Number of Electric Vehicles on Roads Reaches Three Million: IEA (reuters.com)

The number of electric vehicles on roads worldwide rose to a record high of 3.1 million in 2017, but more research, policies and incentives are needed to drive further uptake, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said. From a report: The number of electric cars, including battery-electric, plug-in hybrid electric and fuel cell electric passenger light-duty vehicles, increased by 57 percent compared with 2016, the IEA said in a report. China accounted for 40 percent of the global total last year. Research and development, policy support, charging infrastructure investment and production improvements are resulting in lower battery costs and higher electric vehicle (EV) uptake.

Comments

Did you know that 90% of all EVs...

[Anonymous Coward]

...sold are still on the road? The other 10% made it home.

Re:Did you know that 90% of all EVs...

[Anonymous Coward]

80%. The other 10% turned on Tesla's autopilot and rammed a parked car like Donald Trump ramming Stomy Davis.

But seriously, the Tesla AI is just trying to be disruptive. Move fast and break things!

The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Vs Android Gasoline and Apple Diesels. It is safe to say that electric cars along with self driving cars fads are over and 100 years from now my descendants will be driving gasoline human driven cars.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

If Trump has his way, you'll be driving a coal-powered car.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Topwiz]

Actually a large percentage of electric vehicles are coal powered. Electric is only good for the environment if your electric power comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-09-18/china-electric-cars-run-on-coal-but-are-still-cleaner

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Oswald McWeany]

Actually a large percentage of electric vehicles are coal powered. Electric is only good for the environment if your electric power comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

It's still more efficient and uses less fossil fuels to produce energy at a centralized location at big plants than it is on-site in tiny little car engines. Sure, electric cars powered from solar power are responsible for less pollution than one's powered by coal plants... but both are less polluting than your average internal combustion engine.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[b0bby]

The Union of Concerned Scientists has a lot of information about this, including a tool to let you calculate the emissions of an EV based on your local grid mix:

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-v...

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[religionofpeas]

Plus it provides future fuel flexibility.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Dutch Gun]

Lucky me. My next car will apparently be hydro-powered then.

Re: The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Old argument that is still valid but IC cars are getting more efficient. There will come a time when IC will be just as efficient and more so than coal and oil burning power plants. EVs really need to be charged by nuclear or solar to be relevant again when that time comes.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

move yourself to an airtight room with only Co2 then.

Re: The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. IC may improve, but in that time the big plants will improve too.

A car can't compete with a plant that doesn't care if its weight goes up 20% to be cleaner.

Also, plants utilize waste heat.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[edi_guy]

The difference in CO2 emissions for various zip codes is very interesting. As another poster said, the unsung benefit of electric is that the method of generating the electricity can be changed depending on what is cheapest and/or less polluting (from coal, to gas, to solar, or nukes). But the "API" of the plug-in-electric remains the same. This unlike building out a hydrogen economy, or natural gas powered cars, etc.

Would like to know what a human being's CO2 emissions are per mile....

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Move yourself to a room with 100% pure oxygen.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Oswald McWeany]

CO2 is not a pollutant.

move yourself to an airtight room with only Co2 then.

Move yourself to a room with 100% pure oxygen.

Anything at too high a level is a pollutant. CO2 is already at levels that is harmful for our planet so, yes, is a pollutant.

CO2 is toxic at much lower levels than Oxygen. You can breathe pure oxygen for several days before you start experiencing any problems. CO2 at slightly elevated levels can have an almost immediate effect. Not to mention, CO2 causes global warming, perhaps the biggest problem facing our planet, and increased levels cause ocean acidification which is primarily responsible for almost all the world's reefs to have die-backs.

CO2 is essential for life, but we already have too much of it in the atmosphere.

Re: The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Big plants take decades to improve. New models of cars come out every year.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[bgarcia]

Actually a large percentage of electric vehicles are coal powered. Electric is only good for the environment if your electric power comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

That argument is ten years out-of-date. Nowadays, the largest percentage of electric vehicles are natural-gas powered.

Re: The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Coal plant efficiency is from 33-44%
F1 engines with heat energy recovery are hitting 60% on the dyno. Assuming tech trickle down we will see road cars with efficiencies higher than 50% in the near future. Another factor that will help this is kenetic energy recovery and advanced transmissions.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[thegarbz]

Actually a large percentage of electric vehicles are coal powered. Electric is only good for the environment if your electric power comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

It's 2018. If you still believe that disproven meme you're either a complete moron or a paid shill. There's is no longer any other justifiable way to describe a post such as yours.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[kelemvor4]

Actually a large percentage of electric vehicles are coal powered. Electric is only good for the environment if your electric power comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

Only if you live someplace shitty that doesn't have a nuke plant.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no proof to your claims. Show me the evidence.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You'll see that the US Apollo missions used pure oxygen atmosphere. So yes, you can breathe pure oxygen at least to the moon and back.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[ishmaelflood]

Not at atmospheric pressure you can't.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[zieroh]

Move yourself to a room with 100% pure oxygen.

You're being argumentative without actually making a point. An impressive feat, to be sure.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[slashdice]

laugh if you want, but...

Coal Liquefaction.

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[CaffeinatedBacon]

Weigh yourself, then walk a mile, weigh yourself again.
Try not to sweat for more acurate results :)

Re:The Windows Phone of cars

[Trogre]

Sure, coal is still used in some developing nations for generating electricity. The point here is that it doesn't have to. You can charge your EV with wind, solar, hydro, nuclear or any other method of power generation that you can get to your house. With ICE it's fossil fuels or bust - you don't get a choice.

Policies and incentives

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need to implement policies and incentives to coax people to buy these types of vehicles, perhaps they aren't the most efficient means of transportation.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Frederic54]

It depends of your need. In Québec for instance, electricity is very cheap, having a car that do ~50 miles and you can easily commute with it everyday and do all your standard groceries/shopping the week-end. All this with 0 gasoline (gas price is $4.50/gallon here).
A lot of people have a second car with an ICE, like a Grand Caravan or whatever to haul the kids.
EV cars are an efficient means of transportation

Re:Policies and incentives

[mark-t]

It makes tons of sense if you have a place to charge your car at home. Many do not, causing EVs to be more inconvenience than their benefits are worth.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Drethon]

It depends of your need. In Québec for instance, electricity is very cheap, having a car that do ~50 miles and you can easily commute with it everyday and do all your standard groceries/shopping the week-end. All this with 0 gasoline (gas price is $4.50/gallon here).
A lot of people have a second car with an ICE, like a Grand Caravan or whatever to haul the kids.
EV cars are an efficient means of transportation

I'm 20 miles from work. I could do a 50 mile car but practically I'd want more like a 100 mile car. I'm also a little leery of having a low mileage car as backup if the primary breaks down... of course in the almost 10 years I've had my current primary car, it has broken down exactly 0 times so that is probably paranoia.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Oswald McWeany]

It makes tons of sense if you have a place to charge your car at home. Many do not, causing EVs to be more inconvenience than their benefits are worth.

Electric vehicles won't work for everybody (yet); but they would work for most people. The choice for society at this moment in time isn't everyone has to have ICE or everyone has to have EV. There is room for both on the road.

Eventually, especially as technology improves for things like batteries, it would be nice if all vehicles were EV... and with that change charging becomes easier- but for now it's ok that some people who can't get by with today's EVs don't have them. They aren't appropriate for everyone yet.

Re:Policies and incentives

[vtcodger]

How do you plan to heat your EV during Quebec's 9 months of Winter? Wood stove?

" From Dec. 27[2017] to Jan. 1[2018], the maximum temperature in Montreal did not rise above –17 C. This six-day stretch is the longest such cold streak on record, based ondata going back 146 years" http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

(For Americans and those in the Bahamas and Belize -17C=1.4F)

Re:Policies and incentives

[b0bby]

My Leaf is a just-over-100-miles car, and it gets me everywhere I regularly go pretty easily. There are a pretty good number of quick chargers around me (especially at the ~75 mile radius where they're most useful) which makes it fairly practical for slightly longer trips. In terms of reliability, EVs should be better since there are generally fewer parts; the Leaf at least is supposed to be quite solid with very little maintenance needed. For what's essentially an econobox it's pretty enjoyable to drive too.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Eloking]

It depends of your need. In Québec for instance, electricity is very cheap, having a car that do ~50 miles and you can easily commute with it everyday and do all your standard groceries/shopping the week-end. All this with 0 gasoline (gas price is $4.50/gallon here).
A lot of people have a second car with an ICE, like a Grand Caravan or whatever to haul the kids.
EV cars are an efficient means of transportation

Exactly,

Let's take my case for example.

I live in Quebec and I've calculated that I travel around 2500-3000 km per month (I live at 52 km from work, so 2 time that for 21.75 work day per month in average + some commune and visiting friends). Right now I have an used car with a ~7.5L/100km efficiency (probably worst than that). So, with the gas around 1.4$/L right now, it mean a total of around 250-300$ per month only for the gas right now. Or course, let's not forget that the gas price will increase in the future.

Sadly, EV vehicule are still quite expensive (even in the used market) but, in the case of used PHEV, there's some interesting option.

I decided to get a used 85000 km Volt 2013 for about 19k$ taxes included. An Gas equivalent would cost me around 8k$. Even if it's 5 years old and got some mileage, I was able to travel 66 km before using gas if I were very, very efficient.

Since then, about 98% of my trip are completely on electric mode and my boss allow me to plug my car at my job free of charge. The car have a battery used capacity of ~10.9 kWh. The residential electricity cost 9.12/kWh and we got about 15% lost with the standard 120v outlet (I don't need the 240v, doesn't worth the investment). So, if my calculation are right, it cost me about 1.14$ to charge my car and I charge it at home about 25 time per month so about 28-30$ of electricity per month. You can always double that value if we forget that my boss give me free electricity it's pretty common that job offer free charging advantage. It's pretty cheap for them to look green.

So, to wrap things up, right now I save about 220-270$ per month for a car that cost me ~11k$ more.

I was able to get a loan of 20k$ at an great interest rate of 3.5% (damn, at that rate I should ask them 1 million and invest it. 3.5% is pretty easy to beat). If we take the initial 19k$, it will take me about 7 years to refund the loan if I put that ~250$ saving on it each month and, in the end, I'll have a 10 years old Chevrolet 2013 for the money that I'm paying for gas. And if we're fair and take the 11k$ investment instead (to be fair, I'll need a car either way), we're talking about a 4 years ROI. The only difference if that I put money in the loan instead of the gas station.

I've wrapped my mind a lot and it's almost impossible to have a more economic choice than this. And on the plus side, I do my part for the environment and I can use toll bridge, reserved parking. reserved lane etc. for free.

So, in the end, for some EV/PHEV is the economical choice...if the condition are right.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you plan to heat your EV during Quebec's 9 months of Winter? Wood stove?

" From Dec. 27[2017] to Jan. 1[2018], the maximum temperature in Montreal did not rise above –17 C. This six-day stretch is the longest such cold streak on record, based ondata going back 146 years" http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

I almost lost my coffee through my nose on this one. Just, wow. A record 6-day stretch. Think about that. A cold week. Which happens to coincide with common holidays too, BTW. Oh, yeah, and this was the first time in almost 150 years of keeping records. Thankfully, global warming^^^climate change means we'll never see the likes of this cold weather ever again.

Back in the real world, people with EVs in cold places already know how to deal with heat in the winter. 1) Leave it plugged in overnight and set it to preheat the cabin before your commute. 2) Live with a slight range reduction. 3) Keep the range and dress for it instead of pretending your car should feel like a tropical beach.

Oh, the horror, how shall we survive?

