The Associated Press is out with a poll today showing that EV adoption might continue to be slow given that, at most, 4-in-10 Americans would at least be somewhat likely to buy an electric car. You know what people seem to be open to? Plug-in hybrids.
Is this disappointing news or good news? The AP piece accompanying the poll seems to indicate it’s bad news. I’m less convinced. If people are hesitant to buy an electric car it’s not entirely a surprise given how slow every company that’s not Tesla has been to roll out chargers.
And then, of course, there are stories of automakers like Fisker. A recent deep dive into the company seems to indicate things looked even worse from the inside than they did from the outside.
If there’s good news today it’s that Volvo has issued a passport for its car batteries using blockchain technology, which is a hell of a sentence.
How Many EV Buyers Were You Expecting?
The big polling news of the day isn’t over the presidential election, or the upcoming UK election, but over electric cars. It comes via the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, which is a name so long you’d think it was a Land Rover product.
You can read the AP piece about it here, which gives off very ‘Biden is too far ahead of the population’ vibes:
The poll results, which echo an AP-NORC poll from last year, show that President Joe Biden’s election-year plan to dramatically raise EV sales is running into resistance from American drivers. Only 13% of U.S. adults say they or someone in their household owns or leases a gas-hybrid car, and just 9% own or lease an electric vehicle.
Caleb Jud of Cincinnati said he’s considering an EV, but may end up with a plug-in hybrid — if he goes electric. While Cincinnati winters aren’t extremely cold, “the thought of getting stuck in the driveway with an EV that won’t run is worrisome, and I know it wouldn’t be an issue with a plug-in hybrid,″ he said. Freezing temperatures can slow chemical reactions in EV batteries, depleting power and reducing driving range.
The article is very much the classic AP formula for covering anything (find a diverse mix of voices that don’t proportionally represent the AP‘s own polling data) and includes fun characters such as: Guy from Texas who doesn’t believe in global warming but has three EVs to save money and Florida lady who suddenly cares about the mining of precious metals and child labor but only in the context of electric cars for some reason that isn’t explored.
Let’s look at the actual numbers, though, because I think there’s some important context here. Right up top, 78% of respondents believe climate change is happening, which is the highest since the AP started doing this poll, with more than half of respondents saying climate change was caused entirely or mostly by human activities.
That’s pretty good considering the last eight years of a pandemic, cable news, and Facebook turned everyone’s minds into mush.
It’s the first year that this poll has asked if people have a gas-hybrid vehicle and it seems 13% of people do, followed by 6% who own a plug-in hybrid (slightly down from 2023, but within the sampling error), and 9% with an electric vehicle.
Here’s the big question, though:
Again, we’re in the margin of error here, with more people saying they’re extremely/very likely to purchase an EV compared to 2023, but slightly down for “somewhat likely.”
More interesting is the reason why people wouldn’t consider an EV, which is that 59% percent think cost is a major issue (they’re not wrong). Another 47% list range as a major concern, and 38% of people say they don’t know of any charging stations nearby.
Perhaps the most interesting question is about Chinese EVs. The AP asked the following question:
Suppose you were planning on purchasing an electric vehicle and you had the choice between buying a vehicle made in China and one made in the United States. The U.S. made vehicle costs $__ more than the Chinese-made vehicle, but they are otherwise similar in performance and appearance. Would you purchase the less expensive vehicle made in China or the more expensive vehicle made in the U.S.?
The biggest surprise is that 22% of respondents would buy a Chinese car if they saved even $500. The scale slides until you reach 37% of Americans saying they’d buy a Chinese car over an American one if they could save $5,000. Even with double the tariffs, a Chinese automaker might be able to sell a car that saves that much money, though I think the sweet spot is $1,000.
So what’s the takeaway here? If you’re the AP it seems to be that people aren’t embracing EVs in spite of all the rhetoric. I have the exact opposite take. People still feel roughly the same as they do about EVs in spite of all the bad news, the anti-EV rhetoric, and the lack of great EV choices. If cost is the biggest factor, as the AP suggests, then this is a problem that’s eventually solvable. (It’ll be interesting to see how well the Chevy Equinox EV does.)
Still, if 40% of people actually did buy an EV for their next vehicle that would be an enormous win for the industry which, at this point, probably can’t even make that many electric cars (at least ones that will qualify for an EV tax credit).
The Federal Government Has Committed Billions For Chargers And… Eight Stations Are Now Open
Federal, state, and local governments in the United States are bad about encouraging the building of things that are not planes or bombs and, even then, they’re not that great at planes either. Some look at this as a problem of government itself, even though most other modern countries seem to build infrastructure without as many issues.
The building of an electric charging network is one of those projects that goes to show just how complex this all is, with a total of eight chargers built out of hoped-for network of 500,000 by 2030 (encompassing both public and private chargers, currently there are 174,000 plugs online).
Some of this is the expected typical process of having to go through rounds of approvals, get power, clear regulations, et cetera. Wyoming has few EVs, and estimates show that the most popular charging station would probably charge fewer than six cars a day, so the state government isn’t in a hurry. Some reasons, according to this thorough report from Automotive News, are more unique:
“It just doesn’t really translate to EV charging,” she said.
Other issues include delayed proposal timelines and a lack of coordination between the state and the power company, she said.
ChargePoint shares those concerns and has been wary of states that cap charging operators’ earning potential. Minnesota, Iowa, Kentucky and North Carolina say the annual return on investment cannot exceed 15 to 25 percent, depending on the state.
To make things even more fun, Tesla walking back its Supercharger program after being approved for government funds is probably going to cause some delays. If there’s a silver lining it’s that, as a subsidy, the cost offset of federal funds is likely to make sites that do get built profitable on a much faster timeline.
Fisker Reportedly Took Parts Off Henrik Fisker’s Car, Had Suppliers Fly Parts In Luggage
The great Sean O’Kane over at TechCrunch put out a whopper of a story on what happened at Fisker, and it seems to underline the idea that Fisker was not a well-run business.
The road to Fisker’s ultimate ruin may start and end with its flawed Ocean SUV, which has been riddled with mechanical and software problems. But it was paved with hubris, power struggles, and the repeated failure to set up basic processes that are foundational for any automaker.
“The lack of processes and procedures was kind of mind-blowing,” Sean O’Grady, a former regional sales manager at Fisker, told TechCrunch. “The same excuse that I kept hearing all the time was, well, if you’ve never worked for a startup before, this is what it’s like, it’s chaotic.”
The article is full of cringe-worthy anecdotes, but the one that stuck out to me was that the company allegedly didn’t stockpile extra parts because, as Henrik Fisker’s wife/CFO/COO Geeta Gupta-Fisker reportedly put it, the build quality at Magna was “superior” so the Ocean was unlikely to run into many problems and need extra parts.
There were so few parts that Magna engineers allegedly flew parts to the U.S. in luggage and pinched parts from the production line, which was not sufficient:
So the company started cannibalizing cars that had been returned, or ones that the company had on hand for marketing purposes, according to multiple employees. This included the Ocean SUV that Henrik Fisker used. Employees removed his car’s steering wheel, some interior panels, and even his driver’s seat cushion for use in customer cars.
