulation domestically (or in this case just California emissions states) is actually effective long term on a global scale regarding climate change. 

For the record, I tend to be of the opinion that things are way past the point of no return on climate change.  It is probably more a question of how bad the ultimate end result will over the next century.

Quote from: Rothman on May 03, 2025, 07:25:56 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2025, 06:18:45 PM

Quote from: oscar on May 03, 2025, 04:26:37 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2025, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2025, 10:42:15 AMWe are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

It will probably differ based on location and region, but EV Charging at apartment complexes seem to be a common feature.  https://www.apartments.com/cherry-hill-nj/ev-charging/ 

Common for the affluent...

The lower end of the pricing on that page is about as cheap as you'll find apartments in NJ.  It's been a common problem around here how expensive even basic apartment complexes have gotten.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2025, 08:04:16 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 03, 2025, 07:25:56 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2025, 06:18:45 PM

Quote from: oscar on May 03, 2025, 04:26:37 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2025, 03:09:52 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2025, 10:42:15 AMWe are also seeing modern-day (thieves) cutting charger cords for a few quick bucks of scrap in many markets.  Has that issue been adequately addressed yet?

1. Put the cable in your garage
2. Close the garage

Seems adequate to me.

For you. Not so much for those of us without garages, or other secured parking.

It will probably differ based on location and region, but EV Charging at apartment complexes seem to be a common feature.  https://www.apartments.com/cherry-hill-nj/ev-charging/ 

Common for the affluent...

The lower end of the pricing on that page is about as cheap as you'll find apartments in NJ.  It's been a common problem around here how expensive even basic apartment complexes have gotten.

So...common for the affluent.

Quote from: pderocco on May 03, 2025, 06:41:54 PMI can't think of a single example from history of governments going to such extraordinary lengths to impose a new technology on a reluctant people. If EVs look good, from the point of view of the user, then people will naturally switch to them over time, and there would be no need for government efforts to impose them on us. Governments would instead be forced by us to accommodate our new preferences, e.g., the way the emergence of automobiles pressured governments into paving roads.

Perhaps you should be aware that paved roads became a thing for bicycles, not cars.  Or that jaywalking became a crime thanks to the automakers lobbying the government to make things more convenient for driving (prior to then, streets were mixed and the top speed cars could reliably do in cities was about what automatics do when in drive with neither the gas nor the brakes engaged).  Or how the government does a lot today to subsidize cars but any suggestion that they do the same for other modes is considered sacrilegious.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2025, 07:42:01 PMFor the record, I tend to be of the opinion that things are way past the point of no return on climate change.  It is probably more a question of how bad the ultimate end result will over the next century.

I read a theory on the internet that a lot of some of the things we've seen are the result of even those among The Powers That Be who publicly deny climate change privately are fully aware that it's real and are trying to preserve what they have by any means necessary even as climate change ruins everything for the rest of us.

I don't doubt that most of the climate change deniers truly believe the things they say.  I see climate change denial as just another example of something people will convince themselves is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

Then again, how many of us will be alive when the worst effects of climate changes actually hit?  I'm 42 and likely at or past the halfway point of my life.  Most projections I've read indicate the worst is coming almost a century down the road.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2025, 07:42:01 PMI think about things like that when I visit Mexico and see so many crumbling thirty year old cars rolling around.  Even the vast majority of new vehicles down south are the entry level ICE variety.  I can't fathom that EVs will ever heavily proliferate unless something changes to make them more affordable compared to ICE vehicles. 

You're right that, unfortunately, there are some places where you can't just swap out the car fleet wholesale because it's just not affordable. Fortunately, though, carbon dioxide isn't an all-or-nothing thing, so the sort of thing California is doing will reduce levels even if they don't eliminate pollution from transportation altogether. Also, California is probably hoping for the same sort of effect that the CARB standards have had; since the California market is so large compared to every other state it will make sense for car manufacturers to sell the same cars California requires nationwide.