Re:Policies and incentives

[Dutch Gun]

In the rare case of a break-down, you can always get a rental or loaner if you just happen to need long range. But the odds of needing long range just as your ICE breaks down seems pretty low, if you don't need it often.

My family lives in a town 60 miles away, so for me, I need a 150 mile car at minimum. But I almost never travel further than that. My next car will certainly be EV, but I'm not going to buy a new car until my ICE doesn't run well anymore. It's long since paid for, and I don't have extra money to flush down the toilet like that. Besides, the longer I wait, the better and cheaper they get.

Re:Policies and incentives

[zieroh]

Many do not, causing EVs to be more inconvenience than their benefits are worth.

Inconvenience being subjective, you don't actually get to decide whether the inconveniences outweigh the benefits.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Frederic54]

It is plugged in, the morning when it's -17C, you enter in a warm car with 100% battery, and the ice and snow on the windshield and glasses is already fully melted, no need to scrap it!

Re:Policies and incentives

[unimacs]

I live in a place that's colder than Quebec and have an EV. Actually a PHEV (Chevy Volt). The cold weather reduces the range and one option you definitely want is heated seats. It's much more efficient to heat the seats than it is the whole cabin, - which the car can do of course, at the expense of range.

A nice feature is that you can have the car "pre conditioned" before climbing inside and while it's still plugged in. So you get in a warm car and the car still has it's full range (though cold weather still impacts it). The same is true during hot weather when it comes to A/C.

The Volt is a plugin hybrid and the gas engine acts as an on-board generator for charging the battery. Chevy refers to the gas engine as the "range extender". The waste heat from that can be used to heat the cabin just like a regular car.

Re:Policies and incentives

[LynnwoodRooster]

I wish we had decent electricity prices in Southern California. We pay $0.25/kWh, and $4.00/gallon for gas...

Re:Policies and incentives

[GregMmm]

Yes, but why do they make the Leaf look like ass? How about a nice design?

Re:Policies and incentives

[mark-t]

Electric vehicles won't work for everybody (yet); but they would work for most people.

Ironically, however, they don't work for most people who live in high-density population neighborhoods, especially areas of a city which are predominantly older development apartment buildings that may not have plugs available for cars in their parking lot or common parking garage.

Re:Policies and incentives

[hipp5]

Yes, but why do they make the Leaf look like ass? How about a nice design?

The 2018 is much more normal looking and has a 240 km (150 miles for you cretins) range. But yeah, up until this point they looked like weird boots...

Re:Policies and incentives

[mark-t]

Fair enough, but I'm alleging it's a pretty safe bet that the inconvenience of not being able to charge a rechargeable car overnight at one's own home *always* outweighs every other benefit that electric cars might otherwise offer. I would defy you or anyone else to find any electric vehicle owner that has no ability to charge at home who might assert otherwise. Yes, it's subjective, but I'm willing to bet that this so-called subjective opinion is in unanimous agreement across the entire demographic of people that it affects... and I'd wager that the only people who might think otherwise either don't own an EV in the first place, or else don't live in an apartment where they have no ability to charge it (and in either case not part of the impacted demographic anyways).

Re:Policies and incentives

[b0bby]

Well, I know a lot of people don't like the way it looks and the newer ones are more normal looking. Personally, I don't mind it, and it's a practical shape which is surprisingly roomy inside so I don't really care. There are a lot of new EVs in the pipeline, so there should be quite a lot of choice within 5 years or so.

Re:Policies and incentives

[AaronD12]

There are plenty on the LEAF message board that I frequent. They mostly charge at work.

Re:Policies and incentives

[apoc.famine]

This is an issue with my condo. I'd have to get the board's permission to wire up a drop in my parking spot and hire an electrician to branch it off from the meter. Which probably would require a breaker box, because the meter is connected to the one in my unit 2 stories up. Or I'd have to run a line back from it to the basement.

That said, I'm still considering it, because my wife can charge at work, and a bunch of the places we go have free electricity.

Re:Policies and incentives

[mark-t]

The ability to charge at work does not preclude charging at home if the ability exists. What percentage of those people whom you allege are satisfied with their electric vehicle do not actually have any ability to charge at home?

I'd be honestly surprised it there's even one among them.

This is not because a small number of people live in apartments without any ability to charge an electric car at home, but because the people who don't have the ability to charge at home are unlikely to purchase an electric vehicle in the first place (except perhaps as an oversight, and then they realize this shortcoming not long after purchasing).

Re:Policies and incentives

[fluffernutter]

It's not about whether they 'would' work for people. It's about how many will accept having a car with these limitations for the price. We do road trips to remote areas and having no ICE or an unreliable ICE would prevent that. This means I need an ICE that is highway worthy for long distances; or else I am bound to my local area with it. Therefore the ICE must still be the newest and most reliable and expensive vehicle. Currently we are making do with the one vehicle, but may at some point consider a second. Electric car costs have to come down a lot further for me to justify fitting it in as my second "grocery-getting only" vehicle. I would say I would be interested in waiting five years or so and buying one used, but I am concerned how affordable that will end up being since the battery life is sketchy by that time. I think a lot of people who have a vehicle might think one day they may want to drive somewhere remote. Renting in that case is very expensive, and riskier. I am aware they are getting better at building EV charging stations but as you go away from population it becomes more likely you will get caught without a place to charge.

Re:Policies and incentives

[fluffernutter]

So what if you get the EV and suddenly your family wants to go camping in some remote place without electricity? I wouldn't want to rent a vehicle for that, too expensive. You'd be defeating the purpose of having an EV.

Re:Policies and incentives

[fluffernutter]

The cold weather reduces the range and one option you definitely want is heated seats. It's much more efficient to heat the seats than it is the whole cabin, - which the car can do of course, at the expense of range.

When EV owners say stuff like this it concerns me, because I like to warm the cabin and have heated seats. Where I live it is colder as well.

Re:Policies and incentives

[mark-t]

This is an issue with my condo. I'd have to get the board's permission to wire up a drop in my parking spot and hire an electrician to branch it off from the meter

Yeah, I hear ya.... and that's not even considering the logistics of stopping other people in the building from tampering with your electrical outlet and stealing your electricity for their own use when you are not home, or other similar acts of mischief.

Re:Policies and incentives

[unimacs]

You can have both heated seats and a heated cabin, but it shortens the distance you can travel without re-charging (or the gas engine kicking in in the case of a plugin hybrid). If the range is long enough then it doesn't matter but it's something you need to be aware of. It's also a consideration in hot climates in terms of A/C use.

I have a 2012 Chevy Volt and it's electric range is between 25 and 45 miles depending on a number of factors including weather, driving style, etc. After that the gas engine ("range extender") kicks in. Since and I and most Volt drivers have a strong preference for limiting the amount of time the range extender runs, it becomes kind of a game to see how far we can go on electric only.

What my son and a lot of people will do in hot weather is turn the A/C to max, - he'll set it to 60 or whatever. It drives me nuts because it shortens the range and is totally unnecessary. The climate system does a pretty good job of managing the temp in the cabin if you set it at 72 or 75. And it will be far easier on the range. But for some reason, people like their cars to feel like inside of a refrigerator when it's hot outside.

Same with the heat. There's no reason to set the temp at 85 in the cabin when you're already wearing a winter coat. I dress for being outside and don't need or want it to be 80 inside the car. But like I said before, the Volt will comply and even has the bonus of remote start from the key fob or phone app that will warm the car up before you drive while it's still plugged in.

Cars like the Volt are nice because even if the electric range is shortened below the point where you get all the places you need to be, it has a gas engine to charge the battery and the mileage is still much better than most gas engine cars would get. And I think new EVs (all electric) like the Bolt and newer Teslas have enough range that even if it's shortened in cold weather, it's still adequate.

Re:Policies and incentives

[fluffernutter]

That would be difficult for me. I like to be comfortable both temperature-wise and distance-wise.

Re:Policies and incentives

[unimacs]

What if you want to haul 12 foot sheets of drywall in your vehicle and be able to drive 6 kids to football practice when it's your family's turn to drive? Or what if you want a vehicle that gets 50+ mpg and 90% of the time, you're the only one in it?

The answer for a family is probably to have two different types of vehicles, each well suited for certain types of trips while being less suited for others. One vehicle could be a small EV and the other a more traditional gas powered vehicle. Maybe a minivan or SUV. And maybe for certain kinds of things (12 foot sheets of drywall), they'll just rent or pay to have the stuff delivered.

That's what we do. For years we've had a small economy car for the bulk of the trips and a larger vehicle to be used when you need a bigger vehicle.

In your example, most families probably aren't going to "suddenly" go camping in a remote area without electricity anyway. That takes a little bit of planning and if they've got time to plan and are an all EV family, they probably have some disposable income and can find a cheap rental car or borrow one from a friend.

Re:Policies and incentives

[unimacs]

EVs aren't for everyone. Something like a Volt (PHEV) might work well for you since it has a gas engine backup. It has a range of over 300 miles just on the gas engine so you can go as far on electric as your comfort and conditions allow knowing that there's a gas engine to take you the rest of the way if battery alone is not enough.

The previous owner of our Volt ended up moving into an apartment where they couldn't charge the car very frequently but would sometimes do it at work. Most of the miles they put on it by far were using the gas engine. They still averaged 50 mpg combining the gas and electric use. But that's why they sold it. Figured it didn't make sense to have an electric vehicle when you're running on electricity only about 1/3 of the time.

Re: Policies and incentives

[Guy Smiley]

In many cases, campgrounds are already well wired with 240V 30A plugs because people who go camping typically have AC that needs a lot of power, so plugging in your car overnight to charge is not a big deal. You have to be pretty remote not to get any power at a campground. Like the parent wrote it isn't very often that people spontaneously want to do something way out of the ordinary, and if they do it is likely they can deal with it (eg. rent an RV). What if they suddenly want to have a vacation across the ocean? The don't take their ICE car either, they fly and rent a car when they get there.

Re:Policies and incentives

[unimacs]

Let me answer this a 2nd way. Any vehicle choice involves compromises. Whether it's range, size, handling, comfort, performance, reliability, cost, gas mileage, towing capacity, seating capacity, etc, etc.

An electric vehicle is no exception. You might choose a plug-in electric hybrid (also has a gas engine) if range is really an issue. But I think at least for early adopters like myself, driving an EV involves changing some of your driving habits. I have a PHEV (plug in electric hybrid) so I don't worry about range except that I much prefer not using the gas engine. One might find themselves devising strategies for traveling long distances on electric like picking hotels that allow people to plug in their vehicles or choosing routes with charging stations near good restaurants. There are apps that'll show you where you can charge your vehicle nearby or along your route.

Many people come up with reasons why an EV wouldn't be a good choice for them and many of those reasons are legit, but some objections or concerns could be alleviated with some thought. Your camping trip example for one. I've gone on several camping trips to remote areas without electricity, running water, etc. Without exception the car was left some place not far from electricity. Often times when camping at a remote area the evening before we'll overnight at a hotel some place relatively close to where we're going. The car can be charged there, driven to the drop off spot the next take day and will have plenty of charge remaining when we return to it after the camping trip is done.

Re:Policies and incentives

[vtcodger]

Trouble is, in a really cold climate, you need to heat not only the seats but also the windshield. Otherwise your breath will condense on the inside of the windshield (unless you drive with the window open which tends to be unpleasant if the outside temp is much below rreezing.). BTW, has anyone tried heating just the seats? I can conceive that it might work OK if you don't mind driving with gloves on, but I can also imagine unexpected side effects like wildlife colonizing the seats in Winter.

Re:Policies and incentives

[vtcodger]

"Oh, the horror, how shall we survive?"

