Metro Areas by Electric Vehicle(EV) Share of New Auto Registrations, 2023-2024

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It seems outside of the Pacific cities, EVs kinda hit a wall and are awaiting additional infrastructure. The U.S. will transition, just later than initially expected.

The problem with EVs is that they have all the negative externalities of ICE vehicles with one exception - somewhat lower greenhouse emissions (but still pretty bad if you include production).

But otherwise, they're just as terrible for the built form, for pedestrian/bike safety and for road congestion. The U.S. shouldn't be subsidizing EVs, we should be subsidizing mobility alternatives to personal vehicles (transit, bike, pedestrian).

The other issue that needs to be figured out is charging in a dense urban environment where you don't have access to a garage, which is most of places like Philadelphia, NY, DC, and Boston.

At one point, Philly actually approved some individual charging stations in front of private homes, but it rescinded that rule when the realization that it would in effect 1. carve out a private space in the public domain and 2. be incredibly unsightly if you could imagine every block being lined with privatized charging stations.

How does it scale in such a setting? A block with 50 homes and zero private parking spaces? Ideally, the city would put in centralized charging stations where you could leave your car for a period without a lot of pressure to move it.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by The North One

Nobody is overlooking anything except maybe EV enthusiasts. Obviously the auto industry is subsidized. And everybody got a bailout in 2008. The whole economic system of the country was collapsing.

But at least ICE vehicles ya know, make money. And have for over a hundred years. Also they don't require insanely environmentally destructive and exploitive cobalt mining, which is also a scarce metal. The battery thing will always be an issue unless there's some technological miracle. Not to mention issues with the grid to power it all.

Even disregarding all these things. Where do you think the electricity to run these cars comes from? Vast majority of it in the US is fossil fuels.

I'm not exactly against EVs but the hype is obviously bullshit.

i addressed these points in posts above.

LFP batteries have no cobalt. the tesla 3/Y standard range, new models from hyundai, polestar, etc - use LFP batteries. pretty much everything made in china is using LFP batteries now. did you know that oil refining also requires the use of cobalt?

in 2023, 19% of the energy on the US grid came from nuclear. (before vogtle 3/4 came online, which added another 2.2GWh) another 20% came from solar+wind+hydroelectric+geothermal. with the growth of renewables, i would guess about 45% of all power on the grid comes from non-fossil fuel sources in 2024, based on the data from 2023 (where it was about 40%) and general news about large scale solar and wind projects. and that figure is only going to keep rising.



most of the 'fossil fuels' burned are natural gas, which is cleaner than burning gasoline in car engines or coal. coal is on the way out.

your assumptions are out of date.

[JManc]

I think the main issue with EV adoption is that they really offer no major improvement over ICE for the consumer. It's not like upgrading to DVD from VHS and seeing a massive leap in tangible quality and unlike a DVD player, a car is a huge investment and it's tougher to get the masses on board with early adoption on a relatively new technology. The oldest Teslas are ~12 or so years old. People are still driving around in 25 year-old Camrys.

[Nouvellecosse]

It's absolutely true that EVs are bad for the environment. But they're a net benefit when they replace comparable ICE vehicles. Sometimes people forget the importance of a relative comparison. They say, "X is bad, Y is bad, so who cares since they're all equal." But they absolutely are not equal as EVs are quite a notable improvement. Oil/gas production and transport is much more harmful and destructive than mining for battery materials. If just running off a dirty grid, EVs are like hybrids in that they are much more efficient than ICE vehicles due to regenerative braking. But it's also since there's less energy loss in the electricity production, transmission and storage process compared to transporting fuel and burning it in small engines. But regardless, few grids in the developed world are fully fossil fuel powered and the more renewables and nuclear are in the mix the more EVs help reduce pollution.

I also heard someone suggest that EVs are bad for pedestrians and cyclists. The only way I can see that being partially true is that they can be quieter, but EVs can easily be equipped to make extra sound at low speeds. But when driving at normal speeds most of the sound from a car is from the wheels rather than the propulsion. And having lower levels of air and noise pollution actually helps pedestrians and cyclists. It's also true that EVs are a bit heavier than an equivalent ICE vehicle, but that isn't terribly relevant to road wear since the vast majority of road degradation is from large vehicles like transport trucks.

I also don't get people bemoaning the fact that they're subsidized. Like... and?? So is public transit but most of us understand that it's a good investment due to the positive externalities. And public transit is forever subsidized while EVs just need help getting off the ground since most new technologies are more expensive until production ramps up sufficiently. And most of us don't complain about other spending. Like if the government paid to build a new bridge offering a shortcut that cuts journey times saving time and fuel. You don't hear people say they can't understand what all the hype is about since the supposedly wonderful new shortcut wouldn't exist without subsidies. Governments spending money to provide societal benefits is good.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by JManc

I think the main issue with EV adoption is that they really offer no major improvement over ICE for the consumer. It's not like upgrading to DVD from VHS and seeing a massive leap in tangible quality.