Employees also salvaged parts from the Ocean that former Chief Accounting Officer John Finnucan used, weeks before he left the company.
Matt DeBord, a guy who worked briefly with some of us at Jalopnik, is now the VP of Comms there and he said, on behalf of the company, that these claims are false.
Volvo Is Giving Its Batteries Passports
Cars are complex and made of parts from all over the world. This has always been an issue and the sourcing of parts comes up for various reasons, often either logistical or political, on occasion. Now that governments are looking into battery sourcing before handing out incentives or tariffs, the sourcing of car parts has never been important.
How do you prove where a battery comes from? Volvo’s idea is a passport (though, a passport for stuff is usually called a carnet) for its batteries. The EX90 SUV, built in South Carolina, will be the first vehicle to get such a passport. The passport was developed by UK-based company Circulor.
Circulor’s system traces battery materials from the mine to individual cars, piggybacking on suppliers’ production systems to track materials throughout the supply chain and checking suppliers’ monthly energy bills – and how much of their energy comes from renewable sources in order to calculate a total carbon footprint.
That’s cool. I like this. Also, the passport will include data on the battery’s health.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
It’s the second most important song called “Creep” from the ’90s, but it’s been in my mind since church this weekend when the gospel lesson was from the third chapter of the book of Mark. In this story, Jesus goes into a synagogue and sees a guy with a messed-up hand. The Pharisees wait to see if Jesus will heal the dude on the sabbath, which he does, and they get mad about it and tell on him. I’m a fan of this lesson, but I was immediately distracted by my wife, in her best Scott Weiland voice, leaning over and whispering in my ear “Take time with a wounded hand ‘Cause it likes to heal.” I stifled a laugh, but now the song has been stuck in my head for a few days.
The Big Question
Has your view of EVs changed in the last year?
I’m not surprised. Anyone who doesn’t have a garage to keep the car in probably isn’t all that interested. The value in electric cars now is through home charging; without a garage it’s a lot more of a pain. That eliminates a huge portion.
Price explains a lot of the rest. There’s still quite a premium for electric now. It’s gradually getting better, but not ther eyet
I have no garage, although we do have communal carports. I have no easy way to charge, hence no EV. Also I drive 8K miles a year, at least 4-5K of which is an annual big vacation, also hence no EV.
In the SF bay area, gas and electricity cost nearly the same, so I’m not saving any money on charging my EV at home. But the convenience of just plugging in at home can’t be beat. That, and the only maintenance I’ve done in 2.5 years (Model Y) is rotating the tires twice. The Model Y was cheaper by $10k compared to the car I was originally going to buy.
So your saying that if i buy a Fisker Ocean, that theres a chance i’ll be sitting on a seat cushion that Henrik Fisker personally farted on?
No, that one’s taken.
Either way, he gas lit you.
COTD, good one!!!!!!
So your saying that if i buy a Fisker Ocean, that theres a chance i’ll be sitting on a seat cushion that Henrik Fisker personally farted on?
No, that one’s taken.
Either way, he gas lit you.
COTD, good one!!!!!!
I’m probably more open to an EV now than I was a year ago. I still don’t think they’re right for a road trip (save your keystrokes; I don’t care how often you think I should pull over to pee and wait 20 minutes), but as a second vehicle, an EV would probably be fine for me. My biggest issue with EVs is the price premium.
My argument for the past few years has been that the vast majority of 2-car homes in the US could easily add a BEV as one of their two cars with next to no difference in lifestyle the majority of the time. Where my argument starts to break down is the whole “cost” thing.
That’s why I don’t have one in my “fleet” yet, we both bought cars before the prices of BEVs have made it to a nearly-acceptable point. Hoping when we go through the process again in 6-ish years, I can change that!
I agree with that, and I’ll go as far as to say that I think the Bolt would be a great commuter for a very reasonable price, if I needed another car.
I really don’t understand everyone’s obsession with these theoretical ‘EV road trips’. You have a gas car, don’t you? Is the problem that you would trade it in for an EV? Most people I see with EVs own an EV and a gas car. The EV takes up 90% of the daily commute duties leaving that extra 10% for long-distance which you use the ICE car for. Why is everyone hellbent on the idea of an EV road trip?
I’m probably more open to an EV now than I was a year ago. I still don’t think they’re right for a road trip (save your keystrokes; I don’t care how often you think I should pull over to pee and wait 20 minutes), but as a second vehicle, an EV would probably be fine for me. My biggest issue with EVs is the price premium.
My argument for the past few years has been that the vast majority of 2-car homes in the US could easily add a BEV as one of their two cars with next to no difference in lifestyle the majority of the time. Where my argument starts to break down is the whole “cost” thing.
That’s why I don’t have one in my “fleet” yet, we both bought cars before the prices of BEVs have made it to a nearly-acceptable point. Hoping when we go through the process again in 6-ish years, I can change that!
I agree with that, and I’ll go as far as to say that I think the Bolt would be a great commuter for a very reasonable price, if I needed another car.
I really don’t understand everyone’s obsession with these theoretical ‘EV road trips’. You have a gas car, don’t you? Is the problem that you would trade it in for an EV? Most people I see with EVs own an EV and a gas car. The EV takes up 90% of the daily commute duties leaving that extra 10% for long-distance which you use the ICE car for. Why is everyone hellbent on the idea of an EV road trip?
My view of EVs last year was that EV adoption subsidies are mostly a handout to wealthy homeowners to purchase luxury or near-luxury vehicles.
My view of EVs this year is that EV adoption subsidies are mostly a handout to wealthy homeowners to purchase luxury or near-luxury vehicles.
My view of EVs next year will be…well, you can guess.
This view is shared by academic literature on the subject, which also suggests that there are far, far better ways to encourage fleet electrification than lump subsidies for vehicle purchases.
But… it works. You are right, but… it works. I find myself fitting exactly into what you describe. Transitions take time.
My view of EVs last year was that EV adoption subsidies are mostly a handout to wealthy homeowners to purchase luxury or near-luxury vehicles.
My view of EVs this year is that EV adoption subsidies are mostly a handout to wealthy homeowners to purchase luxury or near-luxury vehicles.
My view of EVs next year will be…well, you can guess.
This view is shared by academic literature on the subject, which also suggests that there are far, far better ways to encourage fleet electrification than lump subsidies for vehicle purchases.
But… it works. You are right, but… it works. I find myself fitting exactly into what you describe. Transitions take time.
What percentage of Americans own a mome? Seems pretty relevant to the BEV discussion. If you can charge at your home it is arguably the most practical place to charge. If you can’t charge at home, unless you can charge at work charging is going to be a lot less convenient than going to a gas station.