YOU probably won't. Folks with more sense will probably opt for something like a Hybrid or Plug-In Hybrid that is better suited to the local climate.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an issue with my condo. I'd have to get the board's permission to wire up a drop in my parking spot and hire an electrician to branch it off from the meter

Yeah, I hear ya.... and that's not even considering the logistics of stopping other people in the building from tampering with your electrical outlet and stealing your electricity for their own use when you are not home, or other similar acts of mischief.

Their are incentives in CA which can make it very profitable for building owners to install public chargers in those older places. They can get the cost of the charge and installation rebated and sell the power for profit while advertising the benefit.

For home use in simi-public places where you think other people might charge you can get a charger which charges other people for the power. Also there are chargers which you on/off control over the network. Its not as vulnerable as a wall outlet would be. Also there are rebates to help defer the cost in CA

Re:Policies and incentives

[zieroh]

I would defy you or anyone else to find any electric vehicle owner that has no ability to charge at home who might assert otherwise.

Challenge accepted.

I know several people personally who drive EVs and don't have any ability to charge at home. At my place of work, I know of many tens (maybe even 100) more who only charge at work.

Any other questions?

Re:Policies and incentives

[fluffernutter]

The other day I was driving down the highway and two 4-bangers pass me going around 20 over the speed limit. They reach two other 4-bangers going ten under the speed limit and I pull up behind them going just a smidge over the speed limit. Up comes the broken line and neither one passes because they have no power to. I end up passing all four easily because I'm in a 345 horsepower vehicle. Now I understand the Chevy Volt has some torque from standing speed because of the electric motor but that isn't going to help you passing on the highway. It has 84 horsepower (!). I can't see that being capable for passing on the highway.

Re:Policies and incentives

[zieroh]

I'd be honestly surprised it there's even one among them.

You'd be dead wrong. It's actually the subject of heated debate on the internal mailing lists where I work. Oddly enough, some of the worst entitlement comes from the people who DO have the ability to charge at home, and view the people who don't with disdain. I think it's opposite, but there is a very real contingent of people who are driving electric vehicles who absolutely cannot charge at home.

Re:Policies and incentives

[mark-t]

And just how many of those people do not have another car?

And in high density populated areas, you don't always get the luxury of having parking for multiple cars anyways. There's often designated parking for your unit, and for anything beyond that, you have to park on the street. Because you have to share the street with everyone else that wanted a second car (high density population, remember), or visitors, parking is at a premium, and certainly not something you could ever count on being able to get unless you are always willing to walk 5 or 6 blocks just to get to your car from your house.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Local ID10T]

Keep moving those goalposts man!

Re:Policies and incentives

[Peter P Peters]

It makes tons of sense if you have a place to charge your car at home. Many do not, causing EVs to be more inconvenience than their benefits are worth.

You know that when the car was invented there weren't many petrol stations? Or when planes were invented there were actual no airports anywhere? How do you think this will play out?

Re:Policies and incentives

[Peter P Peters]

When EV owners say stuff like this it concerns me, because I like to warm the cabin and have heated seats. Where I live it is colder as well.

To put this in perspective, and average engine might consume hundreds of kw of energy to run, but to heat (or cool) a space the size of a car cabin is only a few hundred watts. It reduces range just like an ICE, but it's negligible.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on what state you live in. your board may not be able to refuse your installation (at your cost, of course - that's how Oregon is)

Re:Policies and incentives

[mark-t]

Touche... but the point remains.

Right from the very beginning I was talking about people who live in high density housing neighorhoods, and for which charging at home is completely impossible, not only logistically, but physically.... in some cases it would be less expensive for them to own their own detached home than to obtain charging because the number of people that are willing to front the costs for the necessary electrical infrastructure upgrades in the ear to support cars they don't own yet but might buy at some point in the future is too small to justify its installation.

Re:Policies and incentives

[zieroh]

Touche... but the point remains.

No, I don't think it does.

Right from the very beginning I was talking about people who live in high density housing neighorhoods, and for which charging at home is completely impossible, not only logistically, but physically.

I agree that's what you were talking about. And I can personally point to many examples of people who are in that exact situation who do still in fact own EVs.

in some cases it would be less expensive for them to own their own detached home than to obtain charging because the number of people that are willing to front the costs for the necessary electrical infrastructure upgrades in the ear to support cars they don't own yet but might buy at some point in the future is too small to justify its installation.

Agreed here as well. But yet there are still plenty of people in that situation that own EVs. People actually really like them enough to put up with the supposedly disqualifying inconvenience.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Dutch Gun]

If you're not doing it often, it's really not that cost-effective to buy a car only for those rare occasions. If you ARE doing it fairly often, then it probably is. And if you don't want to bother with renting a car, then stick with the large capacity ICE vehicle, or whatever, or go hybrid-electric, since those have much greater range.

I'm not some EV zealot who pooh-poohs any reasonable objections to their current practicality. But given that any traveling I do more than 120 miles at a time is on an airplane, I'm pretty sure an EV is right in my strike zone, and quite practical for me. For others, it might be workable only as a second car, and for still others, it's just not workable yet at all.

Re:Policies and incentives

[unimacs]

You're not quite right. The gas engine, which in most situations is just a generator, is 84 hp. The electric motor is 150.

Acceleration isn't just dependent on horsepower, it's also impacted by mass. And highway speeds, also heavily dependent on aerodynamics. The Volt is not a light car for its size, but Chevy spent a lot of time working on the aerodynamics. It's a slippery vehicle so it simply doesn't require as much horsepower to accelerate as a typical car or truck.

Our other vehicle is a 253 HP Acura MDX and I have no concerns about either car being able to pass at highway speeds. All I can say is that you should really drive a Volt or other EV before coming to any conclusions about its performance. It's not a sports car but it's fun to drive. Actually, it's a blast to drive.

Re:Policies and incentives

[unimacs]

Just to clarify something that confuses people about the Volt. The gas engine kicks in before the battery is ever truly exhausted and it's the job of the gas engine to generate enough electricity to power the electric motor. The Volt is always using the 150 HP electric motor to drive the wheels even when the gas engine is running.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Drethon]

Leaf is definitely an option. I prefer a little larger vehicle but at least it is bigger than a Smart car.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Drethon]

Well one thing I didn't toss in is I have a bi-weekly trip to meet my research adviser and that is close to a 200 mile round trip. Part of my issue with a break down and wanting a long range backup. Of course bi-weekly is compatible with a rental, though transferring the parking sticker is very painful. Though I suspect more EV options for this wont be too far into the future.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Oswald McWeany]

It's not about whether they 'would' work for people. It's about how many will accept having a car with these limitations for the price. We do road trips to remote areas and having no ICE or an unreliable ICE would prevent that.

So the solution could be. Buy an EV and with the money saved on fuel, rent an ICE on the rare occasions you need to take trips that are more than 200 miles from civilization and electricity.

Re:Policies and incentives

[unimacs]

Chevy Bolt has a 238 mile range. Teslas can do 200+ miles. You could always go with a Plug-In hybrid which will use a gas engine once the battery is depleted. Another thing that people don't realize is how many charging stations there are around. Plugshare.com is one site/app that will show you the charging stations along your route and around your destination. Some are free, others you pay a fee for.

For example, my son makes periodic visits to his girlfriend at her college which is a 160 mile round trip. They have a free EV charging station. He may or may not be there long enough to get a full charge but if you have an EV that's roughly capable of 150 or 200 miles you can probably grab dinner somewhere and add enough miles to get you home. Chevy claims the Bolt's fast charging rate is 90 miles in 30 minutes. Not all stations are capable of charging at that rate but more are being added. VW as part of their settlement for their diesel scam has agreed to pour 2 billion into building out the fast charging network in the US.

Worse case scenario is that your stuck charging from a typical 120 volt outlet. Available nearly everywhere but you may need a very leisurely meal to get enough juice to get where your going.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Drethon]

Chevy Bolt has a 238 mile range. Teslas can do 200+ miles. You could always go with a Plug-In hybrid which will use a gas engine once the battery is depleted. Another thing that people don't realize is how many charging stations there are around. Plugshare.com is one site/app that will show you the charging stations along your route and around your destination. Some are free, others you pay a fee for.

For example, my son makes periodic visits to his girlfriend at her college which is a 160 mile round trip. They have a free EV charging station. He may or may not be there long enough to get a full charge but if you have an EV that's roughly capable of 150 or 200 miles you can probably grab dinner somewhere and add enough miles to get you home. Chevy claims the Bolt's fast charging rate is 90 miles in 30 minutes. Not all stations are capable of charging at that rate but more are being added. VW as part of their settlement for their diesel scam has agreed to pour 2 billion into building out the fast charging network in the US.

Worse case scenario is that your stuck charging from a typical 120 volt outlet. Available nearly everywhere but you may need a very leisurely meal to get enough juice to get where your going.

I make the trip during work hours so I have to get back to work as soon as possible and stay for only 2 hours. No outlets of any kind in the normal parking lots I can use as a commuter but they do have charging stations in pay lots. I'd have to survey the pay lots a few times to make sure there are always openings though as I couldn't spend extra time trying to find a charging station elsewhere. Definitely a possibility, but requires more planning ahead than just stop at one of the many gas stations as needed on the way there or back.

Re:Policies and incentives

[fluffernutter]

150 hp still doesn't sound like much. How much jam does it have at highway speed for passing?

Re:Policies and incentives

[mark-t]

But yet there are still plenty of people in that situation that own EVs.

If they are genuinely happy about it, this surprises me... while I know there are plenty of people that own EV's that live in such situation, everything that I have ever read or heard about on the subject suggests that the people who have gone the EV route without a means of charging at home have quickly (within a month or two, at most) discovered the inability to charge overnight is a staggering inconvenience, and even gone so far as to regret the purchase. In practice, the only reason they might continue to drive it beyond that point is simply because of the financial considerations of having to get another car. It might work for some people, but it's not ideal... and they are not satisfied. That is my understanding of the normal EV experience by people who live in high-density areas with apartment or condo housing.

Re:Policies and incentives

[unimacs]

150 hp still doesn't sound like much. How much jam does it have at highway speed for passing?

Quoted from a wired review:

Once up to full speed, I did some “passing speed” behavior to see how the car would perform in traffic. When accelerating from 50 to 65 mph and 55 to 70 mph, the Volt performed like a conventional car but without the downshift and sudden surge you often experience. The Volt performs perfectly well on the highway and you’ll have no trouble overtaking slower cars with ease.

https://www.wired.com/2010/08/...

I'm in my 50's now and both the car I learned to drive on and the first car I owned had V8's. Both were heavier cars than the Volt and bricks by comparison to the Volt in terms of aerodynamics. Neither accelerated as well. The standard engine on 1973 Catalina (the car I learned to drive on) was a 2 barrel 350 ci V8 engine that generated... 150 hp. The car that the Volt is replacing was a 4 cyl that generated 125 hp and I never felt that it's acceleration was inadequate except for perhaps when we had 6 people crammed in it with a trunk full of crap.

My point is that the number of cylinders, the displacement, and the horsepower aren't the only factors that determine how well a car is going to perform. And of course, it's all subjective. If you're used to a 300+ HP engine in a sedan, then 150 HP in a Volt may not feel adequate to you even though it might be more than enough for 80% of drivers.

Re:Policies and incentives

[fluffernutter]

I understand weight versus horsepower. Surely you can understand the ambiguity of the "it performs like a conventional car" comparisons. Also being able to overtake a single car at ease doesn't mention how long the run-up had to be to be able to pass that car or what kind of distance was needed to pass in or if you could pass a row of cars. Although I suppose knowing my truck's curb weight is 4900 lbs and at current HP (which is 345 not what I mentioned before) I am comfortable with it, I could perform the calculations to determine how snappy this would be. Personally I wouldn't buy a common 4-cyl ICE with no turbo if it was to be used on the highway as frequently as mine.