That being said, what could be a game changer for markets like Mexico are the ultra-cheap BYD electric cars coming out of China. While those may not get a warm welcome in the US, Mexico probably doesn't have the knee-jerk rejection impulse to Chinese tech that the US does. Mexico doesn't have 145% tariffs on China either.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 04, 2025, 12:27:13 AMI don't doubt that most of the climate change deniers truly believe the things they say.  I see climate change denial as just another example of something people will convince themselves is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

Then again, how many of us will be alive when the worst effects of climate changes actually hit?

It really depends on where you live. In Oklahoma, it's easy to sit there and claim climate change is a hoax or if it does happen it will be a long way off. Intermittent droughts and rainy seasons are just kind of how the weather is there, and it's hard to notice the weather patterns changing. But Las Vegas hit its all-time record high of 120° last year, and you can go down to Hoover Dam and see how far from the top of the inlets the lake level is. The change is a lot more tangible here, so if you are denying it you are denying the evidence of your own eyes and your backyard thermometer. That's a lot harder than claiming that some professor you've never met is BSing you.

(I was thinking about buying a backyard thermometer recently, and I found one I like the design of at Ace Hardware...but I passed on it because it only went up to 120°, and I figure we'll need at least a few more degrees past that at some point in my life, perhaps as soon as this summer.)

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2025, 01:02:40 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2025, 07:42:01 PMI think about things like that when I visit Mexico and see so many crumbling thirty year old cars rolling around.  Even the vast majority of new vehicles down south are the entry level ICE variety.  I can't fathom that EVs will ever heavily proliferate unless something changes to make them more affordable compared to ICE vehicles. 

You're right that, unfortunately, there are some places where you can't just swap out the car fleet wholesale because it's just not affordable. Fortunately, though, carbon dioxide isn't an all-or-nothing thing, so the sort of thing California is doing will reduce levels even if they don't eliminate pollution from transportation altogether. Also, California is probably hoping for the same sort of effect that the CARB standards have had; since the California market is so large compared to every other state it will make sense for car manufacturers to sell the same cars California requires nationwide.

That being said, what could be a game changer for markets like Mexico are the ultra-cheap BYD electric cars coming out of China. While those may not get a warm welcome in the US, Mexico probably doesn't have the knee-jerk rejection impulse to Chinese tech that the US does. Mexico doesn't have 145% tariffs on China either.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 04, 2025, 12:27:13 AMI don't doubt that most of the climate change deniers truly believe the things they say.  I see climate change denial as just another example of something people will convince themselves is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

Then again, how many of us will be alive when the worst effects of climate changes actually hit?

It really depends on where you live. In Oklahoma, it's easy to sit there and claim climate change is a hoax or if it does happen it will be a long way off. Intermittent droughts and rainy seasons are just kind of how the weather is there, and it's hard to notice the weather patterns changing. But Las Vegas hit its all-time record high of 120° last year, and you can go down to Hoover Dam and see how far from the top of the inlets the lake level is. The change is a lot more tangible here, so if you are denying it you are denying the evidence of your own eyes and your backyard thermometer. That's a lot harder than claiming that some professor you've never met is BSing you.

(I was thinking about buying a backyard thermometer recently, and I found one I like the design of at Ace Hardware...but I passed on it because it only went up to 120°, and I figure we'll need at least a few more degrees past that at some point in my life, perhaps as soon as this summer.)

I know climatologists keep reminding us that weather is not climate, but I also wonder about my own area, where we haven't even hit our supposed average level of snowfall in years, causing such to drop.  Took a La Nina year like this one to get close, and we still didn't hit it.  Makes me wonder when such trends can truly be considered climate change, but, unlike climate change deniers, I trust the experts on their evaluation of the situation.

Quote from: Rothman on May 04, 2025, 09:16:32 AMI know climatologists keep reminding us that weather is not climate, but I also wonder about my own area, where we haven't even hit our supposed average level of snowfall in years, causing such to drop.  Took a La Nina year like this one to get close, and we still didn't hit it.  Makes me wonder when such trends can truly be considered climate change, but, unlike climate change deniers, I trust the experts on their evaluation of the situation.

what is "your area"? Syracuse NY had a few pretty average years. Albany is similar
(https://i.imgur.com/zUbC6mh.png)

Quote from: kalvado on May 04, 2025, 11:30:33 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 04, 2025, 09:16:32 AMI know climatologists keep reminding us that weather is not climate, but I also wonder about my own area, where we haven't even hit our supposed average level of snowfall in years, causing such to drop.  Took a La Nina year like this one to get close, and we still didn't hit it.  Makes me wonder when such trends can truly be considered climate change, but, unlike climate change deniers, I trust the experts on their evaluation of the situation.

what is "your area"? Syracuse NY had a few pretty average years. Albany is similar
(https://i.imgur.com/zUbC6mh.png)

Pfft.  You didn't go back far enough.  2020 through 2024 were all quite mild and below the historic average of about 121 inches for Syracuse. 