Somewhat. I didn’t realize how dependent anything above L2 charging is on software. While I understand the usefulness of software I much prefer hardware to software in general, and having to do a software handshake every time I need to fast charge a BEV sounds like a recipe for trouble, especially with the short lifespan of software defined Tech nowadays. I got no problem with electric vehicles (besides the fact that electricity is still confusing to me), but I do not care for software defined vehicles at all. Sadly it seems like noone is willing to make a modern BEV with a focus on hardware, everything has to have electric door handles, touchscreen controls, etc. and OTA updates you cannot disable and I’m sure that the manufacturer will support them for as long as the vehicle is on the road and that it won’t become a massive security vulnerability in time.
I think every non human-powered vehicle I’ll own will be an EV in time, but I doubt any of them will be modern electric cars.
Don’t forget: also more expensive at a pay-for-electrons charging station. Anyone know how much more? The rates are not publicly displayed as gas prices are
And even with a state-capped 15% return on investment, I ‘m wondering why there isn’t one every mile on the road.
My guess is that they do NOT earn 15% ROI.
Second guess: Maybe they are hard to get up and running in the first place: electricity gotta come from somewhere.
“A common rate at Electrify America chargers is 48 cents per kilowatt hour”.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/how-to-use-electrify-america
So the equivalent gas costs as per the EPA’s site are:
2017 Chevy Volt: $6.25/gallon
2021 Hyundai Ioniq PHEV: $7.00/gallon
2020 Pacifica Hybrid: $5.89/gallon
2022 RAV4 Hybrid Prime: $6.57/gallon
Not very cost effective is it?
I mean it’s tricky to compare directly to gas price, but I think this is in the right ballpark. The takeaway is that DC fast charging stations are not intended to be used as the primary charging method. If this is the way an EV owner will do the bulk of their charging, they’re almost guaranteed to be disappointed (plus it will probably cause accelerated battery degradation). You’re really just paying for the absurd power delivery… each charger can put out significantly more power than can be delivered to a typical house. They want you to plug in, get what you need, and get out as fast as possible. The lesson is that longer road trips in an EV aren’t cheap.
If you own a home, most utilities offer reduced ToU electric rates; for example I charge my PHEV at about $0.06 / kWh. Even if I’m charging at the “peak” electric rate of ~ $0.20/kWh it’s still cheaper than running my PHEV on gas and getting ~30 MPG.
So many people rent homes though or live in multi-family places without an easy place to plug-in overnight, and that to me is the biggest barrier to wider adoption… if I didn’t have an easy way to install a level 2 charge at home I wouldn’t be shopping for an EV for our next car. But I do, so I am…
I was noticing that in the poles cited there was never an option to communicate a skeptical view of long term vehicle viability. I know most people may not think past the price difference and availability of chargers but there is a lot more to this issue than people and press outlets are letting on to.
I agree this is probably a huge factor. I follow a lot of EV and automotive groups on Facebook, and a common thread is “My phone battery lasts 3 years, my laptop battery lasts 3 years, my cordless drill battery lasts 3 years; what will it cost when my car’s battery fails in 3 years?”
It’s a good question, and the Auto industry hasn’t done a good job of answering it. The reasons are two-fold: 1) all of these consumer devices are handheld, and are designed for light weight at the expense of battery longevity — charged to 100%, no active cooling, high-capacity but shorter-lifetime chemistries, etc. 2) The manufacturers want the batteries to die in 3 years, so you buy new phone/laptop/drill. This won’t fly in the automobile market.
I bought a Tesla, but probably wouldn’t have if I hadn’t already owned a Prius that went 295K miles. It’s battery was fine; rust killed the car.
What percentage of Americans own a mome? Seems pretty relevant to the BEV discussion. If you can charge at your home it is arguably the most practical place to charge. If you can’t charge at home, unless you can charge at work charging is going to be a lot less convenient than going to a gas station.
Somewhat. I didn’t realize how dependent anything above L2 charging is on software. While I understand the usefulness of software I much prefer hardware to software in general, and having to do a software handshake every time I need to fast charge a BEV sounds like a recipe for trouble, especially with the short lifespan of software defined Tech nowadays. I got no problem with electric vehicles (besides the fact that electricity is still confusing to me), but I do not care for software defined vehicles at all. Sadly it seems like noone is willing to make a modern BEV with a focus on hardware, everything has to have electric door handles, touchscreen controls, etc. and OTA updates you cannot disable and I’m sure that the manufacturer will support them for as long as the vehicle is on the road and that it won’t become a massive security vulnerability in time.
I think every non human-powered vehicle I’ll own will be an EV in time, but I doubt any of them will be modern electric cars.
Don’t forget: also more expensive at a pay-for-electrons charging station. Anyone know how much more? The rates are not publicly displayed as gas prices are
And even with a state-capped 15% return on investment, I ‘m wondering why there isn’t one every mile on the road.
My guess is that they do NOT earn 15% ROI.
Second guess: Maybe they are hard to get up and running in the first place: electricity gotta come from somewhere.
“A common rate at Electrify America chargers is 48 cents per kilowatt hour”.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/how-to-use-electrify-america
So the equivalent gas costs as per the EPA’s site are:
2017 Chevy Volt: $6.25/gallon
2021 Hyundai Ioniq PHEV: $7.00/gallon
2020 Pacifica Hybrid: $5.89/gallon
2022 RAV4 Hybrid Prime: $6.57/gallon
Not very cost effective is it?
I mean it’s tricky to compare directly to gas price, but I think this is in the right ballpark. The takeaway is that DC fast charging stations are not intended to be used as the primary charging method. If this is the way an EV owner will do the bulk of their charging, they’re almost guaranteed to be disappointed (plus it will probably cause accelerated battery degradation). You’re really just paying for the absurd power delivery… each charger can put out significantly more power than can be delivered to a typical house. They want you to plug in, get what you need, and get out as fast as possible. The lesson is that longer road trips in an EV aren’t cheap.
If you own a home, most utilities offer reduced ToU electric rates; for example I charge my PHEV at about $0.06 / kWh. Even if I’m charging at the “peak” electric rate of ~ $0.20/kWh it’s still cheaper than running my PHEV on gas and getting ~30 MPG.
So many people rent homes though or live in multi-family places without an easy place to plug-in overnight, and that to me is the biggest barrier to wider adoption… if I didn’t have an easy way to install a level 2 charge at home I wouldn’t be shopping for an EV for our next car. But I do, so I am…
I was noticing that in the poles cited there was never an option to communicate a skeptical view of long term vehicle viability. I know most people may not think past the price difference and availability of chargers but there is a lot more to this issue than people and press outlets are letting on to.
I agree this is probably a huge factor. I follow a lot of EV and automotive groups on Facebook, and a common thread is “My phone battery lasts 3 years, my laptop battery lasts 3 years, my cordless drill battery lasts 3 years; what will it cost when my car’s battery fails in 3 years?”
It’s a good question, and the Auto industry hasn’t done a good job of answering it. The reasons are two-fold: 1) all of these consumer devices are handheld, and are designed for light weight at the expense of battery longevity — charged to 100%, no active cooling, high-capacity but shorter-lifetime chemistries, etc. 2) The manufacturers want the batteries to die in 3 years, so you buy new phone/laptop/drill. This won’t fly in the automobile market.