Re:Policies and incentives

[unimacs]

Sounds like you have a bit of bias against 4 cylinder cars. ;-) If you buy a decent one and take reasonable care of it, it'll last a long time. Our last one was 16 years old and we'd still have it if it weren't for my wife. Trucks can last for decades but that doesn't mean everyone wants to keep one that long.

Anyway, unless you account for the difference between the aerodynamics of your truck vs a Volt (which would be substantial), your calculations aren't going to mean a lot. Acceleration in a Volt from 45-65 is 4.2 seconds if that gives you some idea. But I suggest that if you're really curious you could always take one for a test drive. Or if acceleration at passing speeds is really that important to you, a Tesla may be a better option.

Re:Policies and incentives

[dyslexicbunny]

What my son and a lot of people will do in hot weather is turn the A/C to max, - he'll set it to 60 or whatever. It drives me nuts because it shortens the range and is totally unnecessary.

Totally bonkers to me too. It might be nice is you're super hot at the moment - say you've been working outside and are really hot (even then, hopefully you can cool off a bit before getting in your car). But that elevated temperature doesn't last and eventually you'll get freezing cold.

Re:Policies and incentives

[unimacs]

Well, with a Bolt or Tesla you have the 200 miles you need plus some extra and with a plug-in hybrid like a Volt it's a non issue. So if you're genuinely interested it's a solvable problem. Your situation isn't that common and I'm guessing probably temporary?

Anyway, EVs aren't for everybody but the range is less of an issue than a lot of people realize. I imagine those biweekly 200 mile trips of yours result in a healthy fuel bill. Even if you went the plug-in hybrid route you could go the first 50 miles or so on electricity which for me anyway is dirt cheap. I realize that's not the case for everyone. And with a car like the Volt, once the gas engine kicks in you're still getting 40+ mpg. You'd use less than 4 gallons of gas for the whole trip.

Re:Policies and incentives

[fluffernutter]

Yes because low end acceleration relies much more on torque. High end acceleration is horsepower. Size may also a concern with a Leaf, since we shop in bulk, it needs to hold a four or five boxes of groceries. A tesla? I'd never spend that much on a vehicle.

Re:Policies and incentives

[zieroh]

If they are genuinely happy about it, this surprises me.

I can't speak to their happiness. I have no idea. But that wasn't really the question. I suspect that for many, the ability to charge at work is equivalent enough (given a sufficient supply of chargers). Is it ideal? Probably not. Do lots of people do it anyway, and continue to function for many years that way? Yes. Absolutely.

Re:Policies and incentives

[mark-t]

Actually, their satisfaction (or lack thereof) with owning an EV *was* my entire point. If they aren't happy about it, then there is some pretty significant dissatisfaction there, even if it is not yet entirely enough to want to get rid of the electric vehicle entirely. (As I said, perhaps because of the financial implications or logistics of going to the trouble to get a different car to replace it), but more often than not enough that they may have wished they hadn't bought one in the first place.

Re:Policies and incentives

[Drethon]

Well, with a Bolt or Tesla you have the 200 miles you need plus some extra and with a plug-in hybrid like a Volt it's a non issue. So if you're genuinely interested it's a solvable problem. Your situation isn't that common and I'm guessing probably temporary?

Anyway, EVs aren't for everybody but the range is less of an issue than a lot of people realize. I imagine those biweekly 200 mile trips of yours result in a healthy fuel bill. Even if you went the plug-in hybrid route you could go the first 50 miles or so on electricity which for me anyway is dirt cheap. I realize that's not the case for everyone. And with a car like the Volt, once the gas engine kicks in you're still getting 40+ mpg. You'd use less than 4 gallons of gas for the whole trip.

Temporary as in continuing for the next two or three years. The time to replace my older car is coming about the same time so I'll probably stick with my ICE cars for now, but the car buying time could come quicker than planned.

Colons in headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, msmash, that's not how you do it. The person speaking goes before the colon, and the thing he says comes after.

breaking that less than 1% barrier

[Anonymous Coward]

dark ages not over yet... poisoning us is still ok.. 100s of years of jet fuel still buried below.... just don't call it media etc... manipulation..

Re:breaking that less than 1% barrier

[pgmrdlm]

the ewaste factor alone should make people think twice about this. Also the fact that these vehicles are heavier then others, and cause more wear and tear on the highways. Causing more construction, more raping of our land for raw materials. Yes, you may be saving energy in the short term. But are you really saving all that much after mining for the exotic raw materials to build these cars, ewaste, highway repair due to heavier vehicles, heavier load on our electrical infrastructure which requires higher generation of electricity(see fossil fuel still being used). I'm sorry, but I have YET to see an electric vehicle that still does not harm the environment in all the same ways as our fossil fuel vehicles. Plus they are not affordable for our lower income. But hey, people like YOU would want people like ME to subsides this shit. Nobody wants to think about that

Re:breaking that less than 1% barrier

[drinkypoo]

Yes, you may be saving energy in the short term. But are you really saving all that much after mining for the exotic raw materials to build these cars, ewaste, highway repair due to heavier vehicles, heavier load on our electrical infrastructure which requires higher generation of electricity(see fossil fuel still being used).

here is one source, I have stuff to do this morning or I could find some more

Re:breaking that less than 1% barrier

[angel'o'sphere]

What 'mining of exotix raw materials' are you talking about?

EVs are made in the real world, not in a SF world where you need Tritanium, Navquada or Dilithium crystals.

Re:breaking that less than 1% barrier

[Anonymous Coward]

If Chinese people can afford them I'm sure the average westerner could too.
Are you poorer than a Chinaman?

Re:breaking that less than 1% barrier

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Also the fact that these vehicles are heavier then others, and cause more wear and tear on the highways.

What, cars? The Model 3 is apparently considered to be a standard weight vehicle in the US.

Re:breaking that less than 1% barrier

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell you what: go look at the list of top-selling cars for 2018 and then look up their weight and compare it against the weights of various electric vehicles.

I'll get you started: The Ford F-series pickup is the most popular pick in the US so far in 2018. It weighs in at 4,069 to 5,265 pounds. #2 is the Chevy Silverado; it runs 4,515 to 5,461 lbs.

The Chevy Bolt comes in at 3,563 lbs.

So who is responsible for all that wear and tear?

Re:breaking that less than 1% barrier

[Anonymous Coward]

the fact that these vehicles are heavier then others, and cause more wear and tear on the highways.

Not really. My Volt weighs less than my old truck, and both are about 20x less than a semi. Big trucks with high pressure tires are where 99% of the damage comes from. Adjust the road taxes and tolls to reflect the 4th power of weight, (which the DOT knew about a long time ago), and you'll soon grind the economy to a halt.

Causing more construction, more raping of our land for raw materials.

Ok, I guess now we know what you're really on about. Are you one of them "everything I don't approve of is rape" nut jobs?

I'm sorry, but I have YET to see an electric vehicle that still does not harm the environment in all the same ways as our fossil fuel vehicles.

It really isn't hard to fail to find something when you clearly aren't looking very hard for it. If you want to ride in a vehicle that has no harmful impact on the environment in any way, well I got your unicorn right over here. Until then, you can choose better or not, or nothing at all. Nobody is forcing you to use any vehicle at all. You do it because you choose to, yet you don't want to accept that you too are raping or whatever to get what you want. It's just all those other people that are bad, not you, right?

Plus they are not affordable for our lower income. But hey, people like YOU would want people like ME to subsides this shit.
Nobody wants to think about that

Says who? I bought a used Volt for about the same as a used Camry or similar. Used, so no tax break for me. Why somebody buying a $80k Tesla needs a tax break is a hard argument to win. I think it's pretty foolish to give money to people that already have enough, but that's not really a big deal in the big picture. If that really bothers you so much, I suggest you don't look too closely into the reserve banking system. The world is out to get you, it really is, and it's far better at attacking you then you will ever be defending yourself from it.

Re:breaking that less than 1% barrier

[zieroh]

the ewaste factor alone should make people think twice about this. Also the fact that these vehicles are heavier then others, and cause more wear and tear on the highways. Causing more construction, more raping of our land for raw materials.

How do they compare (weight-wise) to the SUVs that are so popular on the roads today?

I'm sorry, but I have YET to see an electric vehicle that still does not harm the environment in all the same ways as our fossil fuel vehicles.

I suspect you're just anti, and any evidence we presented to negate your concern trolling would be largely disregarded. So I won't try. Your sig tells me you're not interested in actual discussion.

Plus they are not affordable for our lower income.

Neither were the first automobiles. It took years of development (plus the invention of the assembly line) to make them affordable for the masses. It's still early days for EVs -- battery technology is improving and cost is dropping. If we gave up on every new technology because of initial cost, we'd still be living in caves.

Re: breaking that less than 1% barrier

[Anonymous Coward]

Most EVs are lighter than ICE. No engine block. No gearbox. Batteries are big, but they are not made of steel. An EV is not a Tesla, the Tesla is the heavy end.

Re:breaking that less than 1% barrier

[Kielistic]

A compact weighting nearly as much as a pickup truck isn't exactly a good argument against electric cars weighing a lot.

Re:breaking that less than 1% barrier

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally no one said that electric cars didn't weigh a lot. But if someone's going to whine about road wear from heavy vehicles it's probably best to point the finger at the two most popular vehicles on the road, instead of concern trolling about those bad ol' EVs.

FWIW I'm in favor of incorporating vehicle weight and miles driven into annual registration fees.

Re: breaking that less than 1% barrier

[Anonymous Coward]

The commercial trucks.

Road damage is proportional to between the 4th and 5th power of axle load, depending on road subsurface properties.

Re:breaking that less than 1% barrier

[haruchai]

"cause more wear and tear on the highways"
Buses and commercial trucks do thousands of times more damage than all the passenger vehicles and any extra "wear & tear" by EVs is tiny given the proliferation of SUVs and pickup trucks.

"they are not affordable for our lower income"
so don't buy what you can't afford

"want people like ME to subsides this shit"
I'm quite certain that plenty of stuff you care about but many others don't have been subsidized forever.

Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

A vehicle where the fuel is nearly free, goes the same distance, and has 5x the horsepower along with a nearly immortal lifetime due to nearly no moving parts.

What boggles my mind is that this is only happening because of elon musk, they spent decades and millions of dollars holding back electric vehicles for stupid reasons. This revolution should have happened a long time ago.

Re:Who would have thought

[AmiMoJo]

To be fair Nissan was pushing affordable EVs 8 years ago, and Tesla still hasn't got theirs out. And the Chinese are pushing it really hard too, with 90% of new busses already being EVs with batteries several times the size of the biggest ones that Tesla sells.

Re:Who would have thought

[Oswald McWeany]

A vehicle where the fuel is nearly free, goes the same distance, and has 5x the horsepower along with a nearly immortal lifetime due to nearly no moving parts.

What boggles my mind is that this is only happening because of elon musk, they spent decades and millions of dollars holding back electric vehicles for stupid reasons. This revolution should have happened a long time ago.

To be fair, batteries have improved tremendously over the last few decades partly fueled by needs from other industries. 20 years ago the battery technology wasn't anywhere near enough to have an EV revolution. Some people tried, like Sinclair, but the EVs weren't for the most part proper car equivalents because they were too heavy.

Re:Who would have thought

[110010001000]

Fuel is nearly free. Immortal lifetime. So delusional.

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk? Seriously? I find it ironic that he's given so much credit when there are so many others who moved this along, just like the namesake of his auto company.