Another thing that annoys me about TV meteorologists:  They often talk about the effects of global warming in their forecasts.  When challenged, they'll say they're not climatologists. 

Quote from: pderocco on May 03, 2025, 06:25:06 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2025, 08:08:34 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 02, 2025, 05:47:33 PM

Quote from: stevashe on May 02, 2025, 02:14:02 AMSure batteries are made of some rather harsh chemicals, but you manufacture the battery ONE TIME and then you can drive with it for 10+ years. You mustn't forget that EVERY TIME you go to fill a car up with gasoline, you need to produce that toxic material. You likely use hundreds of times more material producing gasoline to power an ICE car compared to producing one lithium battery, especially when considering that batteries can be reliably recycled.

You're ignoring what it takes to produce the energy to charge the batteries.

These days, an awful lot of EVs are actually running on coal, which is worse than gasoline.

Oops.

https://evadoption.com/are-evs-charged-mostly-by-coal-power-in-the-us/

I didn't say "in the U.S.", I was thinking worldwide. For instance, China.

China may be still majority coal power today, with 58% share of electricity generation, but that's down from 63% just last year so it probably won't last long as China is currently on a massive building spree of wind and solar power. Clean energy is up at 39% this year from 34% last year.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-sets-new-clean-electricity-milestones-during-q1-2025-maguire-2025-04-22/

(Also as I noted in a previous post, EVs running on coal power are actually still better than an ICE car running on gasoline, even though that's very unintuitive. Electric motors are just way more efficient.)

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 04, 2025, 12:27:13 AMI don't doubt that most of the climate change deniers truly believe the things they say.  I see climate change denial as just another example of something people will convince themselves is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I was talking about politicians and business leaders, not voters.  The oil companies knew as far back as the 70s (back when the media was busy convincing people that an ice age was coming).  Mentioning specific policies obviously trends into politics, but let's just say that a lot of things that didn't make sense about certain political policies start to make a lot of sense if you assume that this is indeed the case.

Quote from: vdeane on May 04, 2025, 04:21:59 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 04, 2025, 12:27:13 AMI don't doubt that most of the climate change deniers truly believe the things they say.  I see climate change denial as just another example of something people will convince themselves is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I was talking about politicians and business leaders, not voters.  The oil companies knew as far back as the 70s (back when the media was busy convincing people that an ice age was coming).  Mentioning specific policies obviously trends into politics, but let's just say that a lot of things that didn't make sense about certain political policies start to make a lot of sense if you assume that this is indeed the case.

I wasn't necessarily eluding to just regular folks exclusively either.  Just look at something like the tobacco industry.  That whole thing is built on a pyramid of twisted subjective political and corporate "truths" which keeps it alive. 

Quote from: stevashe on May 04, 2025, 04:14:01 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 03, 2025, 06:25:06 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2025, 08:08:34 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 02, 2025, 05:47:33 PM

Quote from: stevashe on May 02, 2025, 02:14:02 AMSure batteries are made of some rather harsh chemicals, but you manufacture the battery ONE TIME and then you can drive with it for 10+ years. You mustn't forget that EVERY TIME you go to fill a car up with gasoline, you need to produce that toxic material. You likely use hundreds of times more material producing gasoline to power an ICE car compared to producing one lithium battery, especially when considering that batteries can be reliably recycled.

You're ignoring what it takes to produce the energy to charge the batteries.

These days, an awful lot of EVs are actually running on coal, which is worse than gasoline.

Oops.

https://evadoption.com/are-evs-charged-mostly-by-coal-power-in-the-us/

I didn't say "in the U.S.", I was thinking worldwide. For instance, China.