I bought a Tesla, but probably wouldn’t have if I hadn’t already owned a Prius that went 295K miles. It’s battery was fine; rust killed the car.
Damn…guess I’m part of the minority again….that said, I really do want one. I just don’t want to pay north of 100 grand for one, as that dips into my porsche wish fund I don’t have…
I realized last night I could buy a 5k mile Bolt EUV for $12k with tax incentives. Previously, I fell into your camp, but I realized how wrong I was just last night. Now, I want one so bad.
Damn…guess I’m part of the minority again….that said, I really do want one. I just don’t want to pay north of 100 grand for one, as that dips into my porsche wish fund I don’t have…
I realized last night I could buy a 5k mile Bolt EUV for $12k with tax incentives. Previously, I fell into your camp, but I realized how wrong I was just last night. Now, I want one so bad.
The only EVs I can afford need replacement batteries that I can’t afford. I imagine a lot of people are in that category.
The only EVs I can afford need replacement batteries that I can’t afford. I imagine a lot of people are in that category.
With high interest rates and an inflationary climate, EVs are a hard sell. My family business sells wholesale, retail, and to contractors. People are watching their dollars and cents these days. Folks aren’t as apt to spend freely as they were even a year ago.
With high interest rates and an inflationary climate, EVs are a hard sell. My family business sells wholesale, retail, and to contractors. People are watching their dollars and cents these days. Folks aren’t as apt to spend freely as they were even a year ago.
There’s a lot of fear of change that needs to be unwound. People who haven’t tried an EV, don’t know anybody who has one, and hear the drum beat of the very real forces telling them EVs BAD is a lot to counter and it won’t happen overnight. That’s one of the reasons I don’t understand why we leapfrogged right over the PHEV step and stand around wondering why nobody is budging.
I have a PHEV (Volt) and a BEV (Bolt) and I probably wouldn’t have leapt straight to the Bolt if I hadn’t had a Volt first.
I had a 2011 Chevy Volt for a couple of years. It was what really convinced me that an EV would be the way to go, when the technology matured enough to make a vehicle with enough range to be useful at a price I could afford. A few years later, I bought a 2015 VW e-Golf. It was a great car, but still not enough range to fit my most common use cases. Now I have a VW ID.4, and I finally have all the range I need. Hopefully we will get to a point in the near future where I can take it on a road trip without worrying about where I’m going to charge it.
There’s a lot of fear of change that needs to be unwound. People who haven’t tried an EV, don’t know anybody who has one, and hear the drum beat of the very real forces telling them EVs BAD is a lot to counter and it won’t happen overnight. That’s one of the reasons I don’t understand why we leapfrogged right over the PHEV step and stand around wondering why nobody is budging.
I have a PHEV (Volt) and a BEV (Bolt) and I probably wouldn’t have leapt straight to the Bolt if I hadn’t had a Volt first.
I had a 2011 Chevy Volt for a couple of years. It was what really convinced me that an EV would be the way to go, when the technology matured enough to make a vehicle with enough range to be useful at a price I could afford. A few years later, I bought a 2015 VW e-Golf. It was a great car, but still not enough range to fit my most common use cases. Now I have a VW ID.4, and I finally have all the range I need. Hopefully we will get to a point in the near future where I can take it on a road trip without worrying about where I’m going to charge it.
I don’t understand why there’s so much backlash in mainstream reporting to PHEVs. If you want people to go electric, maybe it’s a good idea to encourage people to purchase the cheaper option that requires considerably smaller and less environmentally harmful batteries, is more efficient than pure IC cars of similar configurations, while also providing electric power for the vast majority of daily journeys.
Why is it so baffling to these people that PHEVs are currently a very good solution?
There is no money in PHEV compared to other options, and the media isn’t all that concerned with the truth anyway, anymore. Modern digital media just happens to be the most efficient way to advertise (maximize margins). It’s really the only reason it exists anymore.
That’s why.
I’m not sold on PHEVs mostly because of how little they seem to offer for the money. Not in terms of features and range, but in terms of cost and margins. Usually they’re treated as a ‘trim level’ within an existing model range that happens to be $15k over the base starting price. Sure EVs are usually even more expensive, but at least they’re often designed with bespoke interiors and more interesting bodystyles.
For example, the RAV4 Prime is a hideously overpriced RAV4 that does have the excellent feature of EV range but is otherwise the same boring Toyota product with a terrible interior. No offense to any RAV4 Prime owners, but at the price it takes to get a decently specced XSE I’d rather get a base XC60 (with cloth seats!) and a $3k used Leaf for commuting.
I think that’s the real issue with PHEVs—if Toyota offered the Lexus NX PHEV at those prices they’d sell like hotcakes, but then the margins would be shot and Toyota wouldn’t be selling nearly as many regular hybrids. Instead they offer a ridiculously expensive RAV4 that gets great economy and has EV range, but is still a RAV4 at the end of the day.
I don’t understand why there’s so much backlash in mainstream reporting to PHEVs. If you want people to go electric, maybe it’s a good idea to encourage people to purchase the cheaper option that requires considerably smaller and less environmentally harmful batteries, is more efficient than pure IC cars of similar configurations, while also providing electric power for the vast majority of daily journeys.
Why is it so baffling to these people that PHEVs are currently a very good solution?
There is no money in PHEV compared to other options, and the media isn’t all that concerned with the truth anyway, anymore. Modern digital media just happens to be the most efficient way to advertise (maximize margins). It’s really the only reason it exists anymore.
That’s why.
I’m not sold on PHEVs mostly because of how little they seem to offer for the money. Not in terms of features and range, but in terms of cost and margins. Usually they’re treated as a ‘trim level’ within an existing model range that happens to be $15k over the base starting price. Sure EVs are usually even more expensive, but at least they’re often designed with bespoke interiors and more interesting bodystyles.
For example, the RAV4 Prime is a hideously overpriced RAV4 that does have the excellent feature of EV range but is otherwise the same boring Toyota product with a terrible interior. No offense to any RAV4 Prime owners, but at the price it takes to get a decently specced XSE I’d rather get a base XC60 (with cloth seats!) and a $3k used Leaf for commuting.
I think that’s the real issue with PHEVs—if Toyota offered the Lexus NX PHEV at those prices they’d sell like hotcakes, but then the margins would be shot and Toyota wouldn’t be selling nearly as many regular hybrids. Instead they offer a ridiculously expensive RAV4 that gets great economy and has EV range, but is still a RAV4 at the end of the day.
The United States is a country that is so resistant to change that it’s the “last man standing” in not fully adopting the metric system. How would anyone expect Americans to change their driving habits?
Well, we do use “watts.”
But, we also use “horsepower.”
We Americans have a probably well-deserved reputation for being resistant to change, but I don’t think sticking with our weights and measures is part of that. There’s really no benefit for the average person for one over the other. Well maybe with the exception of the fact Fahrenheit is objectively superior to Celsius for non-scientific pursuits.