Re:Who would have thought

[Smidge204]

EV Batteries cost just around $200/kWh right now, so a 30kWh pack costs about $6000. $6000 will buy you approximately 2000 gallons of gasoline (local fuel prices are just a hair under $3/gal right now, plus it makes the math easier). The average fuel economy for vehicles in the US is about 25 mpg. That works out to 50,000 miles of driving.

Meanwhile the same 50,000 miles of driving, at an average of 3.5 mi/kWh and $0.18 per kWh (again, local costs) works out to about $2,650.

So, with no other considerations at all, you're saving about $3,350 per 50K miles.
=Smidge=

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not what utopia idealism wants but what the market decides. Right now its trucks and SUVs.

Re:Who would have thought

[tlhIngan]

A vehicle where the fuel is nearly free, goes the same distance, and has 5x the horsepower along with a nearly immortal lifetime due to nearly no moving parts.

What boggles my mind is that this is only happening because of elon musk, they spent decades and millions of dollars holding back electric vehicles for stupid reasons. This revolution should have happened a long time ago.

Huh? Electriv vehicles were around over 100 years ago. In fact, they were the preferred source of powering a vehicle back then - gas was bad and smoky and sooty and nasty, while steam was, well, steam and had their own issues. Electricity was clean, didn't emit anything, and quiet and thus favored as the energy source.

And this was when batteries were piss-poor.

In fact, Ferdinand Porsche (yes, that Porsche) created the first gas-electric hybrid vehicle with a tiny gas engine charging batteries that drove hub motors way back in the day.

The only reason the entire industry went to ICE was a sudden availability of cheap and plentiful gas that basically rendered all other sources noncompetitive.

Elon Musk simply reintroduced the technology and showed it could be a practical competitor when you upgrade everything to modern day materials and technology.

Re:Who would have thought

[AaronD12]

Do tell. I've been driving electric for 5 years. The "fuel" is very inexpensive compared to gas. I have yet to go to a mechanic or dealership to have maintenance done. Your turn.

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, no, you forgot to carry the one:

1 EV "tank" = $6k
50k miles of gas = $6k
50k miles of EV "fuel" = $2,650

so after 50k miles you are still down $2,650, the break even point would be ~75k miles.

Re:Who would have thought

[Smidge204]

I never said anything about a break-even point, just that you're pending about $3,350 less per 50K miles driven.

=Smidge=

Re:Who would have thought

[thegarbz]

What boggles my mind is that this is only happening because of elon musk

No, it's only happening in the USA because of Elon Musk. EVs in Europe have been quite popular and Tesla is a small player there. EVs in China dwarf the pittance that the USA is putting out, and one of it's biggest companies BYD actually bought a vehicle platform a year before Tesla was founded.

I'm happy that Elon gave American car manufacturers a kick in the balls. He has done some amazing work for the world, but please don't pretend that this wouldn't have happened without him.

Re:Who would have thought

[Solandri]

It's not happening because of Tesla. Tesla is actually the beneficiary, not the driver. It's happening because CARB (California Air Resources Board - they mandate emissions standards in California) has implemented a zero emissions vehicle mandate The math is a bit complex, but basically every car manufacturer needs to sell a certain percentage of zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs) each year. In theory that's electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but right now there's only one hydrogen fuel cell vehicle on the market (Toyota Mirai), so for all practical purposes it's EVs. The percentage increases each year. For 2018 it's about 2.5% (the math is a bit wonky and includes a subsection for plug-in hybrids, so it's not exact). By 2025 it's supposed to 22%.

If a manufacturer fails to sell enough EVs, they can buy ZEV credits from another company which exceeded their required percentage. That's the market Tesla is exploiting. Musk foresaw that this mandate would create a demand for ZEV credits, so he set up a company which would always have an excess number of credits to sell. In other words, every Tesla they sell makes money from the buyer, and from other car manufacturers who send some of their ICE vehicle revenue to Tesla as payment for ZEV credits. In effect, ICE vehicle sales are subsidizing Tesla.

If a manufacturer fails to sell enough ZEVs and fails to acquire enough ZEV credits, they are banned from selling vehicles in California. On top of that, about a dozen states automatically adopt CARB's regulations. So the manufacturer would be banned from selling cars in those states too - roughly a third of the U.S. by population. No manufacturer wants to be cut off from a third of the U.S., so they're tripping over themselves to rush EVs to market. And if the EVs aren't selling well enough, they'll slash the prices and throw in all sorts of incentives to move them off the dealer's lots. I almost bit on a VW e-Golf lease in 2015 - no money down, $79/mo for 3 years ($2844 in total payments, excluding tax). The only reason I didn't get it was the cost to insure it basically doubled the price. There was a similar deal in Northern California for $49/mo, but I couldn't figure out how to get it down to SoCal from there with only a 85 mile range. (Since CARB only counts ZEVs sold in California, that's why these great deals are only available in California.)

In other words, the number of EVs on the road isn't being driven by Tesla or by true market demand. It's being driven by CARB setting a percentage, and car manufacturers cutting EV prices until they meet that percentage. I suspect this is part of the reason Tesla is having financial problems. I haven't seen a repeat of the awesome EV deals from the end of 2015, suggesting the automakers are managing to meet their ZEV quota. That means less demand for Tesla's ZEV credits, which means less money for Tesla per car sold. I suspect this is also part of why production of the Tesla 3 has been slow to ramp up - they want to push production into future years, when demand for ZEV credits is hopefully higher. If they produce a Tesla 3 this year, its ZEV credit is only good for this year. And if other manufacturers are meeting their ZEV quota, then all that extra Tesla 3 ZEV credit does is decrease the value of other Tesla 3 ZEV credits.

I suspect Musk is trying to hold for the yearly ZEV mandate increases. 22% ZEVs by 2025 is a very lofty goal. One that I have a hard time believing regular automakers will be able to attain. In which case demand for Tesla's ZEV credits is going to be hot, and probably enough to save Tesla from bankruptcy. If they can hold on long enough.

The wild card is that there might be a repeat of what happened in 2000. See, this isn't the first time CARB tried a ZEV mandate. They tried one in 2000. During the 1990s, automakers were put on notice that they would have to begin selling

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

So I got my Leaf a year ago... got $10k from my utility company, and $7,500 from the federal government.

So the ~$30k car cost me about $15k out the door... comparable car size to the nissan versa hatch, that starts around $17k.

The battery might have added $6,000 to the cost, but the incentives ($10k from electric company) made all that and then some go away before I left the building, and a few months later I got $7,500 back on my tax returns from the feds. Blue book value suggests the leaf appreciated in value when I drove it off the lot.

We've got about 14K miles on the leaf over the last year, and I figure we've saved about $1,235 in fuel already... (I use $2.50 a gallon for gas (long term average near me, more expensive right now, but it is cheaper sometimes too...) and $0.12 a kw/h for electricity (local prices, though we've not paid for all the electricity we've put in the car... DCFC stations, and more than a few level II stations that we get to use free))

Re:Who would have thought

[DerekLyons]

So, with no other considerations at all, you're saving about $3,350 per 50K miles.

The problem is, we don't live in a world with "no other considerations". We live in a world where initial costs matter a great deal to the masses - Musk didn't introduce the Tesla as a high end hipster car by accident. (His "to the get the money to develop the tech" is only half the picture. The half he wants you to pay attention to.)

Yep, dominated by China

[LynnwoodRooster]

And 99% of those Chinese EVs have a range less than 50 km. Now, let's look at the ~1.3 BILLION ICE vehicles on the road. Electric is 0%, rounded to the nearest 0.5%...

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they have a range less than 50km?

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[AmiMoJo]

Most of the Chinese EVs have massive batteries.

The government aims for all busses to be EVs within a few years, and in some places they already are. Battery sizes vary but the largest I've seen is 450kWh.

There are a lot of electric taxis too. Not sure what size battery exactly, but the BYD ones I've used must have been at least 70kWh, probably more based on the rate that the charge percentage went down. Most had 100,000km or more on them too.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[drinkypoo]

And 99% of those Chinese EVs have a range less than 50 km.

It's fair criticism, but it ignores one fact: EV manufacturers can simply buy someone else's battery to resolve that problem. Making the battery pack is hard, but they don't have to do it. Musk is better at building batteries than cars — per Munro & Associates, the battery is arguably (provably?) the most advanced in the EV industry, both in composition and in manufacturing techniques. If the Chinese figure out how to design and sell the rest of the car, they can simply buy the pack, and maybe even from Tesla.

Automakers are using one another's powertrain components with increasing frequency, and it arguably matters a whole lot less in EVs where these parts come from because people don't have any kind of personal, emotional attachment with electric motors. They're involved in a driving experience, and how they get there doesn't matter. They've never spent hours slaving over one of these engines, and good riddance. As nifty as all of this ICE stuff can be to nerd out over, it's also inefficient and unreliable and we'll be better off beyond it.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[crimson tsunami]

You are full of shit LynwoodLiar. Average range of electric vehicles in China is 103 miles Or 3 times your bullshit number.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a fair criticism, just another Lynnwood Lie.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[LynnwoodRooster]

The best selling Chinese EV is the BAIC EC 180 (it's also the best selling EV in the world). It has a real-world 60-80 km range (most range tests do NOT use the heater or AC, neither of which is realistic for 90% of China - if you've ever lived there, you would know). And it's the best selling because the 158,000 RMB vehicle is only 58,000 RMB after Government subsidies. Top speed is 100 kph, it is about the size of a Chevy Spark, and it has a small range with a 7 hour recharge time. Seriously.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[angel'o'sphere]

To have an EV with so low range, the manufacturer would need to deliberately cripple it.
Why would he do that?

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[LynnwoodRooster]

The best selling EV in China (and the world) is the BAIC EC 180. You see quite a few of them here, on the streets of Shanghai and Guangzhou and elsewhere. It's about the size of a Chevy Spark/Smart Car. Not a lot of room to put more batteries inside. And since you get 63% of the cost rebated by the Chinese Government, it sells like hotcakes (it's about $9000 / RMB58,000 after rebates).

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[LynnwoodRooster]

BAIC EC 180 is not just the best selling EV in China, it is in the world. And it has an NEDC range rating of 160 km. Of course, that's without AC or heat running. Try that for 10 months out of the year in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, or Shenzhen. Real world? Expect 50 to 80 km before recharge time. And that's for a vehicle about the size of a Chevy Spark, with a top speed of 100 kph. This is from experience, having actually driven them (yes, I have a Chinese driver's license, earned whilst living there in the 2008 to 2012 timeframe) and used one regularly over the last year (factory car).

Re: Yep, dominated by China

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should the peons be allowed to travel?

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[AmiMoJo]

Interesting. I didn't see a single one as far as I recall, but they do seem to be selling well. Maybe just not in the areas where I've been.

I can see why the government subsidises it. There are a lot of old, dirty ICE vehicles that are even slower, not very safe and probably can't reliably do 60km on a regular basis. At 58k RMB this is a nice, affordable replacement.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[crimson tsunami]

So the most popular, in the worst conditions is still better than you 'claimed' earlier...

Why should we believe you now?
How fast are you expecting to drive in Chinese traffic? You'd probably be dead in less than 10 months, trying to drive a little electric car at 100kph in any of those cities traffic. Speed llimits are in the 100-120 range anyway so it's not much of a problem. If you're going to another city just take a train.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't Lynnwood just likes to lie.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[crimson tsunami]

They don't. Average range of electric vehicles in China is 103 miles Or 3 times his trolling number.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[b0bby]

It looks like that number is the average range of EVs sold in Q3 2017, not the fleet overall. It would make sense that the fleet numbers would be well below that.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[LynnwoodRooster]

Turn on the AC or heat in a Tesla and see what it does to the range. Cuts it by a solid 40-50%. Now tell me how often you can sit in traffic in China without AC or heat...

