The Triumph of Bidenomics!

[NxNW]

It is a well-established fact that charing your battery to 100% all the time will shorten its life. It is not false.

Nobody said anything about "all the time". Another straw man.

They really are. Your denial doesn't change the manufacturer's recommendations.

There are no recommendations to never charge to 100%.

All of the articles I've posted have come from EV-friendly sites offering tips for how to extend your battery life. You'd know that if you'd bothered to read any of them.

None of them say to never charge to 100%, as I keep telling you.

Maybe nobody in this discussion is saying that, but there are plenty of people saying it. I've posted links to multiple articles (that you've ignored) saying that.

Nobody is saying to never charge to 100%.

Nothing I've posted has been a "right-wing article"

The one comparing charging times was. "Just imagine if it took longer to fill up the last 20% of your gas tank", or similar verbiage. That's not an "EV-friendly" article.

and if you can't learn something from reading an owner's manual or manufacturer's recommendations, what good are they?

Another straw man.

I've posted multiple articles that say you'll almost certainly get to your destination faster if you only charge to 80% on long road-trips because it takes substantially longer to charge that last 20%. I must conclude then that 99% of the time, your car has 20% less range than advertised.

Your conclusion assumes you only charge to 80% on long trips.

So for "daily driving", don't charge to 100%. For occasional road-trips, don't charge to 100%. What's left?

For occasional road trips, you can charge to 100%, like I keep saying over and over.

Trying to say charing to 100% all the time isn't optimal for the battery when the manufacturer's state differently is simply false.

I don't think that says what you think it says.

 

[SimplyMe]

I have not ignored anything.

Also, an EV that cost me $10k more than an ICE equivalent would not save me any money until year 11 of my ownership. I've showed detailed calculations for my scenario.

You really haven't. You've made assertions that it would be take 11 years but not really provided enough detail for anyone to figure out exactly what it would take. More to the point, it really depends on what gasoline prices do in the next few years. I noticed that, where I live, gas prices are getting close to about $4/gallon (I think $3.86 was what I saw, from one of the less expensive stations) -- I think your figures were for roughly $3 gas prices.

That time penalty is quite significant. It might be the difference between 15 minutes and an hour.

Actually, a difference between something like just over 12 hours or 13 hours, since you have all that travel time, as well.

As you left home. This would only be beneficial if you returned home within the full 100% range. Otherwise, you would charge to 80% for your return trip home.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are saying that you aren't starting the return trip home with 100%, that may or may not be true -- it depends on what kind of charging you can do at the destination (plug in at a relative, if the hotel or your rental (AirBnB, VRBO, etc.) has a charger or a socket where you can plug in, or a nearby charging station where you can let it charge while you pack up or eat breakfast or whatever. You may not be able to charge to 100% without loosing time but, in a lot of cases, you will be able to -- particularly with a bit of advance planning).

I've been told that it's "false" that charging your battery to 100% reduces its life. I'm glad to see you recognize that's not the case.

It depends. As I've stated, I actually can't actually charge my car to 100% -- Kia has a top portion of the battery that you cannot "touch," at best you can only charge 77.4kWh of a battery that is actually over 80kWh. What hurts the battery is always charging to 100% and letting the battery sit at 100% for hours -- it is not good for the battery chemistry.

Actually, what I said was that I find it foolish to lease ANY car.

Ok

So am I to read then that you agree that constantly charging your EV's battery to 100% will degrade the battery?

Likely.

That's probably why a lot of people aren't buying EVs right now.



Your latter point about the 20% reduction in range not making a difference is what needs to be focused on.

Why? I've explained that the best way to road trip an EV is to not fully charge the battery, like you'd fill your car to full, but just get enough that you can easily make it to the next charging station. And, at home, most people rarely need the full range of the battery. I read a post by a person that has something like 175 mile daily commute -- which I think you'll agree is on the extreme side for most Americans -- and he didn't need to charge the car to 100% daily (to include during a New England winter).

I'm not sure who think "most people" are, but I'm not sure you have your finger on the pulse of "most people". I only take one or two vacations per year, but this year, I'll make about 10 very long drives. It's why despite working from home and having everything I need within minutes of my home, I still manage to put 15k miles/year on my car.

Again, I've estimated, based on that, in a previous post that you'd drive 10,000 locally and 5,000 on road trips. Maybe I'm off by a bit, but the fact remains you'd not lose much time -- the extra time charging in road trips would be made up by the lack of fuel stops when you are at home. And, from what you've indicated, it sounds like even a 110V charger would be enough to keep your car charged most of the time while at home.

It's fascinating driving on the Interstate and seeing where people were from. Just the other day, I saw an Alaska plate on the Interstate here in PA. When traveling to Florida, we usually see 45 or more states represented on the highways. A LOT of people drive long distances.

That's nice. There are over 333 million people in the US, and about 278 million cars. Did you ever see a million cars during your road trip from those other 45 states? Yes, there are people who take long road trips but you see just a few of those cars each, as a general rule (unless it is a neighboring states). For the numbers you are trying to claim, even if only 100 million of those are the "family car" that they road trip with, it seems like you'd need to see thousands of them daily (particularly in the summer months) if there were a lot of people driving long distances frequently -- particularly in a vacation state like Florida.

95% of statistics are also just made up on the spot.

Except I provided statistics, in an earlier post where I responded to you, that support that claim.

Regardless of whether you think that's the minimum or the maximum, you glossed over the point that $10k can buy an awful lot of gas.

That's nice, I don't think I've ever disputed that. My dispute has always been with your claim that EVs are twice the price.

Again, that depends on your purchase price. If you have to pay a premium of $10k for the privilege of owning an EV, you aren't "saving" anything in fueling your car for at least a few years.

And if you are buying a K5 over a Rio, then you are also paying $10K more for the privilege of owning the K5. If you buy a GT-Line, you are paying thousands more for the privilege of owning a GT-Line. Yes, you'll give "reasons" why you needed (or even just wanted) the K5 GT-Line based on size, looks, etc. People do the same thing when they buy BMWs or other $100,000 cars.

The fact remains, mainstream EVs cost in roughly the same range as the average new car sold in the US today. Yes, I understand you had no interest in buying a $49K car but it doesn't change the fact that it is the average price.

I'm not taking your comments out of context. I am talking about the cost of ownership, and I think most people would be surprised when they look at how much it costs to own an EV vs. an ICE vehicle. I know I was. I was rather shocked to see that I would only save about $900/year with an EV. And when you factor in the higher price of the EV, I would actually not save ANYTHING until year 11 of ownership.

It is entirely dependent on how much of a premium you pay for your EV whether you will save money or not. If you buy a base-level Bolt, you will recognize savings almost immediately because of its low MSRP. But the Bolt is an outlier on cost. Most EVs are substantially more expensive than equivalent ICE vehicles, and while it might make people feel good to say they're "saving" money because they don't have to pay to put gas in it, they simply paid it in the purchase price instead.

You are looking at this only as you look at it. You are willing to pay a premium to get the "look" you want out of a car; others are willing to pay a premium for how quiet the car is, for the power the car has, for the size of the car, etc. The fact is, the premium of an EV depends on what factors are important to the person. For example, performance out of a $50K EV is often closer to that of a $100,000 sports car than to most cars in a comparable price range. Some EVs are as quiet as high end BMWs and Mercedes (or Lexus and Acura). As such, the EV might actually be cheaper, based on the features they want out of their car.

Also, it's not free to charge your car anywhere..

Actually, not quite true. For example, there is a company called Volta that installs chargers at malls and many of them are free -- well, technically it is paid for by the ads they display on their 5' tall screens (but everyone sees those, not just the EV owner). Businesses have been known to put out free chargers for customers -- though I'll agree they are becoming less and less common.

And, while not free, last time I went to Costco, I plugged into a charger there that was 10 cents per kWh. It's a slow charger, I gained about 28 miles of range for the hour I spent in the store and paid 70 cents.

Also, there are jobs where employers provide charging stations in the employee parking lot and don't charge -- though it is technically a job benefit and not "free."

With a modest electric rate of around $0.17/mile,

First, I think you meant kWh there, in context with the rest of your sentence. Beyond that, I don't find 17 cents modest. From what I can find, the current average residential electrical rate is 15.5 cents -- and it can vary a fair amount by state. For me, a modest rate would be closer to $0.11/kWh but I understand that you pay closer to $0.17/kWh. Also, even in some of the states with higher electricity bills, the price to charge the EV is still lower than $0.17 -- as those states often have a program for "off-hours" charging where electrical rates between maybe 10pm to 7am (exact times will vary per area) are half the rate, or even a third, of the daytime "peak" rates -- so the EV can charge at the off-hour rates.

if you use the "average" of 336 kWh per month for charging, that's around $57/month in electricity costs for home charging. Most people spend considerably more than that on gas each month, but oftentimes that is presented simply as "you won't have to pay for gas!" and conveniently leaves out "but you will pay a higher electric bill".

I'll agree. Though I seem to recall you mentioning Tesla previously about how they show the cost of the car with gas savings built in. To give Tesla credit, if you go to the bottom of the page and click where they show the "probable savings," they let you fine tune it -- entering the price you pay for gas, your home electric rate, and the mpg of your current car -- so it will show the "probably savings" based on your actual costs.

Every person should decide for themselves whether an EV is right for them or not by looking at their driving habits, how much gas is vs. electricity, what distance they need to drive and more. And in many cases, an EV loses its luster when you consider the entire cost of ownership.

And I don't disagree with this. My issue is that there is a lot of bad information, as well as people often overestimating their needs. Seriously, do you really think all those people who buy Ford F-150s, making it the top selling "car" in America, really need a full size pickup. I'm not saying no one does, just that your average Joe Blow doesn't need one (regardless of how he justifies it). Yes, there are some real differences with owning an EV, but for every "bad" difference there are "good" differences, as well.

 

[SimplyMe]

You don't need to do the physics of it all...

We agree that the battery capacity in the Bolt carrying the family of 4 would be drained faster.....right?

By a fairly marginal amount. Again, you are talking about maybe 10% extra weight above what the car normally weighs, and not even all of the time. And that 10% is reduced by the fact the car is on wheels so it is maybe just a few percent (we'll say 3%, maybe a loss of 10 miles of range per charge). So you are talking maybe about 1% of degradation that you made 3% worse -- 1.03% degradation -- that is marginal. Even if we give you the entire 10%, 10% added weight to the 4000 lbs car, you are at 1.1% of degradation.

You still haven't provided that research, have you?

I posted two links to the Tesla degradation studies, as well as the quote talking about the degradation Recurrent is seeing in current used cars.

I only found research showing degradation speeds up...not it slowing down.

Again, every study I've seen shows that most degradation happens in the first couple of years, and then the curve drops off, and after 5 years degradation from year to year is minimal out to about 200,000 miles (which is where most studies have ended currently, likely for a lack of EVs with more than 200,000 miles currently).

Ok...do you have any of that research?

Again, the links are in a previous post to you.

Right....and these had to be implemented by law. Auto makers had to be required by law to do this because ICEs had no competition. The idea that these steady constant improvements would be made normally without competition where the flaw in your thinking is.

Sorry, no. If what you are saying was true, we would have been driving around in Model Ts until about 1976, when all the emissions standards were added. The pollution standards and fuel economy standards had to be required because people didn't want them, not because the technology wasn't available and the automotive companies refused to build them. Unleaded gas and catalytic converters did not make cars better for consumers -- most people hated it (like the 55 mph national speed limit) and the government had to force it; it had nothing to do with competition.

In fact, in contrast to what you are saying, many of the "improvements' were not forced by the government, but by Japanese cars starting to sell in the US. While Detroit was great at building huge cars with big block V8s, they were bad at building smaller cars. And, when gas prices went up in the 70s, demand for those small cars rocketed. The US car manufacturers were forced to innovate, not because of the government, but because the Japanese cars were stealing their market share.

You can see it in virtually any market that has a significantly engineered or high tech. Military weaponry is one of the most obvious but it's still a good example.

You seem to think that companies will continue dumping vast amounts of capital on battery tech when range can be achieved more easily and cheaply by using lighter/cheaper parts even if it's at the cost of safety.

Spending hundreds of millions if not billions on a better battery that may or may not even be created is much riskier than finding 200-300lbs to shave off the vehicle even if it means your 4 star safety rating drops to 3.

Again...you have the government intervening in the market to push innovation because of a lack of competition. People who don't understand capitalism (I'm not saying you're one of them) think that only supply and demand are necessary market forces required for free markets to work....but they aren't. Competition is required if you want to continue to see increases in product value.

And what the Japanese did for the US car industry, the Chinese are doing with EVs today, at least outside the US. Also, the range issue is not a difference of 200-300 lbs. on a 4000-6000 lbs vehicle, consumers want double or even triple the range before they'll buy an EV -- and want it at the same price as a gasoline car. You are kidding yourself if you don't think the first company that figures out a solid state EV battery that is cheap to manufacture and can give over 500 miles of range isn't going to make billions.

No competition for ICEs....no.



Ok...I'm not sure why you think that's a great point. Catalytic converters were indeed far older than I realized and certainly, the technology to implement them into personal vehicles probably didn't exist until the late 60s early 70s. If you ask yourself why it took so long....I'd consider that without having any competition for the ICE, government mandates would be the necessary motivation.

Again, the reason why it took so long is because no one wanted them -- not the car manufacturers and not the consumers. In many ways, adding them was a bit like how people view the government forcing EVs (though maybe not quite as extreme). The cars were less powerful, cost more, etc. I remember people talking about cutting the converter off (back in the days before state emissions testing). This is why the government mandated them, because they wouldn't have happened without a mandate to improve emissions; it had nothing to do with innovation.

Yes, ty, I'm not really a gear head.

You seemed to be suggesting that the technology was essentially dead in regards to advancements because the same design elements in the piston/valve setup were present in the late 1800s.


It's a bit like claiming this gun...

View attachment 345698

And this gun...

View attachment 345699

Are basically the same because they share the same basic design features.

I think you are missing what I'm trying to say. I remember, when I was a kid, hearing about all the new tech we'd have in the future; as one example, look at the original Star Trek series. One thing I remember was hearing how we'd have "video phones" -- where you could see, as well as hear, the person you were calling. The example I saw had a black and white 12" (or so) screen, the video was relatively low resolution and it was still a "normal" phone, otherwise, that had to be plugged into the wall and couldn't be moved. In a few decades we have cell phones -- we can do much better video calls, even with multiple people at the same time, no wires, and in a device that fits in our hand.

The equivalent I can think of with cars was that we'd have flying cars. Now, you may argue that it was "pie in the sky" and never going to happen, but it was what always seemed to be mentioned with any type of future car. Now, not to belittle how cars have changed, but we haven't gotten that same type of improvement that phones have. And, much of the "big" improvement in cars is actually the technology advancements we made with computers. Because of computers, things like fuel injection, ignition timing, etc. have been made much cheaper and more accurate, which leads to engines creating more horsepower. Since we can build smaller engines, lighter engines, without sacrificing power, not to mention the accuracy improvements, we've increased fuel economy by maybe 25-ish percent. Not nothing, but nowhere near what has happened to phones. And, as a general rule, it isn't new car technology (though there has been some) is is using computers to improve the older technology to be cheaper and better. But the basic car engine is still typically based on the Otto cycle, we still use cylinders and spark plugs and gasoline.