This man gets it. Weights and Measures? Fine. If i had to get used to meters i could do it. I already gram for cooking and coffee-ing. Celsius? Get the crap out of here with that garbage. The big F is Vastly superior for weather.
0F – it’s real freaking cold.
100F – it’s real freaking hot.
0C – eh, you should probably wear a coat. especially if there is wind.
100C – You are dead.
Celsius for science… because apparently the majority of science needs to be based around phase changes of water at sea level… And Fahrenheit for literally everything else.
A hotter (no pun intended) and slightly less defensible take is that feet are better for everyday use than meters as well. The argument goes similarly where centimeters are too small for many things we commonly measure like height, while meters are too large. I’ve also seen the argument that feet being made up of 12 inches is useful since it can easily be divided in half, thirds, and quarters.
I am amenable to the idea that things like grams are easier to work with than cups, etc since the nice base-12 thing from feet breaks down in pretty much all the other measurements.
I totally agree. I also share that hotter, less defensible take. The one thing that works against it is so much stuff in our life is base 10. Our brains are trained to think in base 10 since we were toddlers. For most people outside specific disciplines, length measurements are the only thing they have to think about that is base 12.
Kelvins for science!
But Kelvin is just Celsius for specific use cases where stuff needs to be cold. They just made up a new scale so they didnt have to deal with negative numbers all the time because lazy.
The boiling point of water at one earth atmosphere (-ish, because it changes) at one earth gravity (that varies based on where you are) is arbitrary as well. 0k is 0k anywhere, as is the Planck limit. And a volt is a volt, which is why the SI has been frantically trying to get every measurement related to it. Pretty soon we’re going to need to be able to do metcal on Mars.
To be fair, im fine with science switching to kelvin for everything, because it’s just celsius with a more logical 0 point. But it changes nothing. Fahrenheit still kicks the pants off it for everyday human activity usage. I’d even go so far as to argue Fahrenheit should be the scientific standard too, just because it has finer resolution than the C/K hydra. Team Fahrenheit 4lyfe
I’m not going to argue that, because I agree with you. For humans, feet/inches/Fahrenheit make a lot of sense. It helps that I happen to have pretty close to 1 foot feet.
Replace 100F with 38C and OF with -18C you’re good.
With the exception for cold weather, salt water sailors how is it objectively superior for anyone else?
Yawn. Everything but the volt is arbitrary. It’s pretty easy to work in both measurement systems.
Sure! Just ask NASA:
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
Competent engineers don’t make that mistake. Yeah, I was supporting Planetary Society at Planetfest for that one — they had a microphone on that lander. If you think NASA is full of smart people… you need to look closer.
I grew up with a Lockeed/Lorel rocket engineer dad who had a lot of respect for the folks at JPL but little for NASA overall, even before the Challenger disaster.
Similar here — my dad had a key role in Atlas. Contracting to NASA was one of the more painful jobs I’ve ever taken.
Mine worked on Atlas, Polaris, Titan II, the Shuttle’s main engines and a few other liquid fueled ones. I’ve never worked with NASA myself. My closest experience to that has been to use late night NASA channel as a soporific. Seriously even when my insomnia was at its worst 10-15 minutes of that and I was out! No side effects either! I highly recommend.
The United States is a country that is so resistant to change that it’s the “last man standing” in not fully adopting the metric system. How would anyone expect Americans to change their driving habits?
Well, we do use “watts.”
But, we also use “horsepower.”
We Americans have a probably well-deserved reputation for being resistant to change, but I don’t think sticking with our weights and measures is part of that. There’s really no benefit for the average person for one over the other. Well maybe with the exception of the fact Fahrenheit is objectively superior to Celsius for non-scientific pursuits.
This man gets it. Weights and Measures? Fine. If i had to get used to meters i could do it. I already gram for cooking and coffee-ing. Celsius? Get the crap out of here with that garbage. The big F is Vastly superior for weather.
0F – it’s real freaking cold.
100F – it’s real freaking hot.
0C – eh, you should probably wear a coat. especially if there is wind.
100C – You are dead.
Celsius for science… because apparently the majority of science needs to be based around phase changes of water at sea level… And Fahrenheit for literally everything else.
A hotter (no pun intended) and slightly less defensible take is that feet are better for everyday use than meters as well. The argument goes similarly where centimeters are too small for many things we commonly measure like height, while meters are too large. I’ve also seen the argument that feet being made up of 12 inches is useful since it can easily be divided in half, thirds, and quarters.
I am amenable to the idea that things like grams are easier to work with than cups, etc since the nice base-12 thing from feet breaks down in pretty much all the other measurements.
I totally agree. I also share that hotter, less defensible take. The one thing that works against it is so much stuff in our life is base 10. Our brains are trained to think in base 10 since we were toddlers. For most people outside specific disciplines, length measurements are the only thing they have to think about that is base 12.
Kelvins for science!
But Kelvin is just Celsius for specific use cases where stuff needs to be cold. They just made up a new scale so they didnt have to deal with negative numbers all the time because lazy.
The boiling point of water at one earth atmosphere (-ish, because it changes) at one earth gravity (that varies based on where you are) is arbitrary as well. 0k is 0k anywhere, as is the Planck limit. And a volt is a volt, which is why the SI has been frantically trying to get every measurement related to it. Pretty soon we’re going to need to be able to do metcal on Mars.
To be fair, im fine with science switching to kelvin for everything, because it’s just celsius with a more logical 0 point. But it changes nothing. Fahrenheit still kicks the pants off it for everyday human activity usage. I’d even go so far as to argue Fahrenheit should be the scientific standard too, just because it has finer resolution than the C/K hydra. Team Fahrenheit 4lyfe
I’m not going to argue that, because I agree with you. For humans, feet/inches/Fahrenheit make a lot of sense. It helps that I happen to have pretty close to 1 foot feet.
Replace 100F with 38C and OF with -18C you’re good.
With the exception for cold weather, salt water sailors how is it objectively superior for anyone else?
Yawn. Everything but the volt is arbitrary. It’s pretty easy to work in both measurement systems.
Sure! Just ask NASA:
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
Competent engineers don’t make that mistake. Yeah, I was supporting Planetary Society at Planetfest for that one — they had a microphone on that lander. If you think NASA is full of smart people… you need to look closer.
I grew up with a Lockeed/Lorel rocket engineer dad who had a lot of respect for the folks at JPL but little for NASA overall, even before the Challenger disaster.
Similar here — my dad had a key role in Atlas. Contracting to NASA was one of the more painful jobs I’ve ever taken.
Mine worked on Atlas, Polaris, Titan II, the Shuttle’s main engines and a few other liquid fueled ones. I’ve never worked with NASA myself. My closest experience to that has been to use late night NASA channel as a soporific. Seriously even when my insomnia was at its worst 10-15 minutes of that and I was out! No side effects either! I highly recommend.
I agree with the AP’s take on the numbers more than Hardigree’s.