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Barsteward]

ROFL.... thats the best i can do at that post. Want to post a link to how many ICE vehicles were on the road when they first came out?

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Barsteward]

Funny that, i see reports that it is a city car and has a 150+km range now. It has a Level 2 charging rate so 7 hours is fine as you'll be doing it overnight. So range and charging for this type of car is fine.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Barsteward]

"Turn on the AC or heat in a Tesla and see what it does to the range. Cuts it by a solid 40-50%." thats complete bollox when you read comments from actual tesla drivers. Its minimal on long journeys and a bit more on short ones

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, no - he has to hate facts, because otherwise he'd have no reason to hate at all!

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Tesla S here. In the summer with AC it's almost nothing. In the winter it does reduce range, but not by much and it looks worse before the batteries warm up.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[LynnwoodRooster]

Funny, I got that from the Tesla forums. Lots of people reporting such drops, and others saying "don't worry about it". Which is it?

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Anonymous Coward]

most advanced [3][4][7]

[3] my ass
[4] Rei's ass
[7] Elon Musk's ass

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[b0bby]

My Leaf in winter (say -5c) loses about 15% range due to running the heat. I find it hard to believe that a Tesla is worse. It can sit for quite a long time running the heat without a big impact on the range - in fact this past winter it was my preferred car to run the kids to the bus stop when it got really cold. No hard starting, and because the heat is all electric it gets warm much fast than an ICE. I would sit for up to 30 minutes sometimes if the bus was late, not anything like driving for 30 minutes in terms of battery used.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Anonymous Coward]

The average electric vehicle in China is an electric scooter.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Anonymous Coward]

It has a 20 kwh battery, which translates to around 100km autonomy at 100km/h with AC cooling, or around 120 km without AC. The range increases of course greatly the slower you go.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Anonymous Coward]

wow! the troll is strong with this one. Anyone with more than half a clue about electrics (obviously not you, unless you are simply lying) knows that what you are saying is bullshit. Now, if you could actually post a link to an actual source of information to support your bullshit you would at least have the joy of getting someone to bother debunking it. As it is, all you are engaging in is trollish "nuh-uh"

LynnwoodLiar sat on a briar
Hoping for a response
It pained her derrière
To get it there
Trying to act with nonchalance

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Anonymous Coward]

No they count as bicycles, you have to screw in the pedals when you register them and then take them off again afterwards. You don't need a licence either, and it shows.

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[CaffeinatedBacon]

Standard Lynnwod Liar. Start of with some complete bullshit and hope no one notices. When they do start slowly walking it back step by step. Now net time you will know which lie to lead off with.

What, that's funny? You're not a lying ass? I got it from the forums, honest mistake...

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[Anonymous Coward]

Which number do you think is closer to the truth...

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[LynnwoodRooster]

Having lived and worked in China for most of the last 10 years (including 6 years full-time living in Shanghai), it's the 50-80 km range that's real. That's been the experience I've seen whilst riding in, and talking with friends who own such electric vehicles. A big reason for this is the fact that you cannot install high-power chargers in 99% of all apartment complexes, so you're limited to an extension cord from the 220VAC run, which means maybe 2 kW/hr recharge rates. So a battery bigger than 15-20 kWh simply cannot recharge over night. You're limited to small batteries, and you get the corresponding small range (especially when the AC is cranked, which is pretty required for 5-6 months of the year when it's 40+ deg C and 90% humidity out).

Re:Yep, dominated by China

[drinkypoo]

The best selling EV in China (and the world) is the BAIC EC 180. [...] Not a lot of room to put more batteries inside.

Not a lot of need to put more batteries inside that car, either. Once they understand how to build a decent car, they can design a new one around a bigger pack.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hydrogen still makes more sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Use concentrated solar (mirrors are cheaper than panels) to heat up water and seperate the hydrogen. Over 50% efficiency, much better than panels. Great storage. Good energy density. Ship anywhere. Burns clean. Can be electric via fuel cell.

Idk wtf they are thinking with batteries. The japanese (honda and toyota) are betting on hydrogen b/c they aren't braindead like HYPErloop MUSKy scent of a con.

Re:Hydrogen still makes more sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Rockets? I see a person who doesn’t understand fuel cells.

Re:Hydrogen still makes more sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Toyota Mirai

Hyundai ix35

Honda Clarity

You're welcome.

Still a very small segment

[magzteel]

Interesting article here with USA vehicle statistics: https://www.nanalyze.com/2017/...

Right now EV's are 0.22% of all cars on the road in the US. I couldn't find a chart that included hybrids.

Re:Still a very small segment

[Barsteward]

There are hybrids listed below in the chart EV Sales by Brand so its looks like the used EV to cover full EV and hybrids

Re: Still a very small segment

[Guy Smiley]

But anyone with some math skills will tell you that with a 50% annual growth rate it doesn't matter much what the current percentage is, it can become a significant fraction of the total within a few years. Lack of infrastructure doesn't need to be solved overnight either. It took years for gas stations to appear when ICE cars first appeared. If there is a demand, chargers will appear at restaurants, stores, parking lots, etc. either to attract customers or for profit. It wouldn't be unreasonable to locate chargers on lamp posts for metered street parking and pay for it in the same way as the meter (coins, credit card or phone app).

Re: Still a very small segment

[Anonymous Coward]

>This penny stock I just bought doubled from 20 cents/share to 40 cents/share in one day! I'll be a quadrillionaire by christmas!

Re: Still a very small segment

[magzteel]

But anyone with some math skills will tell you that with a 50% annual growth rate it doesn't matter much what the current percentage is, it can become a significant fraction of the total within a few years.

Lack of infrastructure doesn't need to be solved overnight either. It took years for gas stations to appear when ICE cars first appeared. If there is a demand, chargers will appear at restaurants, stores, parking lots, etc. either to attract customers or for profit. It wouldn't be unreasonable to locate chargers on lamp posts for metered street parking and pay for it in the same way as the meter (coins, credit card or phone app).

Simple math can be too simplistic. Here's the Global EV outlook report from the International Energy Agency
https://www.iea.org/publicatio...

Their projection is by 2060 EV's could account for 60% of PLDV in circulation. That seems possible, a lot can change in 42 years. We might even see something better than EV in that time.

As for the infra issues, sure it took years for gas stations to be everywhere. But EV's are competing with the current state of that infrastructure, not the infrastructure of the year 1910. I think existing gas stations would add charger stations if the charging time drops to 5 minutes.

the solar panel covered buggy?

[Anonymous Coward]

runs on electric or water? that's too much progress? mr.. musk probably has one?

They are going to take off soon

[b0bby]

It seems like in the next 2-5 years many major manufacturers are going to be launching fairly reasonably price EVs with decent range. The fast charging networks are expanding right now. As long as the battery prices continue to decline as they have been, I can't see that it would make sense for anyone with access to overnight charging to buy an ICE vehicle after the early 2020s. I hope Ford is using their SUV profits to do the R & D for a competitive EV over the next few years.

Re:They are going to take off soon

[Anonymous Coward]

As a weekend warrior who ventures into the backcountry regularly, I am waiting for a EV with 500 miles range, in Canadian winter conditions. Until then, I will be sticking with ICE.

Re:They are going to take off soon

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like in the next 2-5 years many major manufacturers are going to be launching fairly reasonably price EVs with decent range. The fast charging networks are expanding right now. As long as the battery prices continue to decline as they have been, I can't see that it would make sense for anyone with access to overnight charging to buy an ICE vehicle after the early 2020s. I hope Ford is using their SUV profits to do the R & D for a competitive EV over the next few years.

That's what I'm waiting for and am simply keeping my 12-year-old car running in the meantime until more completing models arrive. I don't even like the design of Tesla's much anyway, give me a decent electric or plug-in hybrid with a proper interior and dashboard and you'll have my attention. Right now just waiting for more options from the Japanese and other makers.

Re:They are going to take off soon

[b0bby]

Even then, there should be a lot more PHEVs coming out too; most short trips could be all-electric, fall back on the gas for longer trips. Personally, I think a 300 mile range EV would do everything I need, but I know that might not be enough for everyone. Having driven a Leaf for a while now, I hope I can avoid ever having to go that route; when my current ICE dies I would like a longer range EV so I never have to deal with an ICE again except on a motorcycle.

Re:They are going to take off soon

[zieroh]

As a weekend warrior who ventures into the backcountry regularly, I am waiting for a EV with 500 miles range, in Canadian winter conditions. Until then, I will be sticking with ICE.

As well you should. Still, I fail to see how your use case is anything more than tangentially related to the discussion. Clearly, EVs are not suitable for you. But you're also clearly an outlier.

Re:They are going to take off soon

[Anonymous Coward]

No its pretty much anybody in the Midwest and Northeast USA and Canada. Lets see an electric vehicle drive through 2 feet of snow and icy roads in 20 below wind chills.

Re:They are going to take off soon

[b0bby]

To be fair, most vehicles can't handle 2 feet of unplowed snow. EVs actually have very responsive traction control, so overall they should be better in snow and slippery conditions. The loss of range in low temperatures is real, but the fact that so many drivers in Norway are using them means that it's a pretty well understood situation. The problem really comes back to the cost of batteries to give you a good amount of range even in the cold, how far you regularly travel, and the availability of charging on the routes you use.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I don't really know if there is any science on this. If you have some more knowledge please correct me.

The way I see it, we have a pretty serious energy density problem with our current battery tech. (L-Ion tech was invented in the 70's)
The current EV sales climate seems to be focused on changing driver/consumer behavior, and adapting infrastructure around current battery technology.

My proposition is this.
I think we jumped the gun on EVs. I don't think we have the service life, or energy density we need in energy storage technology right now.
So on one hand, the early adopters are funding the advancement of the tech, and I'm fine with that. That's how it should be.
I'm just a little worried about all of the infrastructure decisions being made when i think it's quite clear that we are going to need the next big jump in battery tech before EVs are able to complete with ICEs on any metrics of sustainability.
What it looks like right now is the wealthy are essentially "leasing" green tech for bragging rights, being subsidized by taxpayers (charging stations), and letting the common folk deal with the cleanup after they are done with them.
And those things are NOT easy to get rid of safely.

The question is:

Where is the rest of /. on this?
Will the market resolve the winners and losers of this race on it's own or have we propped up one side of this beyond the market's control?
Is there even room for another player in the game with all of the "enthusiasm" behind tesla?

Re:Thoughts?

[cnaumann]

It is unlikely that there will be a jump in battery storage density in the near future. What we hope to see is a continued reduction in cost.

How much battery do you really need? Is 200 miles per charge not enough? You can charge at home, daily. This would meet well over 90% of my driving needs.

Long trips are going to be an issue. Even charging rates of 200 miles per hour are going to add significant time to a long trips (1 hour of charging per 3 hours of driving). It is unlikely these rates will improve much. This is not a show-stopper, and there are ways around it, the easiest and cheapest would be to use a conventional ICE car for long trips.

What cleanup are you talking about?

Re:Thoughts?

[unimacs]

I don't know if we're going to see a major breakthrough in battery technology in the near future, but it looks to me that things are improving enough with the current technology both in terms of capacity and cost that EVs will become practical, -especially when more economies of scale kick in.

I'm not sure what metric of sustainability EVs don't compete on currently but realize that coal fired power generation is on the way out and it has been for awhile. Even non-renewable sources like natural gas are much cleaner than coal or continuing to use petroleum for transportation needs.