Now, with EVs, we have some of the same "limitations." The basic chassis/body of a car is not going to change drastically -- it will be four wheels with enough interior space for people to sit comfortably. Electric engines will likely improve somewhat but likely not drastically -- like car engines they'll likely find some ways to make them more efficient, maybe cheaper to manufacture, etc. What researchers appear to be convinced of, though, is that the batteries will change -- very possibly in a drastic way. The hope is that instead of having a 100kWh battery that weighs more than a thousand pounds, we'll have a 300kWh battery that weighs less than 500 lbs -- and instead of costing over ten thousand dollars, the new battery might only cost a couple of thousand. And that this new battery will charge in 5 minutes or so, with no battery degradation. Yes, some may not happen but we are seeing changes -- and in the last 10 years there have been several battery improvements that increase battery capacity while reducing weight, even if those gains are more incremental so far.

Removing?

Yes, some of the battery research is aimed at using more common minerals and metals, rather than things like lithium, cobalt, and nickel; which have pollution issues.

Government mandates...certainly not Toyota trying to get an edge on Ford.



I don't think we'll be buying Chinese EVs anytime soon.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

If you understand why that happened....I wouldn't hold your breath for Chinese EVs.

That may very well be. The issue is that most auto manufacturers are global -- GM, Ford, Stellantis (Chrysler) all want to sell cars in Europe and other areas of the world -- and in non-US markets they will still compete with these cheap Chinese cars.

Well, I'm inclined to disagree lol...car companies don't care about the environment, they care about profits, so if they could sell a comparable number without the warranty....they would.

Fair enough; again, the government mandates from the 70s and 80s prove that the car companies did not care about the environment -- they fought those regulations as long as they could.

I'll take your word for it.




You appear to have gathered a lot of data on EV battery performance, mph, range, capacity, etc and I'm not entirely sure why lol....we appear to largely agree on EVs.

I've had a tendency to watch the fuel economy of my car for decades, which led me to try and understand how to improve my efficiency. So, when I started getting interested in EVs, it made sense to learn much of the same, both to try and decide if I'd be happy with an EV and how to "drive" an EV to improve range, efficiency, etc.

 

[probinson]

Nobody said anything about "all the time". Another straw man.

There are no recommendations to never charge to 100%.

Again I'll ask, when should you charge to 100%? It's not "never". But it sure sounds like "almost never".

None of them say to never charge to 100%, as I keep telling you.

Nobody is saying to never charge to 100%.

The one comparing charging times was. "Just imagine if it took longer to fill up the last 20% of your gas tank", or similar verbiage. That's not an "EV-friendly" article.

Sure it was. I'm not sure why you seem to think that "EV-friendly" means only 100% positive. There are drawbacks to EVs, and "EV-friendly" articles aren't afraid to point them out.

Your conclusion assumes you only charge to 80% on long trips.

And for "daily driving".

For occasional road trips, you can charge to 100%, like I keep saying over and over.

Great.

Then your time estimates fly right out the window. It's not going to take you 15 minutes to charge to 100%. More like an hour.

 

[probinson]

You really haven't. You've made assertions that it would be take 11 years but not really provided enough detail for anyone to figure out exactly what it would take.

I provided a very detailed example.

More to the point, it really depends on what gasoline prices do in the next few years.

And electricity prices.

I noticed that, where I live, gas prices are getting close to about $4/gallon (I think $3.86 was what I saw, from one of the less expensive stations) -- I think your figures were for roughly $3 gas prices.

My figures were for what I actually paid, which was $3.25. Just yesterday, I got gas and it was $2.98.

Actually, a difference between something like just over 12 hours or 13 hours, since you have all that travel time, as well.

No, in the context of charing to 100%, the time penalty is significant. If you choose to charge to 100%, you will spend considerably more time waiting to charge.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are saying that you aren't starting the return trip home with 100%, that may or may not be true -- it depends on what kind of charging you can do at the destination (plug in at a relative, if the hotel or your rental (AirBnB, VRBO, etc.) has a charger or a socket where you can plug in, or a nearby charging station where you can let it charge while you pack up or eat breakfast or whatever. You may not be able to charge to 100% without loosing time but, in a lot of cases, you will be able to -- particularly with a bit of advance planning).

That's a whole lot of "ifs".

Why? I've explained that the best way to road trip an EV is to not fully charge the battery, like you'd fill your car to full, but just get enough that you can easily make it to the next charging station.

You're trying to explain why you shouldn't charge the battery fully, while simultaneously trying to explain that it's OK to charge the battery fully.

And, at home, most people rarely need the full range of the battery. I read a post by a person that has something like 175 mile daily commute -- which I think you'll agree is on the extreme side for most Americans -- and he didn't need to charge the car to 100% daily (to include during a New England winter).

That's actually not all that extreme. A 175-mile daily commute is about 88 miles one way, which is about the distance many people in my small town commute to Pittsburgh or Cleveland every day.

Again, I've estimated, based on that, in a previous post that you'd drive 10,000 locally and 5,000 on road trips. Maybe I'm off by a bit, but the fact remains you'd not lose much time -- the extra time charging in road trips would be made up by the lack of fuel stops when you are at home.

It absolutely would not. I don't know why you don't understand that it only takes 2 minutes to get gas. It's like you've never put gas in a car before. And I don't go out of my way to get gas. It's right on the way to EVERYWHERE I'm going. Most times, my GPS ETA doesn't even change when I stop to get gas.

Telling people they're going to save time getting gas is silly. Not only is it an inconsequential amount of time, but it completely ignores that the recharging time of an EV takes FAR more time than fueling an ICE vehicle. It is at the very bottom of the list of reasons I would consider an EV. Saving a few minutes every week or two is absolutely 100% NOT a compelling reason to buy an EV.

And, from what you've indicated, it sounds like even a 110V charger would be enough to keep your car charged most of the time while at home.

Probably. And it's a good thing too. Where I live, there is exactly 1 place to charge, and they only have 3 chargers. The next closest chargers are 25+ miles away.

That's nice. There are over 333 million people in the US, and about 278 million cars. Did you ever see a million cars during your road trip from those other 45 states? Yes, there are people who take long road trips but you see just a few of those cars each, as a general rule (unless it is a neighboring states). For the numbers you are trying to claim, even if only 100 million of those are the "family car" that they road trip with, it seems like you'd need to see thousands of them daily (particularly in the summer months) if there were a lot of people driving long distances frequently -- particularly in a vacation state like Florida.

I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend like many people don't take road trips. Perhaps where you're from they don't, but it's pretty common around here.

That's nice, I don't think I've ever disputed that. My dispute has always been with your claim that EVs are twice the price.

Some are.

But the point is, there is an opportunity cost to EVs that most EV advocates gloss over. If you have to pay $10k more than you would for an ICE vehicle and you spend $3k/year on gas (Tesla's estimate), it will take you a minimum of more than 3 years before you're "saving" anything. And if you're like me and you spend WAY less than that on gas a year, the payback takes even longer. Not to mention increased insurance rates.

And if you are buying a K5 over a Rio, then you are also paying $10K more for the privilege of owning the K5. If you buy a GT-Line, you are paying thousands more for the privilege of owning a GT-Line. Yes, you'll give "reasons" why you needed (or even just wanted) the K5 GT-Line based on size, looks, etc. People do the same thing when they buy BMWs or other $100,000 cars.

Sure they do. But then, they're not pretending that it's because they will "save money" by buying those things, so your analogy is irredeemably flawed.

The fact remains, mainstream EVs cost in roughly the same range as the average new car sold in the US today.

Aside from the Chevy Bolt, the majority of EVs are considerably more expensive than their ICE equivalents.

Yes, I understand you had no interest in buying a $49K car but it doesn't change the fact that it is the average price.

You also continue to misunderstand that average does not indicate majority. There are countless new cars that start well under $30k. I suspect that many more of those cars are sold than the more expensive ones. And as I've shown, you can sell a whole lotta cheaper cars and then one SUPER expensive car to jack that average up and make it non-representative of what ANYONE paid.

You are looking at this only as you look at it.

As are you.

You are willing to pay a premium to get the "look" you want out of a car;

I paid a premium for more than that.

others are willing to pay a premium for how quiet the car is, for the power the car has, for the size of the car, etc. The fact is, the premium of an EV depends on what factors are important to the person. For example, performance out of a $50K EV is often closer to that of a $100,000 sports car than to most cars in a comparable price range. Some EVs are as quiet as high end BMWs and Mercedes (or Lexus and Acura). As such, the EV might actually be cheaper, based on the features they want out of their car.

And all of those are perfectly fine reasons. What is important to one person is not important to another. I've never claimed any different. But not when discussing ROI and total cost of ownership.

Actually, not quite true. For example, there is a company called Volta that installs chargers at malls and many of them are free -- well, technically it is paid for by the ads they display on their 5' tall screens (but everyone sees those, not just the EV owner). Businesses have been known to put out free chargers for customers -- though I'll agree they are becoming less and less common.

OK, so I'll amend my statement to say "There's almost nowhere that you can charge your car free.".

And, while not free, last time I went to Costco, I plugged into a charger there that was 10 cents per kWh. It's a slow charger, I gained about 28 miles of range for the hour I spent in the store and paid 70 cents.

Swell.

Also, there are jobs where employers provide charging stations in the employee parking lot and don't charge -- though it is technically a job benefit and not "free."

Not anywhere close to around here.

First, I think you meant kWh there, in context with the rest of your sentence.

You are correct.

Beyond that, I don't find 17 cents modest. From what I can find, the current average residential electrical rate is 15.5 cents -- and it can vary a fair amount by state. For me, a modest rate would be closer to $0.11/kWh but I understand that you pay closer to $0.17/kWh.

Are you including the entire cost? The current price-to-compare for electricity generation where I am is 11.7 cents/kWh. However, there is also a distribution charge from the power company that clocks in around 5 cents/kWh. It's not clear from your link if that is the total energy price or if it includes distribution.

Also, even in some of the states with higher electricity bills, the price to charge the EV is still lower than $0.17 -- as those states often have a program for "off-hours" charging where electrical rates between maybe 10pm to 7am (exact times will vary per area) are half the rate, or even a third, of the daytime "peak" rates -- so the EV can charge at the off-hour rates.

Yes, I have a refrigerator with "Smart Grid" that uses similar technology.

My issue is that there is a lot of bad information, as well as people often overestimating their needs. Seriously, do you really think all those people who buy Ford F-150s, making it the top selling "car" in America, really need a full size pickup. I'm not saying no one does, just that your average Joe Blow doesn't need one (regardless of how he justifies it). Yes, there are some real differences with owning an EV, but for every "bad" difference there are "good" differences, as well.

Sure there are. There are always pros and cons. My issue is that EV advocates tend to downplay the cons and overstate the benefits, much like you believe I'm overstating the cons and downplaying the benefits. In particular, EV advocates like to talk about all the money they're saving on gas. But they neglect to mention that they've paid a considerable up-front premium.

If people want to buy an EV just because they want one or because of any of the myriad of other reasons you've mentioned, more power to them. But the idea that EV owners are "saving money" on gas after spending a $10k+ premium on their EVs is simply not true.

 

[SimplyMe]

I provided a very detailed example.

No, you really didn't. You mentioned that you paid about $30K, not a specific price. You mention you paid $3.25 for gasoline yesterday but not what you had to pay when you filled up your car a year ago, or 18 months ago, or when you first bought it. Yes, gas prices are cheaper now than they were over your first year or two of ownership.

And electricity prices.



My figures were for what I actually paid, which was $3.25. Just yesterday, I got gas and it was $2.98.

And again, what was the price 6 months ago, a year ago?

No, in the context of charing to 100%, the time penalty is significant. If you choose to charge to 100%, you will spend considerably more time waiting to charge.

Again, as a general rule, you don't charge to 100% at a fast charging station on a road trip. Sure, if you are at a hotel overnight and it has a Level 2 charger, then you might charge to 100% before leaving in the morning -- which requires no extra time. Again, on a road trip you typically don't charge up to even 80% at a fast charger, much less 100%, so your "time penalty" is largely non-non-existant.

That's a whole lot of "ifs".



You're trying to explain why you shouldn't charge the battery fully, while simultaneously trying to explain that it's OK to charge the battery fully.

Yes, it is actually a pretty easy concept to get. If you need the range of a 100% charge then you can charge to 100% -- most of the time you don't, so you won't.

That's actually not all that extreme. A 175-mile daily commute is about 88 miles one way, which is about the distance many people in my small town commute to Pittsburgh or Cleveland every day.

Except, again, I posted the studies of driving in the US -- 175 mile daily commute is extreme, per the statistics, even if there are a few thousand (out of hundreds of millions) who do it.

It absolutely would not. I don't know why you don't understand that it only takes 2 minutes to get gas. It's like you've never put gas in a car before. And I don't go out of my way to get gas. It's right on the way to EVERYWHERE I'm going. Most times, my GPS ETA doesn't even change when I stop to get gas.

Telling people they're going to save time getting gas is silly. Not only is it an inconsequential amount of time, but it completely ignores that the recharging time of an EV takes FAR more time than fueling an ICE vehicle. It is at the very bottom of the list of reasons I would consider an EV. Saving a few minutes every week or two is absolutely 100% NOT a compelling reason to buy an EV.

For you, there are many who disagree with them. I saw several of them in a Costco gas station today.

Probably. And it's a good thing too. Where I live, there is exactly 1 place to charge, and they only have 3 chargers. The next closest chargers are 25+ miles away.

And I've admitted that if you buy an EV you need to have a place at your residence (either an outlet or a wall box) to charge it for your daily needs. Fast charging should be for road trips, as a general rule -- as you note, they are much more expensive than home charging.

I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend like many people don't take road trips. Perhaps where you're from they don't, but it's pretty common around here.

I'm not saying not many people do, rather that for most is is typically a once in a year thing. And, for likely an equal group of people, if they can't get there in a few hours then they fly, and rent a car (which often can also have "out of state" plates).

Some are.

But the point is, there is an opportunity cost to EVs that most EV advocates gloss over. If you have to pay $10k more than you would for an ICE vehicle and you spend $3k/year on gas (Tesla's estimate), it will take you a minimum of more than 3 years before you're "saving" anything. And if you're like me and you spend WAY less than that on gas a year, the payback takes even longer. Not to mention increased insurance rates.



Sure they do. But then, they're not pretending that it's because they will "save money" by buying those things, so your analogy is irredeemably flawed.