I think there is much more of a media blitz about how great EVs are rather than how terrible they are. I don’t think this is malicious or even conscious, but it’s simply true that journalists are educated, lean left, are concentrated in cities. All of which correspond with EV ownership.
To me it speaks to the real downsides of the vehicles themselves that the rhetoric is not causing any significant change in openness or desire to own an EV.
What I’ve had to teach myself in talking about BEVs is to remember that they’re not ready for primetime (yet). There’s a lot of hype of how could they could be, and many people get caught up in that.
BEVs can be so much fun when looking at new features/ideas that can be incorporated because of packaging advantages and such. Much of the fun ideas are what get me so excited, and in the past I’ve defended BEVs as a whole because of that excitement. There’s likely a fair amount of that going on.
I also think there’s a fair amount of people only looking at the negatives of BEVs. The range is worse when it’s cold/too hot; you can’t tow with one; you can’t drive cross-country on one tank of gas, and get out for 30 seconds to refuel before driving back to where you came from; etc.
We’re probably a generation or two away from BEVs being a good, rational choice for most commuters. We’re not there currently, and there’s a lot! of work to be done to give BEVs the chance (I believe) they need. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen. It doesn’t mean there can’t be another solution come along to augment/replace BEVs. And (once again for the people in the back) it doesn’t mean it’s THE solution for everyone.
BEVs, however, are a solution to a problem that is largely not being addressed otherwise.
My thoughts on EVs would be much more in line with yours if they weren’t being mandated on timeframes that are too aggressive for the pace of technological and infrastructure improvement.
In that sense, it’s rational to focus on the shortcomings, because those represent the capabilities that will be lost when you can only buy an EV or perhaps compete for one of the limited PHEV slots.
I’m on record here multiple times saying I’m ready and willing to buy an EV that can duplicate what my gas cars are capable of. Unfortunately we don’t seem to be much closer to having something like that for sale than we were a decade ago.
Actually, in some of the conversations we’ve had here in the past, you’ve tempered me a bit. While we may never agree, there were some points I’ve made that I couldn’t truly back up with anything other than emotion.
In that line of thought, I’m still very much in favor of continuing to advance BEVs and their roll in the automotive landscape. However, when the EPA guidelines came out last year that are more or less pushing BEVs in a timeframe that is too aggressive for the pace of technological and (especially!) infrastructure improvement, I was saddened. There has to be a push to the automotive companies, but the government has to help with infrastructure. Neither of those was being truly advanced in those EPA guidelines.
And the one challenge I’d have for you in regards to your post is that EVs are going to be different from ICE vehicles. Of course there are a fair amount of similarities, but I don’t know that they’re ever going to duplicate ICE vehicles verbatim. That’s mostly OK for the majority of the commuter type segments, and there will probably have to be allowances in the recreational segments (offroad, towing/camping, etc). (And honestly, there’s so much work to be done on the Climate Change front that I’m done even pretending to argue that people shouldn’t have some automotive fun, that’s going to end up being a drop in the bucket!)
As an example of this, I’ve pretty much given up on the idea that there will be fun-to-drive EVs. The nature of the beast doesn’t really allow for it. So in that sense, I accept that the last fun cars I’ll own are the ones I already do, or will buy in the next few years.
That said, I don’t think the other requirements are onerous or unrealistic. I have a van and a truck, and the capabilities I need duplicated are:
-Capable of making a 500 mile road trip in Midwestern winter in 7-7.5 hours.
-Capable of holding a family and their stuff.
-Capable of towing ~7000 lb with reasonable range/recharge times.
I’d say once the RamCharger is available, a PHEV will be capable of meeting all these needs. I’m not going to say an EV will never meet them, but the lack of progress on range, battery density, and recharge times the last few years has not been encouraging. We are now closer to the 2035 deadlines than we are to the introduction of the Model S, and most new EVs still offer about the same range as that 2012 Tesla (~300 miles). Some admirable exceptions like Lucid are out there, but are few and far between.
I think a lot of these points highlight that it’s not that EVs are severely compromised on any one capability. The problem is that they are somewhat compromised on nearly every capability.
My problem is the long term viability. Not all of this is due to the EV tech capability but rather, how much these vehicles are managed via software and how much manufacturer intervention there is over the entire lifespan of a vehicle. We’re seeing functionality loss on all vehicle types now due to manufacturers not being able to see cellular network sunset schedules just a few years in advance. How does this lack of foresight translate to battery cooling software support for a car that’s 15+ years old? To say nothing of battery repair/replacement costs exceeding all savings on fuel over the life of the car…
I think that overall we’re seeing that the current battery tech is still in beta or V 1.0 levels and have been for a long time. The tech has advanced tremendously in overall maturity but it hasn’t really moved out of the initial stages. I am waiting for that one, game–changing tech advancement that can provide what you’re describing.
Maybe solid state batteries, maybe something else. But until the current cars have shown the manufacturers will be able to support them and how we handle large scale battery recycling from large numbers of obsolete vehicles going to the junk yard over the years, I really don’t see the viability of this solution long term.
What is your definition of “fun to drive?” For reference, I’ve got a somewhat modified NC Miata I take out and a Tesla Model 3 P. We’ve got some amazing roads around here. The Miata is great because of the top down experience and how nicely tuned it is, the Tesla handles well (but that can and will be improved) and the instant torque is addictive. I’ve heard the new Model 3 P is even better. What’s it missing from your point of view?
I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a single definition of fun to drive, but some things I think are correlated with it that EVs lack:
-Light weight
-Manual transmission
-Building power through revs
-The engine sound/vibration providing a full sensory experience while driving
EVs have some characteristics that are fun, and the decline of the stuff I like isn’t 100% attributable to EVs. But they are missing a lot.
That last point is possibly the one I’m most conflicted on in the EV future. Having a big, loud performance engine that produces a mechanical symphony is one of the best parts of driving.
Milk jug and a hammer on an electric motor might do it. I’ve owned a Cadillac V-Spec, so I get it.
Yeah I’ve been thinking more and more about buying some dumb V8 powered vehicle before they start becoming scarcer. Corvette, Mustang, Challenger. Yeah, yeah, say what you want about them, but a burbling V8 rules.
I disagree with you there. I find the lack of engine noise, seamless acceleration with no shifting to be much more enjoyable.
Okay, so by your definition they aren’t and that’s fine. What BEV brings to the table is something you won’t get from an ICE: ridiculously low center of gravity, instant power, more tunable delivery. I’d argue that safety standards are doing more to kill lightweight than batteries, but over time that will equal out.
I agree with the AP’s take on the numbers more than Hardigree’s.
I think there is much more of a media blitz about how great EVs are rather than how terrible they are. I don’t think this is malicious or even conscious, but it’s simply true that journalists are educated, lean left, are concentrated in cities. All of which correspond with EV ownership.
To me it speaks to the real downsides of the vehicles themselves that the rhetoric is not causing any significant change in openness or desire to own an EV.