By picking a winner, are you talking about EVs in general or Tesla? I think Tesla has done some remarkable things and has accomplished a major feat by producing EVs that are desirable for their performance and luxury rather just for being green. They've demonstrated that EVs can provide a superior experience. It will probably be a more traditional auto maker than ends up bringing EV to the masses. If you're not somebody that insists on a brand new car, EVs are a bargain on the used market. Granted, it's because their long term operating costs are still an unknown, but I'm pretty optimistic that pure EVs will ultimately be low maintenance vehicles. Especially once someone figures out how to market replacement batteries that are reasonably affordable, - and someone will.

Any serious hope to reduce greenhouse gases includes electrification of transportation, - so in that sense I think EVs are the winner in the long run. What infrastructure decisions are you worried about? Charging stations?

Re:Thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

It just seems like the same trap over again to me is all.
What we have done is found a rich source of energy (storage in this case) in the ground and started exploiting it on scale with the presumption that the rest of the problems will "work themselves out"

I just disagree that the problem was "what" we were digging out of the ground in the first place.
I do think it's doing good things, don't get me wrong here.
I'm more worried about a world where we built our infrastructure to run on beta-max and there's no room for the DVD to actually take off without some serious re-investment.
Then we're just back where we are now but with different looking cars.

It's a bit like trying to fix the healthcare system by reforming the insurance industry - it just doesn't reach the actual issue.
We have a need for transportation, some would argue that in America, there's a need for personal transportation due to infrastructure decisions that were made around ICEs.
And I refuse to believe that more consumption (IE buying an EV for "around-town" and keeping your ICE for long trips) even begins to scratch the surface of the real problem here.
Right now EVs are a merit badge, not a solution.

Re:Thoughts?

[Barsteward]

"And those things are NOT easy to get rid of safely." if you are talking about batteries then you'll find they are being recycled as they are about 96% recyclable. Nissan/Renault are recycling them into home storage batteries.

Re:Thoughts?

[atrex]

The government pays out a lot of subsidies, not just those for renewable energy infrastructure. Fossil fuels are subsidized, nuclear energy programs are subsidized, farms are subsidized, and on and on. I don't think that what is spent on renewables and renewable infrastructure is significantly disproportionate from other expenditures made both past and present.

There is new battery tech being developed, mostly in response to the demand and adoption of EVs that wouldn't happen if we didn't have them. Without supporting infrastructure people wouldn't be buying EVs. Unless you want the government to fund nearly 100% of the R&D for 25+ years in isolation, this is how stuff gets out - incrementally. Infrastructure isn't once and done, it can be and does get upgraded as need requires.

Tesla isn't the only player in the EV market, they're just the most recognized. "Traditional" car companies are working on and testing their own EVs, in fact the Nissan Leaf has been on sale for years. Take a look at chargehub.com 's map of chargers: you'll actually find just as many, if not far more, level 3 EV charge stations than Tesla Superchargers. At least in areas where there is a demand for them.

Re:Thoughts?

[thegarbz]

Yep I got thoughts:

L-Ion tech was invented in the 70's

The 70s era tech has nothing in common with the current Lithium Ion batteries, arguably not even the name if you actually call them by their correct chemistry, and sure as hell not the energy density. So that part of your post is completely irrelevant. Heck Tesla is a manufacturer of several different Lithium Ion chemistries for different purposes.

I'm just a little worried about all of the infrastructure decisions being made

Like what infrastructure decisions? I can see precisely zero infrastructure based decisions to date that have any impact on the choice of battery chemistry now or going forward. Superchargers don't care what you're hooking up to them, and manufactures can't magically produce technology that doesn't exist yet, not that their factories qualify as infrastructure. Even the cars themselves have replaceable battery packs, the Tesla one is even capable of being hot swapped (again zero infrastructure for this exists).

any metrics of sustainability.

They compete comfortably now in plenty of metrics of sustainability. Did you have specific ones in mind? The ones that most people freak out about (Lithium) is actually one of the few that's 100% recyclable and also incredibly abundant. The second one Cobalt is the most likely material to be replaced in the next battery generation. So what sustainability problem is there?

Will the market resolve the winners and losers of this race on it's own or have we propped up one side of this beyond the market's control?

Who have we propped up? If anything it's clear in America that you've done everything in your power to keep the entire market held back. Otherwise your question is self resolving. If we only propped up the industry (which is what countries did by NOT specifying any technology but rather specifying cleanliness) then by its nature the market will decide the winners and the losers. If one is unsustainable the market will take care of that.

Is there even room for another player in the game with all of the "enthusiasm" behind tesla?

What makes you think you need another enthusiastic player behind Tesla? If the market is going to change due to some problems with battery technology I will bet you a Mars Bar that Tesla will be the first to resolve this. While we're at it I'll also bet you another Mars Bar that there won't be a technological leap in batteries. People complain that the next leap in batteries never comes but they never bother to compare the performance of their battery at the time with the last time they said exactly that. Batteries have been iterativly getting better since first invented and most new technologies actually start lagging behind the established chemistry before they are refined to take over. There's a reason we didn't have lithium batteries everywhere in the 70s.

Re:Thoughts?

[Anonymous Coward]

They compete comfortably now in plenty of metrics of sustainability. Did you have specific ones in mind? The ones that most people freak out about (Lithium) is actually one of the few that's 100% recyclable and also incredibly abundant. The second one Cobalt is the most likely material to be replaced in the next battery generation. So what sustainability problem is there?

I thought the recycling thing sounded fishy so i did a little dig session on this.
This is similar to the claim that was made when CFL lights came out, that incandescent light bulbs are 100% recyclable.
And this is true, but only in theory, and only the component parts. Not the assembled unit itself. You could never make another one with the parts from a recycled one.

Similarly with lithium batteries, yes everything that enters the plant is "recycled" but that doesn't include the actual lithium, and you cant get anything resembling a battery from the products.

"Recycling Li-ion batteries is not yet profitable and must be government subsidized. There is an incentive to recover costly cobalt. No recycling technology exists today that is capable of producing pure enough lithium for a second use in batteries. Lithium for batteries is mined; second hand lithium is used for lubricants, glass, ceramics and other applications."

sauce: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/recycling_batteries
Published 2018

So, unless Jergens adopts a lithium formula, I think I disagree about your recyclable claim.

You have to admit there are some serious things that we actually NEED to think about for this new transportation revolution. It's not all roses. And there are definitely quite a few big holes in the plan that need to be sorted out sooner rather than later.

Gas Policies and incentives

[Comboman]

You mean like the the 5 trillion dollars per year that is subsidizing the fossil fuel industry?

Re:Gas Policies and incentives

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure any competent person could come up with a just as complicated logical path to support the claim that your porn habit is subsidized by taxpayers.

BTW, the Guardian doesn't provide for comments. Any publication that doesn't allow comments these days is one that doesn't want to be challenged when it publishes complete and utter BULLSHIT like the article you linked to.

Re:Gas Policies and incentives

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is a subsidy anyway? Well, that too isn’t black and white.

ROFLMFAO!

What is a subsidy? We don't know so we'll make up whatever fucking bullshit supports our agenda.

Re:Gas Policies and incentives

[haibane]

Of course these electric cars are being powered by fossil fuels as well except in some select areas of the world where their electric grid is not powered by fossil fuels.

Re:Gas Policies and incentives

[Anonymous Coward]

Even in regions that generate the greatest proportion of their power from fossil fuels, BEVs pollute less than ICE vehicles. This is true even when one sets aside the pollution created by energy distribution (ICE requires tanker trucks, BEV requires wires). It would be more efficient and less polluting to dump gasoline into a power generator and burn it there, and then distribute the electricity to a BEV, than to burn the equivalent amount gas in an ICE engine.

PHEVs and BEVs aren't "the future" of transportation, but they will be a big part of the future.

Re:Gas Policies and incentives

[LynnwoodRooster]

if you want to look at real subsidies (and not some pie-in-the-sky "let's pin anything we don't like on evil oil and ignore all the good it does!"), solar and wind vastly outstrip fossil fuels in absolute dollars. And when you scale by actual generation, it's skewed orders of magnitude in favor of solar and wind.

Re:Gas Policies and incentives

[zieroh]

Any publication that doesn't allow comments these days is one that doesn't want to be challenged when it publishes complete and utter BULLSHIT like the article you linked to.

Any publication that doesn't allow comments these days has probably reached the conclusion that the trolls just aren't worth the page views. I disagree that availability of comments correlates in any way to the quality or veracity of the articles presented.

Want proof? Look no further than Slashdot.

Re:Gas Policies and incentives

[Peter P Peters]

I sure any competent person could come up with a just as complicated logical path to support the claim that your porn habit is subsidized by taxpayers.

BTW, the Guardian doesn't provide for comments..

So what are those comments at the bottom of the linked page?

Re:Gas Policies and incentives

[Peter P Peters]

Any publication that doesn't allow comments these days has probably reached the conclusion that the trolls just aren't worth the page views. I disagree that availability of comments correlates in any way to the quality or veracity of the articles presented.

Want proof? Look no further than Slashdot.

You shouldn't feed the trolls. The Guardian has a very vibrant comments section, the linked article even has comments at the bottom of the page (some script blockers might prevent it from displaying). They are one of the few that ranks comments so you can filter by most liked.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You = The "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /.", lol

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject (lol) & the viral hit by "The SoyBoyz": ''If you're going to TransManCisco? Be sure you wear your jimmyhats + bring Preparation H there. If you're going, to TransManCisco... You're going to meet a lot of transtesticle monsters and soyboy not men there. All across the nation: Surgical sawblade vibrations! Surgeons in motion, Sawing peckers + ball off tossing them into the SF Bay Ocean...'

* They're playing YOUR SONG again - hahahaha classic!

(Only way "your kind" would EVER get any notice &/or notoriety...)

APK

P.S.=> Quit projecting your own mental issues onto me... apk

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Don't forget Tesla

[Okian Warrior]

And 99% of those Chinese EVs have a range less than 50 km. Now, let's look at the ~1.3 BILLION ICE vehicles on the road. Electric is 0%, rounded to the nearest 0.5%...

Let's not forget Tesla in this assessment. They're currently making about 3.5K cars/week, soon to be somewhat larger (they say 6k/wk, but have always overpredicted. Maybe 5K/wk is a reasonable belief?)

That's roughly 200,000 cars/year, they'll ramp up production even more, so in 4 years we might see an additional 1 million EVs on the road. After that the doubling rate for EVs would probably be some small number of years - number of EV's on the road doubles every 8 to 10 years.

For all the people who wail and gnash their teeth about climate change, somehow they never want to get behind Tesla and see it succeed. Here's a company that could put a significant dent in the amount of CO2 the US produces, followed by similar gains in China and the rest of the world.

And yet, everyone wants to see Tesla fail in the next 6 months.

Tesla is a solution (one, among a number of solutions) to the problem, the benefits far outweigh the risks, this is the company the US should be giving energy credits to.

(And as an aside, if you think climate change is a pressing issue, putting money into research should be one of the arrows in your quiver. Somehow the global warming community seems to avoid this as a solution - research into new technologies is not something they generally recommend.)

Re:Don't forget Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone wants to see Tesla fail in the next 6 months.

no, the powers that be want them to fail. Look how many articles about the deaths with teslas are being published (fewer deaths per km than other manufacturers) seems to me a lot of petro-dollar is behind that.

Re:Don't forget Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the people who wail and gnash their teeth about climate change, somehow they never want to get behind Tesla
 
I agree with the general gist of this comment but it's still out of line. Yes, if you're a climate change person you should be looking to get away from ICEs as fast as possible but let's be honest, until very recently the low-end price point at which to do this in Teslaland was nearly twice the pre-tax income of the average American household. Let's not act like we were given a choice of the average sedan being in ICE or on a battery with a reasonable price difference. If the car really did cost that much because it was a "luxury" car then why not just slide back the trim on some models and make it accessible to those of us who settled for mid sized sedans? Oh, because they're not as "luxury" as the fanbois would have you believe? Imagine that!
 