You are the one trying to make the "save money" argument (or argument against, just so you don't try to belabor that point); despite the fact you don't buy the "cheapest" car either, but will pay thousands more for just the way a car "looks." And, again, EVs may not really be much more expensive depending on what people want out of the car; the best example is if they want a car with under 5 sec 0-60 performance. In that case, yes, buying an EV may be the same price as the "equivalent" cars they were looking at and the no gas will save them significant money. But I don't use the "save money" argument, that is something you keep trying to argue against -- I only dispute things you claim that are inaccurate, such as the car "equivalent" to an EV is twice the price, that isn't true (though there might be an exception).

Aside from the Chevy Bolt, the majority of EVs are considerably more expensive than their ICE equivalents.

I don't recall really arguing about that -- that if there is an ICE car and the same car as EV, yes, the EV does tend to be more expensive.

You also continue to misunderstand that average does not indicate majority. There are countless new cars that start well under $30k. I suspect that many more of those cars are sold than the more expensive ones. And as I've shown, you can sell a whole lotta cheaper cars and then one SUPER expensive car to jack that average up and make it non-representative of what ANYONE paid.

Except you keep ignoring that the best selling class of "cars" is "light trucks" -- which is everything from my EV6 to a Ford F-150 pickup. It is these cars that sell the best, not the cheaper ones, and these "light trucks" cost is roughly the same as the average new car price. Cheaper cars, to include sedans like your K5, are relatively poor sellers, they aren't anywhere close to the majority of new cars.

I'll agree, it would be nice if they posted the median new car price and, though it is difficult to find much information, what I've read is that the average and median are actually pretty close, and with most Americans not understanding statistics it is easier to only talk "averages" to not confuse the public.

As are you.



I paid a premium for more than that.



And all of those are perfectly fine reasons. What is important to one person is not important to another. I've never claimed any different. But not when discussing ROI and total cost of ownership.





OK, so I'll amend my statement to say "There's almost nowhere that you can charge your car free.".



Swell.



Not anywhere close to around here.

I'd suggest the lack of charging stations is closely tied to the lack of EVs.

You are correct.



Are you including the entire cost? The current price-to-compare for electricity generation where I am is 11.7 cents/kWh. However, there is also a distribution charge from the power company that clocks in around 5 cents/kWh. It's not clear from your link if that is the total energy price or if it includes distribution.

Yes. It sounded, from the way you've talked, like the average in your area is somewhere close to 17 cents, and I've lived in two other states in the last year where the price was similar to my experience in each of those states. In fact, typically when I've "bought" electricity (signed up for an electric "plan"), the per kWh average includes the distribution cost and fees.

Yes, I have a refrigerator with "Smart Grid" that uses similar technology.



Sure there are. There are always pros and cons. My issue is that EV advocates tend to downplay the cons and overstate the benefits, much like you believe I'm overstating the cons and downplaying the benefits. In particular, EV advocates like to talk about all the money they're saving on gas. But they neglect to mention that they've paid a considerable up-front premium.

If people want to buy an EV just because they want one or because of any of the myriad of other reasons you've mentioned, more power to them. But the idea that EV owners are "saving money" on gas after spending a $10k+ premium on their EVs is simply not true.

I've not really heard a lot of the "save money" angle -- if anything, what I hear is that it helps even out the price between the EV you are looking at and an equivalent vehicle. You could maybe argue that Tesla does it, but car manufacturers always overstate things so they can try and sell cars -- and I have to give Tesla credit that they provide a tool to adjust costs to reflect your actual situation.

And there are a lot of "advantages" or "disadvantages" that depend on personal experience. You talk about taking two minutes to get gas, for me it was 5-10; I tended to go for the best price and, while it didn't add a lot of time (maybe 5 minutes) it did add some driving times -- I typically didn't need to be next to these stations on a regular basis. If it is easy for you, great, at least a couple of us here don't feel that way.

And I could have bought a cheaper car. I looked at a used 2023 Bolt EUV, under 10,000 miles, for about $20,000 -- it wasn't initially on my shopping list. I looked at it, just curious about it, and was surprised how much room I had for my driving position (even for taller individuals). Yes, the car is small; it would have had a smaller cargo area but I don't have to have a lot of cargo room. OTOH, there are advantages to having a smaller car in a metropolitan area, much easier to get around town and to park. I considered a Sonata Hybrid (your K5 sibling), about the same price as the Bolt, but it would have involved having a trunk (again, smaller cargo area), a gas engine, etc, so I decided against it. I ended up paying more for the EV6 because it had more of the features I wanted, it had the larger cargo area (I was shocked after my recent Costco trip at how much I got into it), etc. And I have no regrets, it is very much what I was looking for in terms of noise (whisper quiet, can't even tell the car is on), good cargo and passenger space, very good Advanced Driver Assistance, etc.

My issue, though, is that there is a lot of outright false information out there; that they are over twice the price of an equivalent car, that you have to replace the battery after 3 years or so, that you can't road trip with them, etc. Or even you should never charge them to 100% (ignoring that cars with LFP batteries, such as the Model Y RWD, you do want to charge to 100% almost all the time). That isn't to say there isn't some truth in those; EVs are still more expensive (just not to that degree), batteries will degrade over time (but should not need to be replaced), road trips can take 10% extra time (or longer, if you have a slower charging car or a lack of charging stations where you are trying to go). Additionally, each of those things keeps getting better every year.

 

[probinson]

\No, you really didn't.

Yes, I really did.

You mentioned that you paid about $30K, not a specific price.

Actually, I have said exactly what I paid for my car in this thread. You should pay closer attention.

You mention you paid $3.25 for gasoline yesterday but not what you had to pay when you filled up your car a year ago, or 18 months ago, or when you first bought it. Yes, gas prices are cheaper now than they were over your first year or two of ownership.

And electricity prices are now more expensive than they were over my first two years of ownership.

And again, what was the price 6 months ago, a year ago?

Gas was more, electricity was less. Surely you know it's impossible to account for every variance. I don't have a crystal ball. I can only go based off of what I currently know.

I do understand the law of supply and demand though, and as more EVs hit the roads, electricity demand will increase, which almost certainly means the price will follow.

Again, as a general rule, you don't charge to 100% at a fast charging station on a road trip. Sure, if you are at a hotel overnight and it has a Level 2 charger, then you might charge to 100% before leaving in the morning -- which requires no extra time. Again, on a road trip you typically don't charge up to even 80% at a fast charger, much less 100%, so your "time penalty" is largely non-non-existant.

I understand that. But you seem to want to have it both ways. You can charge to 100%, but you really shouldn't, at least if you don't want a "time penalty". So again, the effective range of an EV is overstated by 20% or more almost always.

Yes, it is actually a pretty easy concept to get. If you need the range of a 100% charge then you can charge to 100% -- most of the time you don't, so you won't.

Uh huh. So you'll almost never charge to 100%, meaning that the advertised range is effectively overstated by 20%.

For you, there are many who disagree with them. I saw several of them in a Costco gas station today.

If people are waiting in line to get gas, then they might find the time savings of not having to get gas regularly beneficial. But I suspect those people are outliers. I've gotten gas in more than half of these United States over the last 30 years, and I can count on one hand the times I've had to wait for a pump to free up.

I wonder how often EV drivers have to wait for a charger...

You are the one trying to make the "save money" argument (or argument against, just so you don't try to belabor that point); despite the fact you don't buy the "cheapest" car either, but will pay thousands more for just the way a car "looks."

This is an irrelevant rebuttal. We've already established that people pay a premium for all kinds of things. But again, those people aren't trying to claim that by spending more money, they're saving money. EV owners like to talk about how they're saving money on gas without acknowledging how much more they paid for their cars.

And, again, EVs may not really be much more expensive depending on what people want out of the car; the best example is if they want a car with under 5 sec 0-60 performance.

This amuses me. On the one hand, we're talking about performance of the EV. On the other, economy. If you regularly take advantage of a 0-60 time of less than 5 seconds, you will absolutely sacrifice range and economy in any car.

In that case, yes, buying an EV may be the same price as the "equivalent" cars they were looking at and the no gas will save them significant money.

Those are outliers. There is no doubt that the vast majority of EVs cost significantly more money than ICE equivalents.

I don't recall really arguing about that -- that if there is an ICE car and the same car as EV, yes, the EV does tend to be more expensive.

But you JUST said that EVs aren't more expensive. You can't seem to make up your mind.

Except you keep ignoring that the best selling class of "cars" is "light trucks" -- which is everything from my EV6 to a Ford F-150 pickup. It is these cars that sell the best, not the cheaper ones, and these "light trucks" cost is roughly the same as the average new car price. Cheaper cars, to include sedans like your K5, are relatively poor sellers, they aren't anywhere close to the majority of new cars.

I'll agree, it would be nice if they posted the median new car price and, though it is difficult to find much information, what I've read is that the average and median are actually pretty close, and with most Americans not understanding statistics it is easier to only talk "averages" to not confuse the public.

I suspect the reason that they don't post more data is so that they can claim the "average" price is higher than the majority of people pay.

Also, these numbers completely ignore a large portion of the population. The vast majority of car sales are used, and I can promise you that many of those people aren't spending anywhere near the "average" new car price.

Yes. It sounded, from the way you've talked, like the average in your area is somewhere close to 17 cents, and I've lived in two other states in the last year where the price was similar to my experience in each of those states. In fact, typically when I've "bought" electricity (signed up for an electric "plan"), the per kWh average includes the distribution cost and fees.

Here in PA, you can choose who generates your electricity, but the power company still distributes it and charges their distribution fee. I just recently changed suppliers and will now get my electricity generation for 7.7 cents/kWh for the next 12 months. But I still have to pay the ~5 cent distribution, brining my cost to about 13 cents/kWh.

I've not really heard a lot of the "save money" angle --

Perhaps you've heard of Google? There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of articles talking about how EVs will save you money.

My issue, though, is that there is a lot of outright false information out there; that they are over twice the price of an equivalent car, that you have to replace the battery after 3 years or so, that you can't road trip with them, etc. Or even you should never charge them to 100% (ignoring that cars with LFP batteries, such as the Model Y RWD, you do want to charge to 100% almost all the time). That isn't to say there isn't some truth in those; EVs are still more expensive (just not to that degree), batteries will degrade over time (but should not need to be replaced), road trips can take 10% extra time (or longer, if you have a slower charging car or a lack of charging stations where you are trying to go). Additionally, each of those things keeps getting better every year.

Before we went down this never-ending rabbit hole of EV pros and cons, the discussion as it pertains to the topic of this thread was regarding what it will take for mass adoption of EVs, and the government mandates to try to force that to happen. While you may think that the issues I'm raising are just my issues, I can promise you I'm not alone. And while there may be false information out there, there are also plenty of legitimate concerns that EV advocates downplay.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: when EVs offer the same benefits as ICE vehicles at a comparable price, that is when mass adoption will happen and not before.

 

[probinson]

And I could have bought a cheaper car. I looked at a used 2023 Bolt EUV, under 10,000 miles, for about $20,000 -- it wasn't initially on my shopping list. I looked at it, just curious about it, and was surprised how much room I had for my driving position (even for taller individuals). Yes, the car is small; it would have had a smaller cargo area but I don't have to have a lot of cargo room. OTOH, there are advantages to having a smaller car in a metropolitan area, much easier to get around town and to park. I considered a Sonata Hybrid (your K5 sibling), about the same price as the Bolt, but it would have involved having a trunk (again, smaller cargo area), a gas engine, etc, so I decided against it. I ended up paying more for the EV6 because it had more of the features I wanted, it had the larger cargo area (I was shocked after my recent Costco trip at how much I got into it), etc. And I have no regrets, it is very much what I was looking for in terms of noise (whisper quiet, can't even tell the car is on), good cargo and passenger space, very good Advanced Driver Assistance, etc.

I'm happy that you are happy with your purchase. Likewise, I am very satisfied with my K5. I've seen my brother-in-law's Bolt, and while he's very happy with it, I would never consider it.

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but while the fact that your car is "whisper quiet" is a pro to you, it will be a con to many. I don't really care one way or the other. My K5 isn't "whisper quiet", but it's also not loud at all and does not interfere with listening to music nor having a conversation in the car while driving at highway speeds. However, there are plenty of people who pay big money to make their engines roar, and those people aren't going to appreciate a "whisper quiet" vehicle nearly as much as you do.

Kia understands that the market is not ready for mass adoption of EVs and that there are tons of different people with different preferences and different needs. That's why they are now pushing the new K4 (currently featured front and center on their website), which doesn't even have a hybrid option.

Choose what you like. If an EV fits your needs, buy one and be happy. If an ICE fits the bill better, buy one. The government should just stay the heck out of it.

 

[NxNW]

I understand that. But you seem to want to have it both ways. You can charge to 100%, but you really shouldn't, at least if you don't want a "time penalty". So again, the effective range of an EV is overstated by 20% or more almost always.

I can't believe you're still spouting this nonsense. Let's say I'm taking a trip, so I charge overnight to 100%, so 245 miles of range. Then I drive until there are 30 miles left (similarly, you don't drive your ICE to empty, do you?). Then I recharge to 80%, or 196 miles of range. Again, I drive it down to 30, at which point I take an hour for lunch and let it charge to 100%. Then I drive it down to 30 miles left as I arrive at my destination. That's a total of 596 miles, with a total of 90 minutes of on-the-road charging. I was only limited to 80% once. Your assumptions are just wrong.

I'm sure you'll claim that it only takes 2 minutes to gas up, which is false if you have to fill from a quarter tank and wait in line. I rented a car last week for the eclipse and the pump wouldn't take my card, so I had to go inside. There was a long line of people buying snacks and milling around, and the whole thing took about 15 minutes, even at 6 a.m.

Yes, 15 minutes is shorter than 30 or 60, but it's longer than 2. I've never been able to gas up in 2 minutes. Costco? Doesn't happen.

Uh huh. So you'll almost never charge to 100%, meaning that the advertised range is effectively overstated by 20%.

My example above just refuted this nonsense.

By the same logic, unless you drive your ICE car down to empty every time, its range is overstated.

If people are waiting in line to get gas, then they might find the time savings of not having to get gas regularly beneficial. But I suspect those people are outliers. I've gotten gas in more than half of these United States over the last 30 years, and I can count on one hand the times I've had to wait for a pump to free up.

Just the opposite for me. I have to wait every time, as illustrated above.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: when EVs offer the same benefits as ICE vehicles at a comparable price, that is when mass adoption will happen and not before.

In some parts of the country, mass adoption has already happened.

 

[probinson]

I can't believe you're still spouting this nonsense. Let's say I'm taking a trip, so I charge overnight to 100%, so 245 miles of range. Then I drive until there are 30 miles left (similarly, you don't drive your ICE to empty, do you?). Then I recharge to 80%, or 196 miles of range. Again, I drive it down to 30, at which point I take an hour for lunch and let it charge to 100%. Then I drive it down to 30 miles left as I arrive at my destination. That's a total of 596 miles, with a total of 90 minutes of on-the-road charging. I was only limited to 80% once. Your assumptions are just wrong.