China may be still majority coal power today, with 58% share of electricity generation, but that's down from 63% just last year so it probably won't last long as China is currently on a massive building spree of wind and solar power. Clean energy is up at 39% this year from 34% last year.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-sets-new-clean-electricity-milestones-during-q1-2025-maguire-2025-04-22/

(Also as I noted in a previous post, EVs running on coal power are actually still better than an ICE car running on gasoline, even though that's very unintuitive. Electric motors are just way more efficient.)

And rumors on the pricing of the Chevy Volt EUV (a Chinese market rebadge for Latin American Market) are saying it will base for well under $20,000 USD:

https://www.carscoops.com/2025/02/chevrolet-spark-returns-as-a-rebadged-chinese-ev-for-south-america/

- Basic legal doctrines here.  The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states.  This clause has been VERY broadly interpreted to give the federal government power over many things.  One off-shoot of this is a doctrine called "preemption" meaning the federal government can make EVERY rule about a subject, such that the states have no power to make further rules.  THIS is why California needs a "waiver" in the first place.  The EPA is "waiving" the fact that it has totally made every rule in this area and the states can do no more.  All Congress need do is say the EPA has no such power, and there you go.  Pretty basic stuff.  Any challenge would be laughed out of court.  This is not a "liberal vs. conservative" or "strict constructionist vs. activist" deal.  Its basic legal doctrines.

- The quasi-religious faith that everything one wishes to be invented eventually will be is just not how science works.  The very point of science is to determine what IS true, not to invent that which one desires.  Some things are simply not possible.  It is totally possible that battery technology, and/or the ability to produce electricity by means other than coal-oil-gas-nuclear in 2035, or 2235, may be the same as today.  No one knows, and until scientists discover whether or not these technologies can be improved upon, it is arrogant and foolish to base public policy upon such assumptions.

- The media, back in the 70s was just quoting what the scientists of the day were saying.  The idea that there is this big conspiracy to cover up some unspoken "truth", like all conspiracy theories, is just so much ho-ha.  Global cooling-global warming-climate change-whatever theory is next.  All theories. 

- IF the type of histrionics that SOME climate activists say are actually true, the solution, not given some major scientific breakthroughs (see above for an explanation of how science works), is not in swapping out some cars.  It is most of society living a vastly reduced (think 18th century) lifestyle, and a massive decline in the population.  Which should scare any people who believes in the basic worth of human life, all to death.

Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2025, 10:41:08 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 03, 2025, 06:41:54 PMI can't think of a single example from history of governments going to such extraordinary lengths to impose a new technology on a reluctant people. If EVs look good, from the point of view of the user, then people will naturally switch to them over time, and there would be no need for government efforts to impose them on us. Governments would instead be forced by us to accommodate our new preferences, e.g., the way the emergence of automobiles pressured governments into paving roads.

Perhaps you should be aware that paved roads became a thing for bicycles, not cars.  Or that jaywalking became a crime thanks to the automakers lobbying the government to make things more convenient for driving (prior to then, streets were mixed and the top speed cars could reliably do in cities was about what automatics do when in drive with neither the gas nor the brakes engaged).  Or how the government does a lot today to subsidize cars but any suggestion that they do the same for other modes is considered sacrilegious.

Bicyclists started the Better Road movement, but would have got nowhere without the much more economically important need to support motor vehicles.

Jaywalking was banned not because the government was trying to force people to drive instead of walk, but because more and more people wanted to drive.

Government doesn't subsidize cars (except EVs) nearly as much as it subsidizes public transit. Building roads which everyone uses isn't a subsidy.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 04, 2025, 04:59:41 PMGlobal cooling-global warming-climate change-whatever theory is next.  All theories. 

How to destroy all credibility in one sentence—use the word "theory" while clearly having no clue what it means.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 04, 2025, 04:59:41 PM- Basic legal doctrines here.  The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states.  This clause has been VERY broadly interpreted to give the federal government power over many things.  One off-shoot of this is a doctrine called "preemption" meaning the federal government can make EVERY rule about a subject, such that the states have no power to make further rules.  THIS is why California needs a "waiver" in the first place.  The EPA is "waiving" the fact that it has totally made every rule in this area and the states can do no more.  All Congress need do is say the EPA has no such power, and there you go.  Pretty basic stuff.  Any challenge would be laughed out of court.  This is not a "liberal vs. conservative" or "strict constructionist vs. activist" deal.  Its basic legal doctrines.