Tesla still isn't the magic bullet you think it is.
 
Top this with the concept that the average American owned car has a lifespan of 13 years. I'm 6 payments from being free and clear on my most recent ICE and you think I'm going to go right back into debt again because Tesla has something that is kinda ok for what it is at the price they want for it? Yeah, ok. I'd love to own an EV but economically speaking I'm not going to be driving a Tesla or even a Bolt anytime soon. Had these models been out three years ago I'd likely be in one today.
 
  this is the company the US should be giving energy credits to.
 
Tesla and Musk's other concerns are raking in TONS of subsidies regardless of what the peanut gallery would have you think. They're getting much more than their fair share. Stop beating that drum. It makes you look like someone who can't do 5th grade math.
 
  if you think climate change is a pressing issue, putting money into research should be one of the arrows in your quiver.
 
LOLzzsz!!!! Come on now! There are extremely few CC people out there who think that they should raise a single finger to make a change. There's a ton of things people can do for next to no cost to anyone that would help shift their carbon footprint that they have no intentions of doing. Today's "environmentalist" is much more of a "Somebody do something and everybody hate Trump!!!1111!!!! #RESIST!!!!! k thx bye" crowd. They're not going to do anything to make things work, they think someone somewhere can write some document that will make it all work and if anyone opposes them in any way then there is no chance of anything ever working.
 
A bit hyperbolas? Yes but it's not far from how some of the modern crowd works. They won't clean up their own backyard first. They won't go for the low hanging fruit. That takes too much effort and there's something good on TV tonight.

Re:Don't forget Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla and Musk's other concerns are raking in TONS of subsidies regardless of what the peanut gallery would have you think. They're getting much more than their fair share. Stop beating that drum. It makes you look like someone who can't do 5th grade math.

links ?

Re:Don't forget Tesla

[kellymcdonald78]

This is one element that most people miss. Love or hate Elon, the truth is global demand for fossil fuels are driven by consumption. That's you, me, the person down the block, the guy around the world. Oil and gas companies don't force this stuff down our throat, each and everyone of us through our purchasing decisions, merrily and happily purchase processed crude, barrel after barrel each and every day.

Re: Don't forget Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, two SUVs crashed, people died. Happens all the time, so it is not news.

I want my Ford Nucelon

[damn_registrars]

That would have put the electric vs ICE vehicle debate to bed for good. Although then my car would be investigated by both IEA and IAEA, but that's a minor inconvenience.

electric cars don't really matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

what matters is where is the energy coming from, every electric car needs a generator somewhere, that's still the same amount of energy and potentially pollution. plus line loss, range limits,cold temperature and overheating battery problems, oh and where are most people going to plug in, at the curb??

yet another ill-conceived, over-sold techno fantasy , imho

Re:electric cars don't really matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you're a troll or just dumb but this talking point has been beaten to death several hundred times on Slashdot alone. It's false on it's face. Yes, an EV isn't 100% green but it is greener and with effort from the owner it can be made even greener without jumping through a ton of hoops. It's a bit expensive but it can be done and it's getting less expensive every day.

Re:electric cars don't really matter ...

[rossdee]

EV's are a ideal place to store energy generated by wind and solar when its not peak demand.

What a load of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the people who wail and gnash their teeth about climate change, somehow they never want to get behind Tesla and see it succeed.

Bull-fucking-shit.

See, when people point out the fact that Tesla has some serious financial problems and is burning cash and losing money and the fact that it has had some serious manufacturing problems - most of them because of sheer incompetence of the Tesla senior management; TTBs (Tesla True Believers) call them "haters" and say stupid shit like "they don't want Tesla to succeed."

AND we have other car companies producing and about to produce their own and affordable EVs that will more than help the climate. Tesla isn't the only game in town and it's has a very high probablity of going bust by the end of the year unless it gets more cash from morons who like dumping into the bottomless pit of Musk's incompetence as an automaker.

I just wish you TTB morons would just STFU because all of you talk out of your ass and are a bunch of gullible morons because you allowed yourselves to be bamboozled by that charlatan Elon Musk.

Re:What a load of shit.

[Barsteward]

ROFLMAO.. that is all that post deserves

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Made it to 3/10 of a percent

[Anonymous Coward]

Wooooo

'vehicles' include bicycles

[Anonymous Coward]

So either the title is wrong or the millions of electric bicycle in China have not been included.

I'm still waiting.

[Rick Schumann]

I've said it before: produce an affordable plug-in electric that recharges overnight (or alternately hydrogen fuel cell) light pickup truck with at least a 300 mile range, and I'll be all over it. Until then I'm not interested in any tiny subcompact unibody two-door sedans with no cargo carrying capability, short range, takes all day to recharge, costs in excess of $50000, and you can't even purchase it outright, you have to lease it.

Re:I'm still waiting.

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably have about a two year wait ahead of you. The current Bolt has about 240mi. range and easily charged over night. Rumor has it that Chevy will be upping the battery from 60KWH to 75 in the next couple of years. That should just about hit your minimums. Going from full drain (highly not recommend for maximum battery life) should be doable in around 10hr.

Re:I'm still waiting.

[Rick Schumann]

You apparently couldn't be bothered to read everything. I don't want some shitty two-door unibody sedan, I want a pickup truck.

Re:I'm still waiting.

[Anonymous Coward]

MURCA

Re:I'm still waiting.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how often do carry cargo with your car? Occasional or for day-to-day business?

I suspect this is a US thing. I rarely meet pickup truck owners who don't use it for business, in my country or countries I've visited.

Re:I'm still waiting.

[Rick Schumann]

I don't have a 'car'. I have a pickup truck. I've had a pickup truck for, what, at least 10 years now? Been able to move myself? Pick up loads of dirty things like mulch and compost? Etc? I had my fill of passenger-only vehicles a long time ago, I like having a pickup truck, it's more appropriate for my lifestyle. So start building plug-in-recharge electric or fuel-cell electric pickups and I'll be in line to get one. ;-)

Re:I'm still waiting.

[AaronD12]

Based on your responses below, I know I'm pissing into the wind, but... just be patient. It will happen. For a pick-up, you will need more battery capacity than a car due to its additional weight and aerodynamic losses. Expect, for 300 miles range (how often do you need that much range? daily? occasionally?), to need around 120-150kWh of battery. Even with today's battery prices, that might be doable. The truck will push your $50K boundary pretty hard, but it is feasible. The battery itself, conservatively, will be around $25-30K. Add a truck body and its components and it will be close to $50K. With quick charging, the battery should be able to go from empty to full in around 1.5 to 2 hours. Most of the time you rarely completely discharge the battery, so for daily-driving purposes (which, in the US, is an average of 40 miles) it shouldn't take very long to charge, even at home. I've been driving electric for over 5 years now and it's great. A pick-up with that much range and an electric powertrain would be amazing!

Re:I'm still waiting.

[Rick Schumann]

Also, listen: Pickup trucks have a chassis under them; much more durable. They're also rear-wheel drive, which is easier to work on, as well as higher off the ground, which is also easier to work on. You get in an accident in a unibody vehicle, and more likely than not it's unrepairable because it's tweaked the entire structure of the vehicle too much to be safe anymore. You get in an accident in a pickup truck, it's almost always just sheetmetal work that needs to be done, and even if it's bad enough to tweak the chassis, they can be pulled out straight again. Really, if you get in an accident bad enough to do that it usually means the whole truck is toast anyway. Otherwise, unlike most passenger vehicles, a pickup truck can be rebuilt and refurbished indefinitely. They get me an electric version, and I likely won't ever have to buy another vehicle in my lifetime, due to how little of an electric vehicle actually wears out. Battery packs? Easy. Motor bearings, maybe? Much easier to rebuild an electric motor than it is a gasoline engine. Probably they'll sell complete drop-in rebuilds for the entire drivetrain. Seriously, they can't get here fast enough for me.

half of norwegian cars...

[VMaN]

50% of new cars in Norway are plug-in hybrids or EV

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/04/50-new-car-registrations-norway-2017-plug-vehicles-hybrids/

Chevy bolt EV

[Anonymous Coward]

love my Chevy bolt EV , 238 mile range
had mine since 2/17/18 charge it at home over night never had to charge it any were else

Scientist or troll?

[Okian Warrior]

For all the people who wail and gnash their teeth about climate change, somehow they never want to get behind Tesla and see it succeed.

Bull-fucking-shit.

See, when people point out the fact that Tesla has some serious financial problems and is burning cash and losing money and the fact that it has had some serious manufacturing problems - most of them because of sheer incompetence of the Tesla senior management; TTBs (Tesla True Believers) call them "haters" and say stupid shit like "they don't want Tesla to succeed."

Here's an opportunity to do a scientific experiment.

We have your model, that views Tesla with sheer incompetence of senior management.

We have my model, that views Tesla on the precipice of "owning" the automobile market and becoming one of the biggest companies on the planet.

I predict from my model that the precipice is about 3 months away, and that Tesla stock will shoot up and Tesla will be profitable before the end of the year.

I gather from your post that your prediction is that Tesla will crash and burn in that same timeframe.

Let's do an experiment. Let's see which model is the better predictor of future results.

Are you a scientist, or a troll?

Cheaper faster better

[WillAffleckUW]

Well, they are cheaper than fossil fuel vehicles to maintain, cost less to refuel (something like 1/20th the cost of a tank of gas here), have faster acceleration, and don't wake up the neighbors as much, so there's that.

Adapt. The world ain't waiting for you to realize it's not 1955.

yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

so after all this subsidy, all this drama, all this time, sweat, blood, investment and effort, we "will" have as many EVs in total, as we do gas vehicles in maybe half of the Bay Area alone?

what is needed are not a million more EVs, but a million more high speed charging stations. next to the air and water pump, from Big Urban to Podunkton.

the "fuel" will drive the auto uptake, as it appears after all this time, the other way isn't working out so well.

I prefer the 'pie in sky'

[rsilvergun]

which looks less like pie in sky and more like a rigorous economic study meant to find costs that were intentionally hidden to make fossil fuels seem cheaper than they are. If we're going to discuss cost we should be discussing _all_ costs. Not just what I pay at the pump.

Re:I prefer the 'pie in sky'

[LynnwoodRooster]

OK, let's discuss ALL costs. Do we also include the costs of backup generation/capacity for renewables and assign to them the "externalized" costs that are bandied about as to cost $5 trillion? Because suddenly you'd have about 80% of the externalities assigned to older power generation also being applied to renewables.

So only another 700,000

[Anonymous Coward]

So only another 700,000 till one million barrels is permanently displaced. We still have a ways to go.

Chevy Volt

[foxalopex]

I technically have a plug-in hybrid which behaves like a EV in the summertime. When it runs out of battery power, it switches seamlessly over to gas. It's a little small on the interior but let's you enjoy having an EV without and of the range limitations. It's a bit less efficient than a pure EV and the gas engine takes a little care but it's more than a reasonable trade-off. No regrets here despite it being 2x the cost of my first car which was a 05 Corolla.

i wonder if they had to be paid to take the cars

[Locutus]

In and around 2000, some lawyer for the US auto industry told a commission that people did not want electric cars and would have to be paid $15,000 to take one.

I forget where I heard or read this as it was many years ago and probably was part of the plan by General Motors to end its electric car venture( EV1 ).

LoB

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

hahahahaha, why do you bother?

[CaffeinatedBacon]

Shanghai weather
Full of shit again.

Let me guess, you read it in a forum.