No, you're actually proving my point. You only get 100% on the first leg of your trip. You just said so. If you charged to 100% at each of your charging stops, you'd be there for well over 90 minutes. And again, the range of the EV is effectively 20% lower than advertised when taking road trips. If you think you're going to get 245 miles between chargers, you're mistaken.

I'm sure you'll claim that it only takes 2 minutes to gas up, which is false if you have to fill from a quarter tank and wait in line.

I've been getting gas for over 30 years. It rarely ever takes me more than 2-3 minutes.

I rented a car last week for the eclipse and the pump wouldn't take my card, so I had to go inside.

That's kind of surprising to me. I'm left wondering why you rented an ICE vehicle when you already possess the superiority of your EV.

There was a long line of people buying snacks and milling around, and the whole thing took about 15 minutes, even at 6 a.m.

Yes, there are outliers. For example, you might pull up to a charging station and have to wait for a charger to become free. Especially where I live where there is only one public charging station and only 3 chargers.

Yes, 15 minutes is shorter than 30 or 60, but it's longer than 2.

Uh huh. But the typical fuel stop for me takes just a few minutes. When using my GPS, the ETA doesn't even usually change.

I've never been able to gas up in 2 minutes.

Never? I call shenanigans. It simply does not take that long to fuel up a car.

Costco? Doesn't happen.

Why do you keep talking about Costco? You do know there are other places to get gas, right? For reference, the closest Costco to me is more than 50 miles away.

My example above just refuted this nonsense.

It did not. You almost never charge to 100%. Even in your example, you only started your trip at 100% and never charged back up to that point.

By the same logic, unless you drive your ICE car down to empty every time, its range is overstated.

I've never seen "range" stated for an ICE vehicle. Also, when on a road trip, I always fill my tank to 100%.

Just the opposite for me. I have to wait every time, as illustrated above.

I don't know how long you've been driving, but I find it hard to believe that you've had to wait every time you've ever gotten gas.

In some parts of the country, mass adoption has already happened.

I've already provided data that shows that claim is nonsensical. Here it is again.

The data shows that overall EV adoption is fairly low in the United States: only 0.86% of registered vehicles are electric.​

​

43 states have adoption rates below 1%, and two states—North Dakota and Mississippi—have adoption rates lower than 1 in 1000.​

​

How Many Electric Vehicles Are in the United States? (2024)

Over 2 million electric cars are operating in the US today. This report covers the EV market, state-by-state trends, owner demographics, and future projections.

explodingtopics.com

California, with 36% of the nation's EVs, has the highest adoption rate, and it's still at just 2.5%.

Mass adoption of EVs hasn't happened anywhere. They might be more prolific in some areas than others, but no one would argue that 2.5% constitutes "mass adoption".

 

[SimplyMe]

Yes, I really did.



Actually, I have said exactly what I paid for my car in this thread. You should pay closer attention.



And electricity prices are now more expensive than they were over my first two years of ownership.



Gas was more, electricity was less. Surely you know it's impossible to account for every variance. I don't have a crystal ball. I can only go based off of what I currently know.

I do understand the law of supply and demand though, and as more EVs hit the roads, electricity demand will increase, which almost certainly means the price will follow.

Not really, no. Supply and demand should not exist for electricity. First, "the grid" should produce more electricity than there is demand for -- though we have seen some issues and need to continue to build out and update the grid. Next, every state I'm aware of does not allow the "free market" with electricity, prices are heavily regulated and not allowed to fluctuate based on the whims of the market. And the grid intentionally uses a mix of power plants, at least partially so that a shortage of one fuel (or the cost going up) does not have as drastic affect on the grid.

I understand that. But you seem to want to have it both ways. You can charge to 100%, but you really shouldn't, at least if you don't want a "time penalty". So again, the effective range of an EV is overstated by 20% or more almost always.

Except, again, 95% (or some similar number) of charging is done at home, so there is no "time penalty."

Uh huh. So you'll almost never charge to 100%, meaning that the advertised range is effectively overstated by 20%.

And how often do you drive the full range of your car? How many cars have you bought where the EPA fuel economy estimates were accurate for your driving? Though, to be fair, I shouldn't depend on your anecdotes and instead post all the issues people have with EPA estimates being overstated.

If people are waiting in line to get gas, then they might find the time savings of not having to get gas regularly beneficial. But I suspect those people are outliers. I've gotten gas in more than half of these United States over the last 30 years, and I can count on one hand the times I've had to wait for a pump to free up.

I don't believe that has been an argument of mine, though I have seen people line up for cheaper gas -- which is why many Costco's seemingly always have a line for gas, it is at least 10 cents, and often 20 cents, per gallon cheaper than other nearby stations.

I wonder how often EV drivers have to wait for a charger...

Interesting question but not one I've seen firm data on. It isn't something I've heard of much, other than possibly in California. At the same time, this is an issue where you have the chicken and the egg issue -- people haven't bought EVs, in part, because of the lack of infrastructure while companies haven't been willing to build infrastructure due to the lack of EVs. This is, of course, why Tesla was so aggressive in building out their Supercharger network, so that people would buy Teslas since, with the Supercharger network, they could road trip.

We are getting to a point where this is changing -- there are enough EVs that several companies are now starting to build charging stations; over the past couple of years, from what I've seen of the graph, the number of fast chargers are growing by 40-50% every year. A few years ago, the only fast chargers tended to be Electrify America; now you have EVgo, ChargePoint, Shell Recharge, and other companies building fast chargers close to major highways.

This is an irrelevant rebuttal. We've already established that people pay a premium for all kinds of things. But again, those people aren't trying to claim that by spending more money, they're saving money. EV owners like to talk about how they're saving money on gas without acknowledging how much more they paid for their cars.

Yes, people do tend to like to accentuate the positives of things they buy; kind of you with how great the GT-line looks.

This amuses me. On the one hand, we're talking about performance of the EV. On the other, economy. If you regularly take advantage of a 0-60 time of less than 5 seconds, you will absolutely sacrifice range and economy in any car.

For most people, though, the 0-60 is merely representative of the acceleration that helps in every day driving, not because they want to go out and do 0-60 runs all day. Instead, the real world application they are looking at is being able to get around slower traffic on a two lane road, to get up to speed quickly when merging onto an Interstate, etc. It isn't the speed itself, it is that they know they have the power they need when the situation requires it -- particularly without the delay from cars with "turbo lag."

Those are outliers. There is no doubt that the vast majority of EVs cost significantly more money than ICE equivalents.



But you JUST said that EVs aren't more expensive. You can't seem to make up your mind.

Just like your K5 is "more expensive" than other cars but you justify the extra money for why you didn't buy the cheaper cars. It comes down to what features you want -- based on those features, the cost of comparable cars changes.

I suspect the reason that they don't post more data is so that they can claim the "average" price is higher than the majority of people pay.

So find the data.

Also, these numbers completely ignore a large portion of the population. The vast majority of car sales are used, and I can promise you that many of those people aren't spending anywhere near the "average" new car price.

Yet before you were wanting to talk about how much EVs are depreciating -- meaning that they still are around the price of an average used car.

Here in PA, you can choose who generates your electricity, but the power company still distributes it and charges their distribution fee. I just recently changed suppliers and will now get my electricity generation for 7.7 cents/kWh for the next 12 months. But I still have to pay the ~5 cent distribution, brining my cost to about 13 cents/kWh.

Again, I'm aware of distribution costs added to electrical bills. Again, in the states I've lived in, the electric companies were required to include those costs into the average cost of a kWh of electricity and, from what I saw, it was included in the link I posted.

Perhaps you've heard of Google? There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of articles talking about how EVs will save you money.

My first thought was that I've not heard it argued on this forum, other than from you that it won't save you money. But, I decided to look, so I Googled "EV saves money." For some reasons, while they do talk about lower fueling costs, they always only seem to say things like " a PEV or EV can be a solid investment for many drivers," not "will" but can -- that was from energy.gov. The next one I get is from Consumer Reports with the question as the title, "Will an Electric Car Save You Money?" and the answer that it all depends and it talks about the various things for you to factor in for your situation.

And this trend continues all the way down the page. Pretty much every article I see says the same, something like "EVs can save you money in the long run" (US News and World Report) -- again, not "will" but "may." The only link that seems to try to claim you will save money is from Action for the Climate Emergency (acespace.org) and, as what seems to be an activist group, they might have a bit of an agenda they are trying to push.

So, no, I'm not really seeing what you are claiming from Google.

Before we went down this never-ending rabbit hole of EV pros and cons, the discussion as it pertains to the topic of this thread was regarding what it will take for mass adoption of EVs, and the government mandates to try to force that to happen. While you may think that the issues I'm raising are just my issues, I can promise you I'm not alone. And while there may be false information out there, there are also plenty of legitimate concerns that EV advocates downplay.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: when EVs offer the same benefits as ICE vehicles at a comparable price, that is when mass adoption will happen and not before.

Actually, no, the topic of this thread was Bidenomics -- specifically the requirement (which Biden pushed back) to require all new cars to be EVs by 2032. And it is interesting since this thread talked of the various requirements the government has put on automakers for the last 50+ years, going all the way back to catalytic converters and Unleaded gasoline.

Personally, my opinion, based on the way automakers seem to have responded to EVs, has largely been to let automakers handle the transition. Almost all automakers have announced plans to be "EV only" by around 2035 and, while I can see the government wanting it to happen on a faster timescale, it would seem like 2035 is reasonable with the amount that needs to change. Then the government could set regulations to "encourage" automakers to meet those timelines.

At the same time, there are reasons to push the transition, much like when the government mandated the use of catalytic converters (with the Unleaded fuel being required for catalytic converters). I've been more in the camp for the government to provide incentives, likely both to automakers and consumers, to buy EVs; to help "push" the market. I'd rather have an approach like this than a hard deadline for when new cars must all be EVs. At the same time, I should note, that I've also said that we aren't ready to convert long haul trucks over to electricity, so that shouldn't be required until we have a technology that will work for them.

And, as I've pointed out, technology may end up changing our ideas completely -- either in new battery tech or other innovations. At least one I saw yesterday was that a company has made a discovery of how iron ore can be used to get hydrogen -- that the process is allegedly easy to do and inexpensive. If that is true, and if the process can be scaled enough, then perhaps it will be hydrogen cars that take over from ICE, not pure EVs -- and hydrogen has the advantage of being quick to refuel, making complaints about road trips largely moot.

What I know is the next 10 years will be interesting: I expect we will see a lot of companies trying new innovations (battery tech, hydrogen, etc.); how the market responds, particularly as the EU and Europe are making requirements for only EV cars; what the US government requires; etc. What appears to be in the future is that we will go to mostly new-EV cars over the next decade, in most of the world, and whether the US will be a leader or drag its feet -- and how much US companies will profit (or lose) from the change. For all we complain about China, and regardless of if you argue they are trying to improve emissions from their own country, the reason we worry so much about China and EVs today is they saw this happening and reacted to it faster than most Western nations.

 

[probinson]

Not really, no. Supply and demand should not exist for electricity.

Not sure why you think electricity is immune to basic economic principles.

First, "the grid" should produce more electricity than there is demand for -- though we have seen some issues and need to continue to build out and update the grid.

Maybe it should, but it clearly doesn't. We're probably just a few months away from rolling brownouts and blackouts. If there were more electricity than there was demand for, this would not be necessary.

Next, every state I'm aware of does not allow the "free market" with electricity, prices are heavily regulated and not allowed to fluctuate based on the whims of the market.

In PA, we can choose who generates our electricity. Currently in my ZIP code, my options range from $0.072/kWh all the way up to $0.2395/kWh. Obviously that's a pretty big fluctuation in pricing. The market allows for various terms in these rates (fixed rates, variable rates, introductory rates, term contracts, early-termination fees, etc.). PA actually has a website (papowerswitch.com) where you can compare all the different rates and offers and select the one that you prefer.

Except, again, 95% (or some similar number) of charging is done at home, so there is no "time penalty."

Sure there is. Just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it's not there. You're assuming that just because you're charging at home, you can wait indefinitely until you reach 100% (which at 110v might take as long as 48 hours). But what if you need to leave before it's done charging? The "time penalty" is always there. OTOH, if I need to make an unscheduled trip in my car and I'm nearly out of gas, I can make a 2-minute stop at the gas station and be on my way.

It is this convenience that is glaringly absent from EVs. You talk about it when you say things like, "with a bit of planning". People want to know that if they want to get in their car and go somewhere, they can. That "planning" is not required for ICE vehicles.

I was going to rent a Tesla on my trip to Hawaii in August. Someone on this forum posted about Turo, so I checked it out. I can rent a Tesla Model 3 and/or S for a very reasonable price from a private owner. However, the private owner of the car I was considering cautioned that because there are no Tesla Superchargers on the island of Maui, I would have to rely on Level 2 chargers. Specifically, the availability of Level 2 chargers where I'm staying. The owner actually advised against renting the car without first checking to see if you'll be able to charge at your hotel or AirBnB. I can tell you in planning this trip, I have enough other variables that I need to worry about. Whether or not my car can take me where I want to go isn't something I want to add to that list. So, I decided that an EV is a bad idea for this trip.

This reliability factor is a major reason why people choose NOT to buy an EV.

And how often do you drive the full range of your car?

I generally drive to somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 tank.

How many cars have you bought where the EPA fuel economy estimates were accurate for your driving? Though, to be fair, I shouldn't depend on your anecdotes and instead post all the issues people have with EPA estimates being overstated.

Actually, I believe my EPA is understated. Kia advertises my K5 at 25/33/28. I regularly get well over 30 MPG in my city driving and on long trips I've come near 40 MPG.

I don't believe that has been an argument of mine, though I have seen people line up for cheaper gas -- which is why many Costco's seemingly always have a line for gas, it is at least 10 cents, and often 20 cents, per gallon cheaper than other nearby stations.

Oh, I have too. We don't have a Costco anywhere near us, but Sam's Club does the same thing. It always fascinates me how many people are willing to sit in line for gas to save $0.20/gal. Let's assume you have a 15 gallon tank. If you were filling up from absolutely nothing, you'd save $3.00. Something about a lower price causes people's brains to short circuit and think they're getting some kind of amazing deal. But I value my time more than that. It's not worth $3.00 to me to sit in line for 20-30. minutes to get gas. So I just drive on by and get gas where it will take me 2-3 minutes, even if it means paying a few more dollars.

Interesting question but not one I've seen firm data on. It isn't something I've heard of much, other than possibly in California.

I've not seen data on it either. But if you pull up to a public charging station and there isn't a free charger, you can bet that you're going to spend quite a while to be able to use one. Quite a bit longer than one might have to wait for a gas pump.

At the same time, this is an issue where you have the chicken and the egg issue -- people haven't bought EVs, in part, because of the lack of infrastructure while companies haven't been willing to build infrastructure due to the lack of EVs.

On this, we agree. And now that demand for EVs is cooling, I don't suspect anyone is going to be racing to build up the infrastructure any faster.