- The quasi-religious faith that everything one wishes to be invented eventually will be is just not how science works.  The very point of science is to determine what IS true, not to invent that which one desires.  Some things are simply not possible.  It is totally possible that battery technology, and/or the ability to produce electricity by means other than coal-oil-gas-nuclear in 2035, or 2235, may be the same as today.  No one knows, and until scientists discover whether or not these technologies can be improved upon, it is arrogant and foolish to base public policy upon such assumptions.

- The media, back in the 70s was just quoting what the scientists of the day were saying.  The idea that there is this big conspiracy to cover up some unspoken "truth", like all conspiracy theories, is just so much ho-ha.  Global cooling-global warming-climate change-whatever theory is next.  All theories. 

- IF the type of histrionics that SOME climate activists say are actually true, the solution, not given some major scientific breakthroughs (see above for an explanation of how science works), is not in swapping out some cars.  It is most of society living a vastly reduced (think 18th century) lifestyle, and a massive decline in the population.  Which should scare any people who believes in the basic worth of human life, all to death.

This is all very interesting what you are saying. However, when it comes to new sources of electricity generation or battery development, consider this: My native state of South Dakota is second only to Vermont in the percentage (about 85%) of net electricity generation generated by renewable sources. Principally, wind energy. It's made the state a net exporter of electricity, principally to areas served by the Midcontinent ISO. South Dakota is also not only one of the nation's most politically right-wing states, it also leads the nation in Total Fertility Rate. Yes, even ahead of Utah.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2025, 06:10:59 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on May 04, 2025, 04:59:41 PMGlobal cooling-global warming-climate change-whatever theory is next.  All theories. 

How to destroy all credibility in one sentence—use the word "theory" while clearly having no clue what it means.

^This.

A theory is not a hypothesis, but a conclusion made upon the totality of available evidence.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 04, 2025, 04:59:41 PM- IF the type of histrionics that SOME climate activists say are actually true, the solution, not given some major scientific breakthroughs (see above for an explanation of how science works), is not in swapping out some cars.  It is most of society living a vastly reduced (think 18th century) lifestyle, and a massive decline in the population.  Which should scare any people who believes in the basic worth of human life, all to death.

Histrionics, indeed...

Quote from: SP Cook on May 04, 2025, 04:59:41 PMhistrionics

Quote from: Rothman on May 04, 2025, 09:25:23 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2025, 06:10:59 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on May 04, 2025, 04:59:41 PMGlobal cooling-global warming-climate change-whatever theory is next.  All theories. 

How to destroy all credibility in one sentence—use the word "theory" while clearly having no clue what it means.

^This.

A theory is not a hypothesis, but a conclusion made upon the totality of available evidence.

Sir Karl is looking at you with amazement.

Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2025, 09:30:42 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2025, 09:09:34 AMRegarding the Kona, the conventional ICE variant doesn't have very good mileage.  The EPA rating I'm looking at is 26-31 MPG.  Yes, the 304 mile claimed range is on the lower end of what I would consider acceptable. 

All the same, I ended up getting a Corolla Hybrid last year for close to the starting price of the base Kona.  The car I got is rated at 47-50 MPG and doesn't have the compromise of having to charge it.  I guess if I really wanted a CUV/EV I probably would have considered the Kona. 

The Kona surprisingly on has 6.7 inches of ground clearance.  I was surprised to see how close it was to my Corolla which has 5.7 inches.  Both vehicles are probably going to be restricted to the same kinds of roads.

I know I've asked you before, but how would you match type of road (pavement, packed dirt, two-track) to how much ground clearance you need?  I still haven't come across a good definition of "high clearance vehicle."

To quote Justice Potter Stewart: "I know it when I see it"

The current USA federal administration is looking at California's environmental rules with fast increasing disfavor.  We'll see where this all ends up going.

Mike

And California is looking at the current USA federal administration with fast increasing disfavor.

Neither of these are news.