I don't think that's true. It's very clear if you open the engine compartment of an EV and compare it to the engine compartment of an ICE vehicle that over the long term, EVs will cost less to maintain. There are simply many fewer parts that can even break. That might be irrelevant if you're the kind of person who gets a new car every 3 or 4 years, but if you're like me, who has a car but only drives 2-3K miles a year and wants a car to last 10-15 years, then the payoff is obvious over the longer term. The only reasons I haven't jumped to an EV yet are 1. I don't need to yet because my 14 yo car is still in perfectly good working condition and 2. I'm waiting for the design language to continue to improve. I'm hopeful about some of the new stuff coming down the pike. Especially interested in some of the new Rivians coming out as well as the Scout relaunch. Wouldn't hate it also if Range Rover could come out with at least a hybrid product.

What's also true is that I think the power coming out of most EVs are compelling compared to similarly priced ICE vehicles. Because power goes directly to the wheels in an EV, the torque is amazing. That creates the impression that the engine is more powerful than it is. There isn't yet a good consumer comparison language for customers who are used to shopping in cylinders and horsepower to compare to an EV.

[3rd&Brown]

delete

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by cabasse

most of the 'fossil fuels' burned are natural gas, which is cleaner than burning gasoline in car engines or coal. coal is on the way out.

your assumptions are out of date.

Am I interpreting this correctly in saying that 86% of new power generation in this country is coming from renewable sources? If so, that's amazing news. I guess the follow up is when will coal be completely phased out.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I don't think that's true. It's very clear if you open the engine compartment of an EV and compare it to the engine compartment of an ICE vehicle that over the long term, EVs will cost less to maintain. There are simply many fewer parts that can even break. That might be irrelevant if you're the kind of person who gets a new car every 3 or 4 years, but if you're like me, who has a car but only drives 2-3K miles a year and wants a car to last 10-15 years, then the payoff is obvious over the longer term. The only reasons I haven't jumped to an EV yet are 1. I don't need to yet because my 14 yo car is still in perfectly good working condition and 2. I'm waiting for the design language to continue to improve. I'm hopeful about some of the new stuff coming down the pike. Especially interested in some of the new Rivians coming out as well as the Scout relaunch. Wouldn't hate it also if Range Rover could come out with at least a hybrid product.

I think the jury is still out on whether EVs are cheaper. Those batteries are very expensive to replace and the warranties on them are the same as for ICE vehicles.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Those batteries are very expensive to replace and the warranties on them are the same as for ICE vehicles.

Sure. For now, but not forever.

Moores law will hold. They will continue to get better and less expensive. It's just gonna happen gradually and then one day we're gonna turn around and compare and there will be no comparison.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I don't think that's true. It's very clear if you open the engine compartment of an EV and compare it to the engine compartment of an ICE vehicle that over the long term, EVs will cost less to maintain. There are simply many fewer parts that can even break. That might be irrelevant if you're the kind of person who gets a new car every 3 or 4 years, but if you're like me, who has a car but only drives 2-3K miles a year and wants a car to last 10-15 years, then the payoff is obvious over the longer term. The only reasons I haven't jumped to an EV yet are 1. I don't need to yet because my 14 yo car is still in perfectly good working condition and 2. I'm waiting for the design language to continue to improve. I'm hopeful about some of the new stuff coming down the pike. Especially interested in some of the new Rivians coming out as well as the Scout relaunch. Wouldn't hate it also if Range Rover could come out with at least a hybrid product.

Less moving parts doesn't necessary mean less issues but rather presents a different set of issues stemming from a car that is essentially an iPhone on wheels. Tesla is evidence of that; their QC leaves much to be desired. This is true of newer ICE cars which are also heavily dependent on software. Electronics and software driven technology in general simply do not have the lifespan as something mechanical. Your car, depending on the make and how well you maintain it, can easily last you another 14 years whereas the jury's out as to how long an EV will last. especially the batteries and right now, a dead battery even on a newish EV is often a write off due to the prohibitive costs or repairing or replacing them.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

I think the main issue with EV adoption is that they really offer no major improvement over ICE for the consumer. It's not like upgrading to DVD from VHS and seeing a massive leap in tangible quality.

Compounded by the fact that the time & effort required to put energy into the vehicle is a MASSIVE step backwards for the consumer compared to an ICE car, particularly for those in more urban cities who don't have personal garages.

And Americans ain't exactly known as a patient bunch.....