Yes, people do tend to like to accentuate the positives of things they buy; kind of you with how great the GT-line looks.

Yes, but again, I'm not telling people how much money I'm saving because I spent more.

So find the data.

I would love to find the data. I've looked. I can't find anything.

And again, I suspect that's by design. It benefits auto manufacturers if they can convince people that it's "normal" to spend $40k+ on a vehicle. What better way than to publish the "average" price people pay, since most people don't understand "averages".

Yet before you were wanting to talk about how much EVs are depreciating -- meaning that they still are around the price of an average used car.

EVs are indeed depreciating quite rapidly, and that puts used EVs in reach of more people. But they're still far out-of-reach for a lot of people.

Again, I'm aware of distribution costs added to electrical bills. Again, in the states I've lived in, the electric companies were required to include those costs into the average cost of a kWh of electricity and, from what I saw, it was included in the link I posted.

That is not how PA works.

In PA, you may choose your electricity supplier. They advertise the rate for the generation of electricity. If you want to know what it's actually going to cost you, then you have to look at your electric bill to see what your electric company is charging for distribution.

Your link didn't indicate one way or the other if it included distribution costs or if it was only looking at generation costs.

And, as I've pointed out, technology may end up changing our ideas completely -- either in new battery tech or other innovations. At least one I saw yesterday was that a company has made a discovery of how iron ore can be used to get hydrogen -- that the process is allegedly easy to do and inexpensive. If that is true, and if the process can be scaled enough, then perhaps it will be hydrogen cars that take over from ICE, not pure EVs -- and hydrogen has the advantage of being quick to refuel, making complaints about road trips largely moot.

If hydrogen takes over, EVs will go the way of the Microsoft Zune, or HD-DVD. Then you'll REALLY see some rapid depreciation.

What I know is the next 10 years will be interesting:

On this, we agree.

 

[SimplyMe]

Not sure why you think electricity is immune to basic economic principles.

Because it is a very regulated industry.

Maybe it should, but it clearly doesn't. We're probably just a few months away from rolling brownouts and blackouts. If there were more electricity than there was demand for, this would not be necessary.

We are? Why? As a general rule, there is more electricity than there is demand for. I know in Texas, when they tended to have those large scale outages, the issue was typically that some plants were offline for maintenance or similar issues, because there was a weather "emergency" at a time that some plants had been taken offline since it was supposed to be a lower usage period. Of course, the other time was when Texas power producers ignored (with the government oversight board allowing them to ignore) cold weather issues and mandate to weatherproof the grid.

Again, we need to be building more plants, as power usage continues to climb as it has for decades, and modernizing what is quickly becoming an "ancient" power grid -- which is why it is good that Biden's infrastructure plan included money to modernize the grid and to create more power.

But in case I wasn't clear, yes, electrical prices will rise; though likely not the same as gasoline (particularly with how unregulated gasoline prices are).

In PA, we can choose who generates our electricity. Currently in my ZIP code, my options range from $0.072/kWh all the way up to $0.2395/kWh. Obviously that's a pretty big fluctuation in pricing. The market allows for various terms in these rates (fixed rates, variable rates, introductory rates, term contracts, early-termination fees, etc.). PA actually has a website (papowerswitch.com) where you can compare all the different rates and offers and select the one that you prefer.

I might be wrong, most states you are only choosing who "delivers" the power, though that supplier may also produce electricity. The issue is, all the power ends up on the same grid and, even if your delivery company generates electricity, the electricity you are receiving may well be generated by another company. If you and your neighbor sign up with different companies, it doesn't mean you are each getting different power, just that you are being billed for power, likely from the same lines, generated in the same place (depending on how close the neighbor is), by different companies.

Sure there is. Just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it's not there. You're assuming that just because you're charging at home, you can wait indefinitely until you reach 100% (which at 110v might take as long as 48 hours).

No, I'm really not. It would be about like me arguing that what happens if you run your tank almost empty and suddenly have to go somewhere in the middle of the night and all the local gas stations are closed?

You seem to be forgetting that most people start the morning at a "full" (for them, which may be 80%) charge. If they do more than 30 miles a day, they aren't depending on a 110V charger. So this "time" you are talking about is the time they need to normally charge each day (often no more than an hour or two on a Level 2 home charger), plus an extra hour or so to get to 100%.

But what if you need to leave before it's done charging? The "time penalty" is always there. OTOH, if I need to make an unscheduled trip in my car and I'm nearly out of gas, I can make a 2-minute stop at the gas station and be on my way.

But why are you suddenly have to leave when you have a planned trip and had enough time to charge to 100%? And, what if, you use the 80 or 90% charge in your car you can still get quite a ways, and then you stop at a charging station for 5 minutes to top up an extra 20% (since the car will be at a much lower charge by then). And don't tell me there are only 3 chargers in your area (or whatever); if you have a need to drive over 200 miles, you are likely to go through an area with chargers, where you can get the extra power you need relatively quickly.

It is this convenience that is glaringly absent from EVs. You talk about it when you say things like, "with a bit of planning". People want to know that if they want to get in their car and go somewhere, they can. That "planning" is not required for ICE vehicles.

Yet, that issue is only because the infrastructure is not quite built out enough. That is quickly changing, as I've showed West Virginia's plans, where things will be fixed in the next couple of years and pretty much every other state has similar plans.

I was going to rent a Tesla on my trip to Hawaii in August. Someone on this forum posted about Turo, so I checked it out. I can rent a Tesla Model 3 and/or S for a very reasonable price from a private owner. However, the private owner of the car I was considering cautioned that because there are no Tesla Superchargers on the island of Maui, I would have to rely on Level 2 chargers. Specifically, the availability of Level 2 chargers where I'm staying. The owner actually advised against renting the car without first checking to see if you'll be able to charge at your hotel or AirBnB. I can tell you in planning this trip, I have enough other variables that I need to worry about. Whether or not my car can take me where I want to go isn't something I want to add to that list. So, I decided that an EV is a bad idea for this trip.

You are talking about an island that is 48 miles long and 26 miles wide. The fact that you can drive the length about 4 times before needing to charge likely has a lot to do with a lack of superchargers. Yes, maybe Tesla should build one for all the tourists but they probably don't feel it is necessary.

This reliability factor is a major reason why people choose NOT to buy an EV.

That isn't a "reliability" issue, that is more of an "edge" case issue. Again, I can see why Tesla wouldn't want to build a Supercharger on an island that small, since even with a Level 2 charger, an hour or two charge -- if your battery is completely empty -- will get you anywhere you want to go. Though I'm sure, as the infrastructure gets more mature across the US and EVs become more common, that there will be fast chargers built there.

It is why the talk of how there are only 3 chargers near you is not a real issue, either. Again, as I mentioned above, you charge at home and -- if you are going to exceed the range of the car -- you charge in an area where there are chargers. There is more than enough range, particularly since charging at home you should be able to start each morning at whatever charge you want the car, that you shouldn't ever have to worry about chargers in your local area.

I generally drive to somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 tank.

So it sounds like you don't use the full range of your vehicle, either.

Actually, I believe my EPA is understated. Kia advertises my K5 at 25/33/28. I regularly get well over 30 MPG in my city driving and on long trips I've come near 40 MPG.

It is very possible that your car is one of the few that understates the EPA mileage, there are a few that do. It is also possible that your car is "overestimating" the fuel economy it is getting, unless you are checking it (my last car consistently showed it was getting a bit over 2 mpg more than what it actually was). Most cars it is worse, a few are like the Ford Fusion where customers sued Ford because they didn't get close to the mileage the EPA numbers claimed.

Oh, I have too. We don't have a Costco anywhere near us, but Sam's Club does the same thing. It always fascinates me how many people are willing to sit in line for gas to save $0.20/gal. Let's assume you have a 15 gallon tank. If you were filling up from absolutely nothing, you'd save $3.00. Something about a lower price causes people's brains to short circuit and think they're getting some kind of amazing deal. But I value my time more than that. It's not worth $3.00 to me to sit in line for 20-30. minutes to get gas. So I just drive on by and get gas where it will take me 2-3 minutes, even if it means paying a few more dollars.

Yes, which shows how illogical many people are when they will wait 30 minutes in line to get gas at Costco or Sam's Club, but then complain about stopping on a road trip to power an EV (yes, I realize you aren't part of that group) -- particularly if charging is still even just a couple of dollars cheaper than what it would cost in their gas car.

I've not seen data on it either. But if you pull up to a public charging station and there isn't a free charger, you can bet that you're going to spend quite a while to be able to use one. Quite a bit longer than one might have to wait for a gas pump.

Why? Granted, I'd say that it depends on how many chargers there are at that station -- but typically someone is relatively close to being finished, so you'll typically wait 5-10 minutes. I'll agree that can be annoying but it shouldn't be a half hour wait (unless, for some reason, there are dozens waiting).

On this, we agree. And now that demand for EVs is cooling, I don't suspect anyone is going to be racing to build up the infrastructure any faster.

This idea that demand for EV's is "cooling" is an interesting one. I hadn't really looked into it and just kind of assumed that they aren't selling at all -- but that isn't it. As I think someone else mentioned, the EV market is not actually "cooling." Instead, more EVs are still being sold than were sold last year, when more were sold than the year before, etc.

What "cooled" is the huge increase in demand for EVs -- it isn't that less EVs are going to be produced, it is instead that the automakers no longer feel the need to build entire factories to keep up with the demand for EVs. And, since some automakers were building as if there would be double or triple the demand for EVs this year than there was last year, they now have plenty of cars built and are shutting down production until the excess has sold.

So there are still more EVs than ever on the roads, that is still increasing, and as such the need for more chargers. On top of that, to tie back to the OP again, Biden's infrastructure bill is providing money to build charging stations (as well as power plants to generate more electricity), which is why states like West Virginia and Texas (and most other states) are actually building out charging in their states (something like a minimum of a charging station every 30 miles along Interstate Highways).

Yes, but again, I'm not telling people how much money I'm saving because I spent more.

Again, not aware of anyone here doing that. Cars, no matter if an EV or an ICE vehicle, are pretty much always a money losing proposition.

I would love to find the data. I've looked. I can't find anything.

And again, I suspect that's by design. It benefits auto manufacturers if they can convince people that it's "normal" to spend $40k+ on a vehicle. What better way than to publish the "average" price people pay, since most people don't understand "averages".

Why? The data isn't reported by the manufacturers, it is reported by the media -- and they typically get their information from state DMV's/tax offices to get the information on the actual sale price of car's being sold. There is no reason to believe that, if there were a wide gap between average and median, some of these publications would be printing it.

EVs are indeed depreciating quite rapidly, and that puts used EVs in reach of more people. But they're still far out-of-reach for a lot of people.

EVs are declining in price, period, as new EVs are getting less and less expensive. Ford shaved a few thousand off of their 2024 EVs recently -- part of why I'm really curious how Hyundai and Kia are going to price their 2025 EVs, particularly since both should be producing their 2025 models, for North American, in new US factories that are coming on line in the next couple of months.

That is not how PA works.

In PA, you may choose your electricity supplier. They advertise the rate for the generation of electricity. If you want to know what it's actually going to cost you, then you have to look at your electric bill to see what your electric company is charging for distribution.

Your link didn't indicate one way or the other if it included distribution costs or if it was only looking at generation costs.

You really think it is that different in other states? What I was thinking of was the https://www.powertochoose.org/ website, the Texas equivalent to the PA website you linked to. If you look at the advertised rates, they include the distribution cost (my recollection is that it was about $5) into the estimated cost per kWh; of course, that also means they have you estimate your power needs (how many kWh you need per month) to adapt the rate to your needs (and also because some plans have extra charges for low and/or high power usage).

If hydrogen takes over, EVs will go the way of the Microsoft Zune, or HD-DVD. Then you'll REALLY see some rapid depreciation.



On this, we agree.

 

[probinson]

Because it is a very regulated industry.

Maybe so, but nothing is immune to the laws of supply and demand. And the supply portion of electricity is very much a free market enterprise, especially in states with power choice.

We are? Why?

Great question. And I should probably qualify my statement.

Rotating outages in California are decided by CAISO. They can decide if and when they're needed. We'll have to wait and see if they implement any rotating outages this year like they did back in 2020.

But in case I wasn't clear, yes, electrical prices will rise; though likely not the same as gasoline (particularly with how unregulated gasoline prices are).

Yes, but even small shifts in electricity prices will have big impacts on the cost to charge an EV. Consider your EV6 battery at 77.4 kWh. For every 5 cents electricity increases, it cost $3.87 more to charge. Gas prices have to go up more than $0.25 to have the same impact on an ICE vehicle with a 15 gallon tank.

I might be wrong, most states you are only choosing who "delivers" the power, though that supplier may also produce electricity.

I have no idea what other states do, but in PA, you can choose who supplies your electricity, not who delivers it to you.

The issue is, all the power ends up on the same grid and, even if your delivery company generates electricity, the electricity you are receiving may well be generated by another company.

I have no idea how it actually works, but I signed up with CleanChoice Energy because they had the best introductory rate for 12 months. They generate my electricity with 100% wind and solar. My power company then distributes the power to me.

My guess is that since I've chosen a different supplier, CleanChoice Energy generates the amount of electricity that I use for a given month. Penn Power, my power company, then generates that much less energy. Yes, it all ends up on the same grid, but the net result is that I'm choosing to have a different company generate and supply my electricity.

No, I'm really not. It would be about like me arguing that what happens if you run your tank almost empty and suddenly have to go somewhere in the middle of the night and all the local gas stations are closed?

Even in my small town, there are three 24-hour gas stations within 3 miles of my house.

You seem to be forgetting that most people start the morning at a "full" (for them, which may be 80%) charge. If they do more than 30 miles a day, they aren't depending on a 110V charger. So this "time" you are talking about is the time they need to normally charge each day (often no more than an hour or two on a Level 2 home charger), plus an extra hour or so to get to 100%.

I have no idea why you're continuing to belabor this. I've already agreed that people who drive their EVs locally will almost certainly be quite happy with them.

But why are you suddenly have to leave when you have a planned trip and had enough time to charge to 100%? And, what if, you use the 80 or 90% charge in your car you can still get quite a ways, and then you stop at a charging station for 5 minutes to top up an extra 20% (since the car will be at a much lower charge by then). And don't tell me there are only 3 chargers in your area (or whatever); if you have a need to drive over 200 miles, you are likely to go through an area with chargers, where you can get the extra power you need relatively quickly.

I can state with confidence that there are FAR fewer charing stations than there are gas stations literally anywhere in this country.

Yet, that issue is only because the infrastructure is not quite built out enough. That is quickly changing, as I've showed West Virginia's plans, where things will be fixed in the next couple of years and pretty much every other state has similar plans.

When it's actually changed, then we can talk. Plans change. I'm more interested in reality.

You are talking about an island that is 48 miles long and 26 miles wide. The fact that you can drive the length about 4 times before needing to charge likely has a lot to do with a lack of superchargers. Yes, maybe Tesla should build one for all the tourists but they probably don't feel it is necessary.