What I’ve had to teach myself in talking about BEVs is to remember that they’re not ready for primetime (yet). There’s a lot of hype of how could they could be, and many people get caught up in that.
BEVs can be so much fun when looking at new features/ideas that can be incorporated because of packaging advantages and such. Much of the fun ideas are what get me so excited, and in the past I’ve defended BEVs as a whole because of that excitement. There’s likely a fair amount of that going on.
I also think there’s a fair amount of people only looking at the negatives of BEVs. The range is worse when it’s cold/too hot; you can’t tow with one; you can’t drive cross-country on one tank of gas, and get out for 30 seconds to refuel before driving back to where you came from; etc.
We’re probably a generation or two away from BEVs being a good, rational choice for most commuters. We’re not there currently, and there’s a lot! of work to be done to give BEVs the chance (I believe) they need. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen. It doesn’t mean there can’t be another solution come along to augment/replace BEVs. And (once again for the people in the back) it doesn’t mean it’s THE solution for everyone.
BEVs, however, are a solution to a problem that is largely not being addressed otherwise.
My thoughts on EVs would be much more in line with yours if they weren’t being mandated on timeframes that are too aggressive for the pace of technological and infrastructure improvement.
In that sense, it’s rational to focus on the shortcomings, because those represent the capabilities that will be lost when you can only buy an EV or perhaps compete for one of the limited PHEV slots.
I’m on record here multiple times saying I’m ready and willing to buy an EV that can duplicate what my gas cars are capable of. Unfortunately we don’t seem to be much closer to having something like that for sale than we were a decade ago.
Actually, in some of the conversations we’ve had here in the past, you’ve tempered me a bit. While we may never agree, there were some points I’ve made that I couldn’t truly back up with anything other than emotion.
In that line of thought, I’m still very much in favor of continuing to advance BEVs and their roll in the automotive landscape. However, when the EPA guidelines came out last year that are more or less pushing BEVs in a timeframe that is too aggressive for the pace of technological and (especially!) infrastructure improvement, I was saddened. There has to be a push to the automotive companies, but the government has to help with infrastructure. Neither of those was being truly advanced in those EPA guidelines.
And the one challenge I’d have for you in regards to your post is that EVs are going to be different from ICE vehicles. Of course there are a fair amount of similarities, but I don’t know that they’re ever going to duplicate ICE vehicles verbatim. That’s mostly OK for the majority of the commuter type segments, and there will probably have to be allowances in the recreational segments (offroad, towing/camping, etc). (And honestly, there’s so much work to be done on the Climate Change front that I’m done even pretending to argue that people shouldn’t have some automotive fun, that’s going to end up being a drop in the bucket!)
As an example of this, I’ve pretty much given up on the idea that there will be fun-to-drive EVs. The nature of the beast doesn’t really allow for it. So in that sense, I accept that the last fun cars I’ll own are the ones I already do, or will buy in the next few years.
That said, I don’t think the other requirements are onerous or unrealistic. I have a van and a truck, and the capabilities I need duplicated are:
-Capable of making a 500 mile road trip in Midwestern winter in 7-7.5 hours.
-Capable of holding a family and their stuff.
-Capable of towing ~7000 lb with reasonable range/recharge times.
I’d say once the RamCharger is available, a PHEV will be capable of meeting all these needs. I’m not going to say an EV will never meet them, but the lack of progress on range, battery density, and recharge times the last few years has not been encouraging. We are now closer to the 2035 deadlines than we are to the introduction of the Model S, and most new EVs still offer about the same range as that 2012 Tesla (~300 miles). Some admirable exceptions like Lucid are out there, but are few and far between.
I think a lot of these points highlight that it’s not that EVs are severely compromised on any one capability. The problem is that they are somewhat compromised on nearly every capability.
My problem is the long term viability. Not all of this is due to the EV tech capability but rather, how much these vehicles are managed via software and how much manufacturer intervention there is over the entire lifespan of a vehicle. We’re seeing functionality loss on all vehicle types now due to manufacturers not being able to see cellular network sunset schedules just a few years in advance. How does this lack of foresight translate to battery cooling software support for a car that’s 15+ years old? To say nothing of battery repair/replacement costs exceeding all savings on fuel over the life of the car…
I think that overall we’re seeing that the current battery tech is still in beta or V 1.0 levels and have been for a long time. The tech has advanced tremendously in overall maturity but it hasn’t really moved out of the initial stages. I am waiting for that one, game–changing tech advancement that can provide what you’re describing.
Maybe solid state batteries, maybe something else. But until the current cars have shown the manufacturers will be able to support them and how we handle large scale battery recycling from large numbers of obsolete vehicles going to the junk yard over the years, I really don’t see the viability of this solution long term.
What is your definition of “fun to drive?” For reference, I’ve got a somewhat modified NC Miata I take out and a Tesla Model 3 P. We’ve got some amazing roads around here. The Miata is great because of the top down experience and how nicely tuned it is, the Tesla handles well (but that can and will be improved) and the instant torque is addictive. I’ve heard the new Model 3 P is even better. What’s it missing from your point of view?
I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a single definition of fun to drive, but some things I think are correlated with it that EVs lack:
-Light weight
-Manual transmission
-Building power through revs
-The engine sound/vibration providing a full sensory experience while driving
EVs have some characteristics that are fun, and the decline of the stuff I like isn’t 100% attributable to EVs. But they are missing a lot.
That last point is possibly the one I’m most conflicted on in the EV future. Having a big, loud performance engine that produces a mechanical symphony is one of the best parts of driving.
Milk jug and a hammer on an electric motor might do it. I’ve owned a Cadillac V-Spec, so I get it.
Yeah I’ve been thinking more and more about buying some dumb V8 powered vehicle before they start becoming scarcer. Corvette, Mustang, Challenger. Yeah, yeah, say what you want about them, but a burbling V8 rules.
I disagree with you there. I find the lack of engine noise, seamless acceleration with no shifting to be much more enjoyable.
Okay, so by your definition they aren’t and that’s fine. What BEV brings to the table is something you won’t get from an ICE: ridiculously low center of gravity, instant power, more tunable delivery. I’d argue that safety standards are doing more to kill lightweight than batteries, but over time that will equal out.
So the problem is right there in the article:
“While Cincinnati winters aren’t extremely cold, “the thought of getting stuck in the driveway with an EV that won’t run is worrisome, and I know it wouldn’t be an issue with a plug-in hybrid,″
The problem isnt the EVs its people’s ignorance. As if that’s a real issue for someone in Cincinati, but not something the people in Norway can deal with.
People repeat this point as if it’s groundbreaking, but it’s meaningless.
Cincinnati winters get colder than Oslo’s.
Norway does not get hot in summer, but it does not have cold winters by US Midwestern standards. The all time record low in Oslo is -14 F. They hardly ever go below 0 F. Most places in the Central US, including Cincy, hit that temp at least once every winter.