[Nouvellecosse]

We can already see that EVs have a lower lifetime cost despite often having a higher upfront purchase price. And that does indeed include lower maintenance costs because of not having traditional transmissions, needing oil changes, having less break wear due to regen breaking, etc. But the big difference in lifetime costs is in energy consumption. Not only due EVs use less energy overall due to greater efficiency, powering a vehicle with electricity is less expensive in most places than powering it with gasoline or diesel just because of the cost differences in energy sources.

Beyond that, EVs also have less interior noise and vibration, stronger acceleration than comparable ICE cars due to the instantaneous torque, and more stable handling since the weight is so low. And while the charging situation is seen as a downside for some, for many it's an upside because many people can charge the vehicle right at home rather than making an extra stop. It's also possible for an EV to act as a battery backup for your home with vehicle to grid capability already being built into a few EVs. Some also offer additional storage space since less room is needed for propulsion components.

I've heard comments from quite a few auto journalists who were ICE vehicle fans and said that they were skeptical of EVs. But once they actually tried an EV for awhile they were surprised at how much better they are and are now all in. EVs may not be a consumer upgrade in every possible way but certainly in enough ways that it's a noticeably better experience for most people.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Compounded by the fact that the time & effort required to put energy into the vehicle is a MASSIVE step backwards for the consumer compared to an ICE car, particularly for those in more urban cities who don't have personal garages.

And Americans ain't exactly known as a patient bunch.....

It really depends on what type of residence you live in. For those that have personal garages, it's a lot easier to plug in your car when you get home from work, and then unplug it the next morning when you leave for work, as opposed to stopping by a local gas station for 5-10 minutes, and paying this (taken just last week from Muni T Third):


PC: homebucket

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

It really depends on what type of residence you live in. For those that have personal garages, it's a lot easier to plug in your car when you get home from work, and then unplug it the next morning when you leave for work

But what about road trips?

More than half of our car's mileage is long distance road trips, cuz we don't use it day to day.

Being able to pull off the interstate whenever the hell we need to and fill up in less than 5 minutes, and then be right back on our way, is a HUGE advantage over EVs.

They gotta find a way to pump those electrons as fast as gasoline.

[JManc]

^ You would have to fit in a dinner/ lunch in there somewhere while you charge but yeah, charging time is an issue as well as options to even find a charger in most states.

The Bay Area and CA in general, it's no debate; EV's are by far the better option. If I were to have stayed there, I would have gotten one as I have been able to charge while at work for free negating the need to worry about how to charge at home. Here in TX, there's little to no upside to having an EV over ICE though it would be little effort to outfit my garage with a charger.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

But what about road trips?

More than half of our car's mileage is long distance road trips, cuz we don't use it day to day.

Being able to pull off the interstate whenever the hell we need to and fill up in less than 5 minutes, and then being right back on our way, is a HUGE advantage over EVs.

They gotta find a way to pump those electrons as fast as gasoline.

I don't have any personal experience with that but from what I've heard from others who road trip to LA and back, they just stop at a place like one of those Tesla Supercharger stops with a lounge and hangout there for 30 minutes, have lunch, etc. So rather than stopping wherever, it's more of a planned thing. Usually, only one stop is required for a trip to LA. Even with an ICE car, I normally take one just to use the bathroom, stretch my legs, maybe each lunch depending on the time, etc.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I don't have any personal experience with that

For real?

Man, we got like 6 road trips planned for this summer, starting this coming weekend.


But maybe it's a class thing. Flying has gotten so outrageously expensive that we can't afford to fly our family of 4 anywhere anymore.

The airlines wanted $3K to fly us to fucking Florida for spring break!!!

We drove.

That long-ass trip woulda been way tougher with 30 minute recharge stops every 250 miles.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

For real?

Man, we got like 6 road trips planned for this summer, starting this coming weekend.

Road trips with EVs I mean. I'm used to pumping and going like you, or stopping really quick for fast food. The only place I've ever stopped to actually dine on a road trip was in Italy where they had those big Autogrill things with fully stocked convenience, grocery store, and cafeteria style restaurants.

[Gordo]

I think the west coast is also just a worse place for road trips. I have an EV in Seattle and no car in SF, but my family's road trips from both places are generally just a couple hundred miles. You quickly get into really big deserts if you go further than that unless you're going north/south...and north/south has great cheap airfare.

I think I've charged outside of my garage in Seattle twice? The one time we did a longer road trip (to Kamloops) we rented an ICE car.

[Steely Dan]

What are the physics involved in why it takes so fucking long to fully charge a battery (any battery)?

I feel like we need a big break through on that front.

Taking a battery from 5% to 100% ideally shouldn't take any longer than filling up a 12 gallon tank with gas.