I am telling you that the owner of the EV said that to "avoid frustration" on my trip I needed to understand that there were no fast chargers on the island and there was no guarantee that I'd have access to a Level 2 charger. I'd think that maybe a native of Maui with an EV would have a better handle on this than you.

And you're being incredibly disingenuous when saying you can drive the length of Maui 4 times before needing to charge. I've never been to Maui, but from what I can see, it's quite mountainous. The Road to Hana has over 600 twists and turns and rapid elevation changes. The land area of Maui is around 727 square miles. It's not like there is a 46 mile road that runs the full width of Maui. Sheesh.

That isn't a "reliability" issue, that is more of an "edge" case issue.

Oh no, it's a reliability issue. I know with a high-degree of confidence that when I hop in the 2020 Kia Forte I chose for my trip to Maui that it will be ready to take me wherever I need to go. Just add gas.

Again, I can see why Tesla wouldn't want to build a Supercharger on an island that small, since even with a Level 2 charger, an hour or two charge -- if your battery is completely empty -- will get you anywhere you want to go.

Great. So you want to sit for "an hour or two" to get where you need to go. Sounds just a teensy bit longer than it would take to get gas and go. Particularly frustrating if you have reservations and need to be somewhere on time.

Also just as an FYI, it can take between 6-12 hours to charge a Tesla on a level 2 charger.

It is why the talk of how there are only 3 chargers near you is not a real issue, either.

Sure it is. One charging station with 3 chargers vs. 7 gas stations with 12 pumps each.

So it sounds like you don't use the full range of your vehicle, either.

I don't. But then, I also don't claim my vehicle can take me any predetermined distance either.

Why? Granted, I'd say that it depends on how many chargers there are at that station -- but typically someone is relatively close to being finished, so you'll typically wait 5-10 minutes. I'll agree that can be annoying but it shouldn't be a half hour wait (unless, for some reason, there are dozens waiting).

Not all that far from here, there is a Sheetz gas station right off of I79 with Tesla Superchargers. Pretty sure there are 4. It's not all that uncommon to see Teslas waiting for a charger at that station. I agree they're probably "only" waiting 5-10 minutes, but then they have to wait another 15 minutes once they actually get plugged in.

This idea that demand for EV's is "cooling" is an interesting one. I hadn't really looked into it and just kind of assumed that they aren't selling at all -- but that isn't it. As I think someone else mentioned, the EV market is not actually "cooling." Instead, more EVs are still being sold than were sold last year, when more were sold than the year before, etc.

Is the denial of reality a prerequisite for owning an EV?

The Electric Vehicle Market Is Cooling

The numbers don't lie: thanks to a litany of problems and hurdles, the electric vehicle market is cooling.

www.boldbusiness.com

Tesla just laid off 10% of their workforce on Monday.

These aren't indications of a "hot" market.

So there are still more EVs than ever on the roads, that is still increasing, and as such the need for more chargers.

2024 is going to be interesting. As I've already posted, some analysts think this might be the year that EV sales decline. Only time will tell.

A Once Unthinkable Question: Could Electric-Vehicle Sales Decline in 2024?

Growth has long been a given. But a dismal stretch for the industry has at least a few analysts wondering.

nymag.com

You really think it is that different in other states? What I was thinking of was the https://www.powertochoose.org/ website, the Texas equivalent to the PA website you linked to. If you look at the advertised rates, they include the distribution cost (my recollection is that it was about $5) into the estimated cost per kWh; of course, that also means they have you estimate your power needs (how many kWh you need per month) to adapt the rate to your needs (and also because some plans have extra charges for low and/or high power usage).

PA Power Switch does not include the distribution cost in their estimates. You have to look on your electric bill to see that.

In fact, no state includes the distribution cost when comparing, because you're only comparing the supply cost.

One of the first questions customers ask when considering their energy options is whether switching providers will affect how electricity is delivered to their home or business. The answer is no; energy choice does not impact the delivery of electricity, but rather, it affects the supply portion of your energy use.​

​

...​

​

In states that allow energy choice for electricity and natural gas, the pipes and wires that deliver the energy to retail customers (the transmission and distribution costs) are still owned and operated by traditional monopoly-protected utility companies. Those costs are still price regulated, and the utilities receive rates reflecting their costs plus a reasonable profit.​

​

What Is Energy Choice? - Retail Energy Advancement League

Have you heard of energy choice? REAL walks you through energy choice; the concept, its history, how it works, and where it's available.

www.retailenergychoice.org

​

 

[o_mlly]

This reliability factor is a major reason why people choose NOT to buy an EV.

Yes, and there are other good reasons not to buy an EV. The free market determines the value of EV's to be less than the cost to own one. However, if one freely chooses to buy an EV then why should I and others have pay for their bad decision? Bidenomics?

 

[SimplyMe]

Maybe so, but nothing is immune to the laws of supply and demand. And the supply portion of electricity is very much a free market enterprise, especially in states with power choice.

Yes, there is the supply and demand issue, though they also subject to state regulations as to electrical pricing -- though that will vary by state (some states are more customer friendly), and it will be worst in states that do not have competition between electrical companies.

To give an example, during the pandemic, gasoline demand plummeted, since people were "quarantining at home." So they shut down operations, they quit drilling wells, etc. Oil companies lost a lot of money. In 2021, when the economy rebounded and oil prices went up drastically, oil companies were happy to make the profit, they were looking to earn back the money they had lost in 2020; and because of this they still did not drill for new wells or even re-open wells they had shut down. This article mentions it in March of 2022, when oil companies still weren't drilling and the reason cited was "Wall Street pressure" -- investors were still wanting to make back the money they had lost in these stocks in 2020. Essentially, oil companies were keeping gas prices high for no other reason than to temporarily increase their profits.

The closest I can think to compare is if an electric utility was generating too much energy, so they shut down one of their power plants. When electrical demand went back up and they are trying to justify higher prices, due to supply limitations, the state is going to want to know why they haven't restarted that power plant and want online instead of rates being increased. They can't restrict supply to increase demand due to the state regulations, in the way other companies can.

Great question. And I should probably qualify my statement.

Rotating outages in California are decided by CAISO. They can decide if and when they're needed. We'll have to wait and see if they implement any rotating outages this year like they did back in 2020.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up California since neither of us live there. Though it does seem like many of the issues are of California's own making and some are even due to unethical past actions by the power company (see the many successful lawsuits against the company). To give one example, California has basically shut down all their nuclear reactors, the last one operating was going to be shut down in 2021 despite the power outages but, due to the shortfalls, was given a reprieve.

Yes, but even small shifts in electricity prices will have big impacts on the cost to charge an EV. Consider your EV6 battery at 77.4 kWh. For every 5 cents electricity increases, it cost $3.87 more to charge. Gas prices have to go up more than $0.25 to have the same impact on an ICE vehicle with a 15 gallon tank.

Not really a fair comparison of price increases. If we figure a national average of around $.15 per kWh, then a 5 cent increase is an increase of 33% -- that is a huge increase. Even if you only use a $3/gallon gasoline price (the average price is $3.63 nationally), for a similar increase you are looking at the price going to $4 per gallon.

I have no idea what other states do, but in PA, you can choose who supplies your electricity, not who delivers it to you.



I have no idea how it actually works, but I signed up with CleanChoice Energy because they had the best introductory rate for 12 months. They generate my electricity with 100% wind and solar. My power company then distributes the power to me.

My guess is that since I've chosen a different supplier, CleanChoice Energy generates the amount of electricity that I use for a given month. Penn Power, my power company, then generates that much less energy. Yes, it all ends up on the same grid, but the net result is that I'm choosing to have a different company generate and supply my electricity.



Even in my small town, there are three 24-hour gas stations within 3 miles of my house.



I have no idea why you're continuing to belabor this. I've already agreed that people who drive their EVs locally will almost certainly be quite happy with them.



I can state with confidence that there are FAR fewer charing stations than there are gas stations literally anywhere in this country.

Who is arguing that? Even with 100% EV adoption, there won't be as many charging stations as gas stations -- because almost all charging is done at home. There is no need for a charging station on every corner. Granted, there will need to be some "on street" level 2 charging, for some apartments and homes with no driveways, but that should not be a "charging station" issue.

When it's actually changed, then we can talk. Plans change. I'm more interested in reality.

Except it is changing, rather quickly. For example, this graph of the increase in public charging stations and chargers per year. And if we were talking about plans 10 years out, that would be something different. But when you look at the amount of pre-planning needed (acquiring leases for the land of the charging station, the physical charging station hardware, contracts for the workers who will install and maintain the new units) to install a new charging station, when a company is talking at the end of 2023 about what they will do in 2024, that is typically pretty solid -- they've got pretty much all of the land, chargers, and workers lined up to be ready to meet those goals. Yes, some of the installs may have issues pop up and get delayed. But with Electrify America planning to double the number of fast chargers they have installed in 2024, with EVgo planning to install enough units that they would be larger than Electrify America by the end of the year (even with EA doubling in size), even if they don't meet goals you are still looking at an awful lot of chargers. And that doesn't include what Tesla, ChargePoint, Blink, and other charging companies plan for the year; or what any of the states are doing, such as West Virginias stations which, along interstates, are supposed to be done this year (with other major highways next year).

I am telling you that the owner of the EV said that to "avoid frustration" on my trip I needed to understand that there were no fast chargers on the island and there was no guarantee that I'd have access to a Level 2 charger. I'd think that maybe a native of Maui with an EV would have a better handle on this than you.

And you're being incredibly disingenuous when saying you can drive the length of Maui 4 times before needing to charge. I've never been to Maui, but from what I can see, it's quite mountainous. The Road to Hana has over 600 twists and turns and rapid elevation changes. The land area of Maui is around 727 square miles. It's not like there is a 46 mile road that runs the full width of Maui. Sheesh.

It is an extremely isolated case, literally an island. If you lived there -- or even if you were visiting and the place you are staying had an EV charger -- you likely wouldn't have any issue on the island in an EV. Mountains are less of an issue than you think -- yes, you need extra energy to get up the mountain, but a good amount of the energy to get up the mountain is "refunded" (regenerative braking) when you come back down the mountain.

And yes, 727 square miles is still quite small. Looking at the various metropolitan areas of cities with only a million, you are still looking at it covering thousands of sq miles -- over 5,000 sq. miles. These are places where people buy EVs to drive from their home in a suburban town/city and drive into the major city center for work everyday; yet we've agreed that isn't an issue. If Maui was only about 1 mile wide, which would make it about 700 miles long, then it might be an issue; but that isn't what Maui is.

I'd say you found the reason that rental car companies don't rent EVs on Maui, and you need to get them from someplace like Turo. At the same time, they aren't putting in charging stations because they aren't needed at the moment and the money can be spent better in spots where people need more chargers (such as West Virginia) for a successful road trip.

Oh no, it's a reliability issue. I know with a high-degree of confidence that when I hop in the 2020 Kia Forte I chose for my trip to Maui that it will be ready to take me wherever I need to go. Just add gas.

No, it is a fueling issue. When I was at home and could not buy gas for my car (hurricane, flooding, no power due to weather, etc.), I didn't blame my car's reliability. The gas car wasn't broken.

Great. So you want to sit for "an hour or two" to get where you need to go. Sounds just a teensy bit longer than it would take to get gas and go. Particularly frustrating if you have reservations and need to be somewhere on time.

Also just as an FYI, it can take between 6-12 hours to charge a Tesla on a level 2 charger.

Again, in one small island in the US -- why do you keep arguing these edge cases which have nothing to do with you owning an EV? Yes, it is going to stop you from renting one on a vacation, where you are flying. It also apparently hasn't stopped people on the island from buying EVs.

Sure it is. One charging station with 3 chargers vs. 7 gas stations with 12 pumps each.

To answer this question, "I have no idea why you're continuing to belabor this. I've already agreed that people who drive their EVs locally will almost certainly be quite happy with them," the above is exactly why. Again, it makes no difference, to you, that you only have one charging station but 84 gas pumps -- unlike the gas pumps, if you owned an EV, you should never have a reason to visit one of those three chargers. If you have someone drive to visit you and they drive an EV, then it could potentially be an issue, but it isn't an issue for you. Your issue is the number of fast chargers in Pittsburgh, or West Virginia, or wherever else you might drive enough that range becomes an issue.

I don't. But then, I also don't claim my vehicle can take me any predetermined distance either.

You kind of have, at least to the same extent that we've talked about EV ranges. I think the actual complaint is that you don't worry if your car can take you a predetermined distance and, as a daily driver, I don't either.

If you are talking about road tripping, yes, you need to worry a little in EVs because there aren't as many charging stations as there are gas stations. So, I will look at what charging stations are available before I take a road trip.

Honestly, though, I did much the same when I road tripped with my gas car. Of course, some of that is because I've tended to frequently drive in the Western US -- states like Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, etc. -- places where you can go for quite a distance and not see a gas station. Or, in some of the remote areas there will be a gas station but gas will be a $1 more a gallon, since they built the gas station in the middle of nowhere. Same with some of the small mountain towns in Colorado. And that may partly explain why an EV doesn't bother me that much,

Not all that far from here, there is a Sheetz gas station right off of I79 with Tesla Superchargers. Pretty sure there are 4. It's not all that uncommon to see Teslas waiting for a charger at that station. I agree they're probably "only" waiting 5-10 minutes, but then they have to wait another 15 minutes once they actually get plugged in.

If you are talking about Grove City, it appears there are 6. Looking at comments, it appears the only issue some have had is when ICE vehicles park in the charging spots.

Is the denial of reality a prerequisite for owning an EV?

The Electric Vehicle Market Is Cooling

The numbers don't lie: thanks to a litany of problems and hurdles, the electric vehicle market is cooling.

www.boldbusiness.com

Odd, I read the article and find things like this, "If expectations aren’t satisfied, and EV sales targets aren’t met, then positive figures mean little. As it turns out, this appears to be the case for the U.S. electric vehicle market." They are saying what I said, it isn't that EVs aren't selling (and even selling more than last year) but rather that "expectations" that aren't being met.

They go on and say, "While GM did see a 20% YOY increase in EV sales, electric vehicles still only reflect 3% of all car sales for the company. As such, GM announced it would be scaling back on EV production, and Ford Motor Co. did the same." Again, it supports what I said, they are seeing sales growth but, because they expected EV sales to be a lot higher, they are scaling back production since they overestimated the number of cars needed.

Again, we'll see how the 2024 numbers end up but, the most recent numbers I've seen still show that more EVs are being sold, just the market segment isn't growing as quickly in the US as automakers have planned, so they are scaling back.

Tesla just laid off 10% of their workforce on Monday.

These aren't indications of a "hot" market.

Interesting that you put "hot" in quotes. As for Tesla, my impression is there are multiple factors at play -- including some sales not being as high as they would like, though still increasing, and that their price cuts over the last couple of years is making them cut expenses. One other factor, Tesla is facing increasing pressure in various markets (such as Europe and China) from the Chinese EV makers, with their low cost EVs. I believe there is a real fear at Tesla that they won't sell as many cars in Europe and China, not because their are less EVs sold, but because some of those who would have bought a Tesla will buy a cheaper Chinese Ev.

2024 is going to be interesting. As I've already posted, some analysts think this might be the year that EV sales decline. Only time will tell.

A Once Unthinkable Question: Could Electric-Vehicle Sales Decline in 2024?

Growth has long been a given. But a dismal stretch for the industry has at least a few analysts wondering.

nymag.com

But, once again, this reinforces that EV sales have not dropped, yet. Yes, maybe EV sales will drop in the US this year. At the same time, Kia is coming out with some lower priced EVs, the EV3 ($30,000 MSRP for the base model) and EV4 ($35,000 MSRP for the base model), that are supposed to be released late this year in the US. I would think a $30,000 Kia EV might have a chance at selling well -- particularly if they build it in their US plant and it gets the $7500 federal tax credit.

PA Power Switch does not include the distribution cost in their estimates. You have to look on your electric bill to see that.

View attachment 346045

In fact, no state includes the distribution cost when comparing, because you're only comparing the supply cost.

One of the first questions customers ask when considering their energy options is whether switching providers will affect how electricity is delivered to their home or business. The answer is no; energy choice does not impact the delivery of electricity, but rather, it affects the supply portion of your energy use.​

​

...​

​

In states that allow energy choice for electricity and natural gas, the pipes and wires that deliver the energy to retail customers (the transmission and distribution costs) are still owned and operated by traditional monopoly-protected utility companies. Those costs are still price regulated, and the utilities receive rates reflecting their costs plus a reasonable profit.​

​

What Is Energy Choice? - Retail Energy Advancement League

Have you heard of energy choice? REAL walks you through energy choice; the concept, its history, how it works, and where it's available.

www.retailenergychoice.org

​

I find it interesting that you keep showing $0.11kWh pricing for your electricity rate, at least for your location, and the website I used showed a $0.17kWh price for electricity in Pennsylvania. As I'm guessing you use somewhere in the range of 1,000kWh per month, that distribution fee is likely only around a 5% price increase; with that small a price increase when you add the distribution fee, I'm not sure why you are arguing it so hard.

 

[probinson]

I'm not sure why you are bringing up California since neither of us live there.

Maybe not, but 12% of the US population does, so I'd think it's relevant, particularly as they lead the way in EV adoption and are the most susceptible to rolling blackouts.

Not really a fair comparison of price increases.

Sure it is.

Here is the historical pricing of electricity from Penn Power where I live.

There was a low of 5.7 cents/kWh in 2021 to the current price-to-compare of 11.231 cents/kWh. An increase of $0.05/kwh is absolutely realistic.

If we figure a national average of around $.15 per kWh, then a 5 cent increase is an increase of 33% -- that is a huge increase. Even if you only use a $3/gallon gasoline price (the average price is $3.63 nationally), for a similar increase you are looking at the price going to $4 per gallon.

Why are you assuming that the prices would increase at the same rate? That has not historically been the case. And of course when we're talking about pennies for electiricy and dollars with gas, relative percentages don't really tell the whole story.

Except it is changing, rather quickly. For example, this graph of the increase in public charging stations and chargers per year.

That is not "rather quickly". That chart shows a rather modest increase of just 32,081 more chargers from 2022 to 2023, or roughly 640 per state.

There is a long, long way to go.

When last measured in 2020, the 150,000 gas stations operating in the US serviced 276 million cars. While statistics don’t exist for the number of total pumps in the US, if we assume the average station has between six and 12 pumps, that’s around 900,000 to 1.8 million pumps, or 153 to 307 cars per pump.​

​

In 2022 there were roughly 140,000 public EV chargers servicing 1.7 million EVs across the country, or 12 cars per plug. Many of these are Level 2 smart chargers like the JuiceBox, while others are Level 3 Fast Chargers operating at up to 250 kW. Together they make between 12 and 25 as many plugs per EV, not even accounting for Level 2 smart home chargers, which 80% of EV drivers say they rely on primarily.​

I'm also going to assume these folks have never heard of Buc-ee's. All of their stations have a minimum of 100 pumps, just slightly more than the 6-12 they're using in their calculations. Not to mention every truck stop along the Interstate with dozens of pumps.

Yes, more EV public chargers are being built. Whether or not you believe this is happening "rather quickly" is something quite a bit more subjective.

It is an extremely isolated case, literally an island. If you lived there -- or even if you were visiting and the place you are staying had an EV charger -- you likely wouldn't have any issue on the island in an EV. Mountains are less of an issue than you think -- yes, you need extra energy to get up the mountain, but a good amount of the energy to get up the mountain is "refunded" (regenerative braking) when you come back down the mountain.

It's amusing to me that you think you know more than the native EV owners on the island that openly tell me what I need to do to avoid frustration if I rent their EV.

No, it is a fueling issue.

No, it's a reliability issue. Again, if I'm running low on a gas, a few minute stop on the way to wherever I'm going and I'm good to go. If my car needs charged, I might have to wait an hour (or more) on a level 2 charger to go 44 miles. God forbid there's an emergency. But I'm sure you'll also dismiss that as an "edge case".

When I was at home and could not buy gas for my car (hurricane, flooding, no power due to weather, etc.), I didn't blame my car's reliability. The gas car wasn't broken.

You were saying something about "edge cases"?

Again, in one small island in the US -- why do you keep arguing these edge cases which have nothing to do with you owning an EV? Yes, it is going to stop you from renting one on a vacation, where you are flying. It also apparently hasn't stopped people on the island from buying EVs.

Right. Because as you've pointed out incessantly, they can charge at home. Such is not the case if you're traveling. If you don't have access to a level 2 charger where you're staying, you're just out of luck.

Also, all of these so-called "edge cases" need to be addressed for mass adoption.

To answer this question, "I have no idea why you're continuing to belabor this. I've already agreed that people who drive their EVs locally will almost certainly be quite happy with them," the above is exactly why. Again, it makes no difference, to you, that you only have one charging station but 84 gas pumps -- unlike the gas pumps, if you owned an EV, you should never have a reason to visit one of those three chargers. If you have someone drive to visit you and they drive an EV, then it could potentially be an issue, but it isn't an issue for you. Your issue is the number of fast chargers in Pittsburgh, or West Virginia, or wherever else you might drive enough that range becomes an issue.

What about people driving through my town with an EV? We're talking about a world of mass EV adoption, where nearly EVERYONE has an EV. Maybe I don't need an EV charger in my town, but the people passing through or staying at the local hotel sure do.

You kind of have, at least to the same extent that we've talked about EV ranges. I think the actual complaint is that you don't worry if your car can take you a predetermined distance and, as a daily driver, I don't either.

No, the point is that range is pretty much a non-issue in an ICE vehicle, because you can stop and refuel in minutes even in the most remote locations. Such is not the case with an EV, which requires quite a bit more planning.

If you are talking about road tripping, yes, you need to worry a little in EVs because there aren't as many charging stations as there are gas stations. So, I will look at what charging stations are available before I take a road trip.

Because you must. On the other hand, I don't plan my fuel stops anywhere I go. I see a sign on the Interstate and pull off when I feel I'm getting too low.

Same with some of the small mountain towns in Colorado. And that may partly explain why an EV doesn't bother me that much,

Probably. But for the vast majority of people, planning where to get gas just isn't something that needs to be done. It's an added burden to owning an EV when traveling any distance that takes you beyond the range of the vehicle.

If you are talking about Grove City, it appears there are 6. Looking at comments, it appears the only issue some have had is when ICE vehicles park in the charging spots.

Those reviews are interesting. At least a few of them on Google said the chargers didn't work and/or were slow. But the majority of the reviewers seemed satisfied. I have to believe the people that say you can walk to the Outlet Mall are being pretty inconsiderate. If it only takes 15 minutes to charge your car, it might take you that long just to cross the street both ways, not to mention the walk you'd have to get to the shops. You'd be tying up a charger for quite a while if you walked over to the outlets.

Odd, I read the article and find things like this, "If expectations aren’t satisfied, and EV sales targets aren’t met, then positive figures mean little. As it turns out, this appears to be the case for the U.S. electric vehicle market." They are saying what I said, it isn't that EVs aren't selling (and even selling more than last year) but rather that "expectations" that aren't being met.

Anecdotally speaking, there are multiple EV6's on at my local Kia dealership that have been there for quite a while.

But let's not rely on anecdotes. Let's see what 4,000 auto dealerships have to say:

Mr. President, our letter in November asked that you tap the brakes on the electric vehicle mandate. We now ask that you hit the brakes. It is uncontestable that the combination of fewer tax incentives, a woefully inadequate charging infrastructure, and insufficient consumer demand makes the proposed electric vehicle mandate completely unrealistic.​

​

Source: https://44308654.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/44308654/EV VOC Letter #2.pdf​

But, once again, this reinforces that EV sales have not dropped, yet.

I'm left wondering if you know what "cooling" means. The article says exactly what I said, that the EV market is cooling.

I find it interesting that you keep showing $0.11kWh pricing for your electricity rate, at least for your location, and the website I used showed a $0.17kWh price for electricity in Pennsylvania. As I'm guessing you use somewhere in the range of 1,000kWh per month, that distribution fee is likely only around a 5% price increase; with that small a price increase when you add the distribution fee, I'm not sure why you are arguing it so hard.

As I've already explained, the distribution fee for my electric is roughly 5.5 cents/kWh. Here's a screenshot from my latest bill:

As you can see, the rate that to compare is 11.231 cents/kWh on this bill. But there is an additional 5.5 cents for distribution. When you are shopping for electricity rates, it does not show you what you will pay in total for your electricity. It shows what you will pay for the supply of your electricity.

The supplier rates for electricity vary wildly in PA, currently from 7.2 cents/kWh all the way up to 23.95 cents/kWh. All of those rates would also have the 5.5 cents/kWh included. It's not a percentage of your usage. It's a flat rate that the power company charges. Whether or not it is relatively significant depends on what you're paying your supplier. In my case, next month will be the first bill that my supply rate drops to 7.7 cents/kWh with my new supplier. So paying an additional 5.5 cents/kWh is significant, meaning that the total cost of my electricity is more than 76% higher than my supply rate.

You seem to have a penchant for using relative percentages, but when we're talking about such small numbers, percentages can be quite misleading.

 

[SimplyMe]

Maybe not, but 12% of the US population does, so I'd think it's relevant, particularly as they lead the way in EV adoption and are the most susceptible to rolling blackouts.

That's nice. At the same time, Texas has had just as many blackouts as California over a similar time period and has not led in EV adoption. As such, I'm not sure what the point is.

Sure it is.

Here is the historical pricing of electricity from Penn Power where I live.

View attachment 346050

There was a low of 5.7 cents/kWh in 2021 to the current price-to-compare of 11.231 cents/kWh. An increase of $0.05/kwh is absolutely realistic.

Except you need to do the similar graph for gasoline, if you are going to be fair. My issue wasn't that a 5 cent increase wasn't necessarily realistic, it was that comparing it to a $0.25 gasoline increase was nowhere near equivalent. If you did the graph, gasoline prices increased by more than $1.00 per gallon, just that gas prices have come back down quite a bit, while your Penn Power's rates haven't.

Why are you assuming that the prices would increase at the same rate? That has not historically been the case. And of course when we're talking about pennies for electiricy and dollars with gas, relative percentages don't really tell the whole story.

I don't think I ever claimed they would. Though, in this case, they did go up about the same time.

That is not "rather quickly". That chart shows a rather modest increase of just 32,081 more chargers from 2022 to 2023, or roughly 640 per state.

There is a long, long way to go.

When last measured in 2020, the 150,000 gas stations operating in the US serviced 276 million cars. While statistics don’t exist for the number of total pumps in the US, if we assume the average station has between six and 12 pumps, that’s around 900,000 to 1.8 million pumps, or 153 to 307 cars per pump.​

​

In 2022 there were roughly 140,000 public EV chargers servicing 1.7 million EVs across the country, or 12 cars per plug. Many of these are Level 2 smart chargers like the JuiceBox, while others are Level 3 Fast Chargers operating at up to 250 kW. Together they make between 12 and 25 as many plugs per EV, not even accounting for Level 2 smart home chargers, which 80% of EV drivers say they rely on primarily.​

Again, you don't need millions of public chargers in the US. As whatever article you linked here states, "not even accounting for Level 2 smart home chargers, which 80% of EV drivers say they rely on primarily." My guess is the last 20% largely rely on 110V (Level 1) private (not public) chargers. And I would say an increase in 32,000 public chargers, up from 140,000 chargers (or even 165,000, or whatever the previous years numbers were) is pretty substantial.

I'm also going to assume these folks have never heard of Buc-ee's. All of their stations have a minimum of 100 pumps, just slightly more than the 6-12 they're using in their calculations. Not to mention every truck stop along the Interstate with dozens of pumps.

Interesting. If a Buc-ee's has 100 pumps (or even 120, at one of the largest Buc-ee's stores -- quite a site to see) to service 276 million cars, it seems that 6-12 plugs for 1.7 million EVs make it sound like quite a few. But to make you feel better, Buc-ee's is adding both Tesla SuperChargers (I think these are already active at most Buc-ee's, between 12 and 16 chargers) and Mercedes/ChargePoint chargers (open to all EVs) at pretty much all their locations. From what I've heard, the new Buc-ee's at Florence, SC along I-95 has 16 Tesla Superchargers and 6 of the Mercedes/Chargepoint chargers. Numbers at the other Buc-ee's locations should be similar.

Yes, more EV public chargers are being built. Whether or not you believe this is happening "rather quickly" is something quite a bit more subjective.



It's amusing to me that you think you know more than the native EV owners on the island that openly tell me what I need to do to avoid frustration if I rent their EV.

Sorry, I didn't say that at all. I mentioned there are reasons why Maui likely does not yet have public EV fast chargers -- as they have relatively low need. Yes, that does make it tough on those who want to rent an EV, but why should the charging companies build out charging stations in Maui for the few people who might happen to rent an EV (particularly when the rental companies do not rent EVs)? You expect them to make a huge monetary investment to install chargers and get almost no return on their investment?

No, it's a reliability issue. Again, if I'm running low on a gas, a few minute stop on the way to wherever I'm going and I'm good to go. If my car needs charged, I might have to wait an hour (or more) on a level 2 charger to go 44 miles. God forbid there's an emergency. But I'm sure you'll also dismiss that as an "edge case".

Yes, it might affect a handful of people a month, or even a year, those few who visit Maui and rent an EV without checking if they can charge where they are staying.

You were saying something about "edge cases"?

Just following your lead.

Right. Because as you've pointed out incessantly, they can charge at home. Such is not the case if you're traveling. If you don't have access to a level 2 charger where you're staying, you're just out of luck.

Again, you don't go on Turo to rent an EV. How is that a hardship?

Also, all of these so-called "edge cases" need to be addressed for mass adoption.

Yes. Even if car manufacturers are force to change to only sell EVs, you are looking at almost a decade before someone will have to build a charging station there. Again, it will be built, but for the time being it isn't a high priority because of the very small number of people it will help. Seems like building more fast chargers along I-79 will be far more useful to many more people in the short term.

What about people driving through my town with an EV? We're talking about a world of mass EV adoption, where nearly EVERYONE has an EV. Maybe I don't need an EV charger in my town, but the people passing through or staying at the local hotel sure do.

Sure, and they have those current fast chargers, which sound like they keep up with demand for the moment. Again, I'm sure more will be built but, for the moment (again), it likely isn't a high priority. Again, when we get even to 10 million EVs in the US, I think you'll find there are more chargers. In the meantime, the goal appears to be to get more charging stations -- trying to ensure there are chargers at frequent intervals along major highways.

No, the point is that range is pretty much a non-issue in an ICE vehicle, because you can stop and refuel in minutes even in the most remote locations. Such is not the case with an EV, which requires quite a bit more planning.



Because you must. On the other hand, I don't plan my fuel stops anywhere I go. I see a sign on the Interstate and pull off when I feel I'm getting too low.



Probably. But for the vast majority of people, planning where to get gas just isn't something that needs to be done. It's an added burden to owning an EV when traveling any distance that takes you beyond the range of the vehicle.

A minor one, if you know what you are doing. And, while there are exceptions, most EVs will plan the route with the chargers for you. The current software in my EV6 plans the chargers and you can check to see if they are busy and if some of them aren't working, and will re-route you as needed. To be honest, though; Tesla still has the advantage there. I believe the Tesla software will even tell you how many people are using their Tesla navigation to go to that station -- so you have an idea of how busy they might be when you get there. At the same time, that will be less and less useful as current Ford, Rivian, and I believe GM can now use Superchargers -- and as other manufactures start using Tesla chargers this year. I also read Google is adding that ability into Maps in their next major update; since Tesla uses Google's Navigation, I suspect Google will have similar features when they get it fully rolled out.

Those reviews are interesting. At least a few of them on Google said the chargers didn't work and/or were slow. But the majority of the reviewers seemed satisfied. I have to believe the people that say you can walk to the Outlet Mall are being pretty inconsiderate. If it only takes 15 minutes to charge your car, it might take you that long just to cross the street both ways, not to mention the walk you'd have to get to the shops. You'd be tying up a charger for quite a while if you walked over to the outlets.

I suppose it would depend on how fast their car charges (older Tesla's are slower, and some even still have the free unlimited charging benefit) and what they were going there to do. Not knowing the area, I can't speak to it.

Anecdotally speaking, there are multiple EV6's on at my local Kia dealership that have been there for quite a while.

But let's not rely on anecdotes. Let's see what 4,000 auto dealerships have to say:

Mr. President, our letter in November asked that you tap the brakes on the electric vehicle mandate. We now ask that you hit the brakes. It is uncontestable that the combination of fewer tax incentives, a woefully inadequate charging infrastructure, and insufficient consumer demand makes the proposed electric vehicle mandate completely unrealistic.​

​

Source: https://44308654.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/44308654/EV VOC Letter #2.pdf​

To be fair, Biden did "tap the brakes." At the same time, I'm sure if car dealers had their way we'd still be using leaded gas and cars that don't have catalytic converters.

We can debate how popular the mandate might be (if it actually occurs, or is not pushed back) and how it might effect EV adoption but, again, the fact that the government believes that adoption won't happen without a "push" is why they are talking mandate. Again, much like catalytic converters -- not something that auto manufacturers (or even the public) were going to willingly adopt without the requirement to add them.

I'm left wondering if you know what "cooling" means. The article says exactly what I said, that the EV market is cooling.

Funny, I've thought the same thing about you. "Cooling" in this case means that the huge increases in people looking to buy EVs, where there were waiting lists and $10,000 "dealer market adjustments" are over. EV purchases are still increasing, just at a slower rate. We'll see if those claiming that people will quit buying EVs is true. Again, I doubt they are right as 1) current EV prices are dropping and 2) newer, cheaper EVs are being released this year -- which will start attracting buyers who were waiting for the prices to drop. At the same time, I could be wrong, we'll have to wait and see what happens the rest of the year.

As I've already explained, the distribution fee for my electric is roughly 5.5 cents/kWh. Here's a screenshot from my latest bill:

View attachment 346055

As you can see, the rate that to compare is 11.231 cents/kWh on this bill. But there is an additional 5.5 cents for distribution. When you are shopping for electricity rates, it does not show you what you will pay in total for your electricity. It shows what you will pay for the supply of your electricity.

The supplier rates for electricity vary wildly in PA, currently from 7.2 cents/kWh all the way up to 23.95 cents/kWh. All of those rates would also have the 5.5 cents/kWh included. It's not a percentage of your usage. It's a flat rate that the power company charges. Whether or not it is relatively significant depends on what you're paying your supplier. In my case, next month will be the first bill that my supply rate drops to 7.7 cents/kWh with my new supplier. So paying an additional 5.5 cents/kWh is significant, meaning that the total cost of my electricity is more than 76% higher than my supply rate.

You seem to have a penchant for using relative percentages, but when we're talking about such small numbers, percentages can be quite misleading.

I'm not sure why this is still relevant.

 

[probinson]

That's nice. At the same time, Texas has had just as many blackouts as California over a similar time period and has not led in EV adoption. As such, I'm not sure what the point is.

Blackouts of any kind anywhere will cause a major disruption if the entire country relies on electricity for their travel.

Except you need to do the similar graph for gasoline, if you are going to be fair. My issue wasn't that a 5 cent increase wasn't necessarily realistic, it was that comparing it to a $0.25 gasoline increase was nowhere near equivalent. If you did the graph, gasoline prices increased by more than $1.00 per gallon, just that gas prices have come back down quite a bit, while your Penn Power's rates haven't.

None of this is the point. The point is that EVs are measured in kWh and ICE vehicles are measured in gallons. As an example, the 2024 Kia EV6 has a 77.4 kWh battery. The 2024 Kia Sportage (which I hope you'd agree is an accurate analog to the EV6) has a 14.3 gallon gas tank. So in this case for every penny that electricity increase, gas has to increase 5.4 cents to have the same impact on price. As larger battery capacities become the norm, that impact will be even greater. With a 100 kWh battery, each penny the price increases would equate to $1.00 more to charge.

Again, you don't need millions of public chargers in the US. As whatever article you linked here states, "not even accounting for Level 2 smart home chargers, which 80% of EV drivers say they rely on primarily." My guess is the last 20% largely rely on 110V (Level 1) private (not public) chargers.

This is all well and good for your local driving as long as you have a home where you can charge. But if we're talking about a world where everyone has an EV, you will need far more public chargers than currently exist.

And I would say an increase in 32,000 public chargers, up from 140,000 chargers (or even 165,000, or whatever the previous years numbers were) is pretty substantial.

I would not. As I said, it's roughly 600 chargers per state.

Sorry, I didn't say that at all. I mentioned there are reasons why Maui likely does not yet have public EV fast chargers -- as they have relatively low need. Yes, that does make it tough on those who want to rent an EV, but why should the charging companies build out charging stations in Maui for the few people who might happen to rent an EV (particularly when the rental companies do not rent EVs)? You expect them to make a huge monetary investment to install chargers and get almost no return on their investment?

Again, I'm talking about what needs to happen for mass adoption, in a world with no ICE vehicles.

Yes, it might affect a handful of people a month, or even a year, those few who visit Maui and rent an EV without checking if they can charge where they are staying.

I was not talking about Maui. I was talking about emergencies. I think it's safe to say that more than a handful of people per month have emergencies.

Again, you don't go on Turo to rent an EV. How is that a hardship?

Who said anything about a hardship? Since EVs aren't ready for prime time in Maui, I just rented an ICE vehicle instead.

Yes. Even if car manufacturers are force to change to only sell EVs, you are looking at almost a decade before someone will have to build a charging station there. Again, it will be built, but for the time being it isn't a high priority because of the very small number of people it will help. Seems like building more fast chargers along I-79 will be far more useful to many more people in the short term.

You seem to vastly underestimate the tourist industry in Hawaii and the number of people that would benefit.

I suppose it would depend on how fast their car charges (older Tesla's are slower, and some even still have the free unlimited charging benefit) and what they were going there to do. Not knowing the area, I can't speak to it.

It would take every bit of 30 minutes just to cross the street and walk to one of the stores and back. You could easily spend hours there.

To be fair, Biden did "tap the brakes." At the same time, I'm sure if car dealers had their way we'd still be using leaded gas and cars that don't have catalytic converters.

we'll have to wait and see what happens the rest of the year.

Indeed.

 

[SimplyMe]

Blackouts of any kind anywhere will cause a major disruption if the entire country relies on electricity for their travel.

Blackouts already cause major disruptions, even with the entire country depending on gasoline for their travel. Yes, there are ways that stations can pump gasoline when there is no power, if they are prepared and chose to. Of course, then the issues are how people pay for the gasoline, since most people pay by some type of credit card today and those card transactions cannot be processed when power (which typically included Internet) is not working. Yes, they can go likely have a way to record the charge -- either some type of digital sale that is backed up on the computer until the power/Internet come back or using paper charge slips (as we did in the "good old days"); the issue is they have no way of checking if the card is valid, and scammers often try to use these situations to use stolen/cancelled cards since they likely won't be caught.

Beyond that, with the lack of stoplights, electronic lane markings (for lanes that may switch directions during rush hour), electronic speed limit signs, etc. make traffic a nightmare.

OTOH, EVs can be quite helpful in a blackout, as you can use your car to power necessities in your home while the power is out. A 70kWh battery in a car can power a home for two normal days (using electricity normally, not trying to conserve). If you limit what you are spending power on (as I would likely need to, since the EV6 will only supply 3.6 kW), it will last even longer. But even just with the EV6, you can power your refrigerator, heater, lights, etc. -- the things you would need to comfortably survive a blackout. This video talks of getting 5 days of backup power from the Ioniq 5 (the Hyundai sibling to the EV6, with the same drivetrain and battery system).

Granted, you could buy a generator but that is an extra cost and, to ensure it will run when needed, you need to have a regular maintenance plan to keep it free of leaves and other debris, regular oil changes (regardless if it is used), test/replace the gasoline as it will go bad if it sits too long, etc.

I'm sure you'll try to object that you won't have advance warning and the EV may not be charged; again, you start the day with an EV at a high charging state (even if that is 80%). For most owners, even if they drive it all day (assuming an evening blackout), they still likely have 50% or so left (this will vary per individual -- though some may be higher if they charge at work. The car system also has a limit, which you as the owner set, to ensure your battery is not drained too low. Of course, for most people, once power is back you disconnect the house from the car and then plug the car in to the charger.

One last point here, there are plans to use EVs to help with the grid. The idea is that your charger is bi-directional and, as an example, in the evening hours, when load is highest, the "grid" will pull electricity from your EVs battery. Then, once usage goes down as people go to bed, your EV will charge normally and you'll still have your full charge in the morning. To be fair, critics don't think much of this plan. At the same time, it is being tested in some areas, where customers are given the option to sign up if they have a car that will support it, and given lower rates (or high rates for any electricity taken from the car) in exchange. From what little I know of the testing, it has some promise but is still too limited (not enough EVs) to fully test.

None of this is the point. The point is that EVs are measured in kWh and ICE vehicles are measured in gallons. As an example, the 2024 Kia EV6 has a 77.4 kWh battery. The 2024 Kia Sportage (which I hope you'd agree is an accurate analog to the EV6) has a 14.3 gallon gas tank. So in this case for every penny that electricity increase, gas has to increase 5.4 cents to have the same impact on price. As larger battery capacities become the norm, that impact will be even greater. With a 100 kWh battery, each penny the price increases would equate to $1.00 more to charge.

And I've lost what your point even is. Yes, electricity rates can go up and gas costs can and do go up (and down). Yes, it is possible that EVs could become as expensive to charge as it is to fuel up a gas car. At the same time, I think history would suggest that even if electric prices go up, gasoline prices will go up by at least as much, if not more. Since even experts (those who dabble in the gas and oil futures markets) don't agree, and are often wrong, I don't think either of us know, either, so I don't know what you are trying to argue here.

This is all well and good for your local driving as long as you have a home where you can charge. But if we're talking about a world where everyone has an EV, you will need far more public chargers than currently exist.

I already said we'd need more public chargers. At the same time, I don't think we'll need as many fast chargers, as what you are thinking, or public chargers. First, for those in apartments, what will likely happen is that landlords will need to start offering charging for tenants (assuming the apartment has a parking lot for tenants). These won't be public but private chargers, much like some businesses have for employees today, and likely have some type of security to ensure only the tenant uses the charger.

Yes, in cities where there is "row housing" there will likely be public L2 chargers on the street -- what I've seen is charging outlets that look similar to parking meters.

I would not. As I said, it's roughly 600 chargers per state.

Yes, there were about 2800 chargers per state, that increased by 600. That is a decent sized increase for the number of EVs on the road. Yes, the adoption rate will need to increase -- and it is, since it was included as part of Biden's infrastructure bill. The issue remains that this is a double edged sword, that companies don't want to increase the number of chargers without more EVs being sold, while people are less likely to buy EVs when there aren't a lot of EV chargers. As such, it is good the government is providing incentives so that we can get ahead of the charging curve, and this is something that needs to continue as the build out of infrastructure will need to increase as EVs become a larger part of car sales.

Again, I'm talking about what needs to happen for mass adoption, in a world with no ICE vehicles.

Yes, a lot needs to happen. Good thing we are still decades away; but it does point out that we need to put more emphasis on building out the infrastructure.

I was not talking about Maui. I was talking about emergencies. I think it's safe to say that more than a handful of people per month have emergencies.

Why would you need to wait an hour to charge "in an emergency?" You start every morning with 80%, you drive your 30 mile per day average (or whatever it is), leaving you over 70% if there is an "emergency" to get out of the area.

Who said anything about a hardship? Since EVs aren't ready for prime time in Maui, I just rented an ICE vehicle instead.

Exactly.

You seem to vastly underestimate the tourist industry in Hawaii and the number of people that would benefit.

No, you are acting as if the rental agencies in Maui are all trying to rent out EVs -- in fact none of them are. Instead, you have a handful of EVs available to rent on Turo (and possibly similar apps). Like you, they just need to rent ICE vehicles for their vacation (which is all they can get from rental companies) and they won't need any "benefit." Yes, at some point that will change but that could easily be a decade away, by which time I'm sure Maui will have fast charging stations.

It would take every bit of 30 minutes just to cross the street and walk to one of the stores and back. You could easily spend hours there.







Indeed.

So, yes, it sounds like they shouldn't do it. Of course, OTOH, the notes could be left by those in the ICE vehicles that parked there and blocked EVs from using the chargers.