I’m not far North of Cinci, and the following will be anecdotal, however I’m hoping helpful to the conversation:
You’re right that places in the Ohio valley can get colder than Oslo. However, quite often over the past 5 or so years, it gets very cold for a few days at the worst, maybe a few times per winter. (And by “very cold”, I’m talking temps in the teens, give or take, especially in Southern Ohio.) What we’ve been experiencing has been milder winters on the whole, with short bursts of “normal-” to “extreme”-cold.
And while my mind is filled with memories as a kid of what seemed like snow for months on end, that’s never quite been the case in Ohio, outside of the Lake-effect region in Northeast Ohio. Since I’ve had my current house (7 years), I’ve only had snow cover on the ground for an extended time once. I remember this because my back yard looks atrocious with 2 70-pound dogs tearing it up every winter, when the snow we do get melts away after a few days and turns my yard into a mud pit!
This is not to say it doesn’t regularly get cold enough to affect BEV range, just that the extremes are not sustained for a marked amount of time anymore. Add in that anyone who pays even a bit of attention to the weather should be able to plan ahead and charge up, and the idea of being left stranded because of extreme cold in Ohio is just that: someone’s (bad) idea.
I agree with you in general; that most people in the US should be able to plan ahead and avoid being literally stranded. Cold weather range is still a thing, but I think the person interviewed for the story is going a bit overboard.
On the other hand, I am pretty sick of the Norway talking point, because people seem to think that the climate is like Greenland rather than being like a slightly colder Vancouver. There are parts of Norway that get extremely cold, but no one lives there.
Not to mention the other reasons Norway is a terrible example. Turns out people will put up with quite a lot if you exempt EVs from an eye-watering 25% tax normally levied on vehicles. This is in addition to numerous other subsidies large and small including exemption from road taxes, tolls, access to bus lanes, and free parking.
They’re starting to sunset some of these provisions and I’m very curious how it affects EV adoption in 5 years or so. For years, the government didn’t just put their thumb on the scale, they sat on it.
It is 33% of Icelandic new car ownership, which is colder than Cincinnati. Also, We’re seeing less Polar Vortex’s pushing south of the lakes, so give it a few winters and below 0 won’t be a problem for Ohio.
Iceland is also warmer than the Midwest in winter time.
The average annual temperature is not the best metric for comparison, it’s the typical lows in January.
A continental climate is always going to have greater extremes than an island or oceanic country, basically no matter the latitude.
Most of Iceland, outside of Reykjavik is colder then Fargo. And Reykjavik is comparable to Minneapolis. Most of the Midwest is vastly warmer. Also, that last part is not true. Oceanic climates can and do experience extremes, such as the polar vortex example you bring up regularly effects Iceland more often then interior North America. We tend to live in places where it doesn’t do to the patterns of human development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk
“Despite its northern latitude, temperatures very rarely drop below −15 °C (5 °F) in the winter.”
“the lowest-ever recorded temperature was −24.5 °C (−12 °F), recorded on 21 January 1918.The coldest month on record is January 1918, with a mean temperature of −7.2 °C (19 °F)”
Meanwhile in Fargo:
“There is an annual average of 43 days with a minimum of 0 °F (−18 °C) or lower.”
Reykjavik (or anywhere in Iceland) is in no way shape or form comparable to Fargo or Minneapolis in winter, and in fact the idea is laughable. You’re mistakenly using the annual average temperature, which is close at around 42 F, but that’s just because Iceland doesn’t get warm in the summer either.
Using Monthly average actually and, also the Icelandic Low and Winter ice/snow cyclones are a thing there. I would rather be in Minneapolis in January than Reykjavik. Also using other populated parts of Iceland outside of its warmest city. Also I can’t link it due to being mobile, but Minnesota DNR list an average of 19 days that touch below 0 for Fargo. I found some extreme weather website that list 50+ (They don’t link source)- pretty sure they are using feels like, which wouldn’t be relevant. Even then we’re comparing Americas coldest city to Icelands warmest. Both are significantly large geographical areas with multiple weather patterns and averages.
If you have a driveway and it gets that cold you leave the car plugged in like you would with a block heater.
Funnily enough I’ve heard that the Nissan Leaf handles Norway’s winters very well.
So the problem is right there in the article:
“While Cincinnati winters aren’t extremely cold, “the thought of getting stuck in the driveway with an EV that won’t run is worrisome, and I know it wouldn’t be an issue with a plug-in hybrid,″
The problem isnt the EVs its people’s ignorance. As if that’s a real issue for someone in Cincinati, but not something the people in Norway can deal with.
People repeat this point as if it’s groundbreaking, but it’s meaningless.
Cincinnati winters get colder than Oslo’s.
Norway does not get hot in summer, but it does not have cold winters by US Midwestern standards. The all time record low in Oslo is -14 F. They hardly ever go below 0 F. Most places in the Central US, including Cincy, hit that temp at least once every winter.
I’m not far North of Cinci, and the following will be anecdotal, however I’m hoping helpful to the conversation:
You’re right that places in the Ohio valley can get colder than Oslo. However, quite often over the past 5 or so years, it gets very cold for a few days at the worst, maybe a few times per winter. (And by “very cold”, I’m talking temps in the teens, give or take, especially in Southern Ohio.) What we’ve been experiencing has been milder winters on the whole, with short bursts of “normal-” to “extreme”-cold.
And while my mind is filled with memories as a kid of what seemed like snow for months on end, that’s never quite been the case in Ohio, outside of the Lake-effect region in Northeast Ohio. Since I’ve had my current house (7 years), I’ve only had snow cover on the ground for an extended time once. I remember this because my back yard looks atrocious with 2 70-pound dogs tearing it up every winter, when the snow we do get melts away after a few days and turns my yard into a mud pit!
This is not to say it doesn’t regularly get cold enough to affect BEV range, just that the extremes are not sustained for a marked amount of time anymore. Add in that anyone who pays even a bit of attention to the weather should be able to plan ahead and charge up, and the idea of being left stranded because of extreme cold in Ohio is just that: someone’s (bad) idea.
I agree with you in general; that most people in the US should be able to plan ahead and avoid being literally stranded. Cold weather range is still a thing, but I think the person interviewed for the story is going a bit overboard.
On the other hand, I am pretty sick of the Norway talking point, because people seem to think that the climate is like Greenland rather than being like a slightly colder Vancouver. There are parts of Norway that get extremely cold, but no one lives there.
Not to mention the other reasons Norway is a terrible example. Turns out people will put up with quite a lot if you exempt EVs from an eye-watering 25% tax normally levied on vehicles. This is in addition to numerous other subsidies large and small including exemption from road taxes, tolls, access to bus lanes, and free parking.
They’re starting to sunset some of these provisions and I’m very curious how it affects EV adoption in 5 years or so. For years, the government didn’t just put their thumb on the scale, they sat on it.
It is 33% of Icelandic new car ownership, which is colder than Cincinnati. Also, We’re seeing less Polar Vortex’s pushing south of the lakes, so give it a few winters and below 0 won’t be a problem for Ohio.
Iceland is also warmer than the Midwest in winter time.
The average annual temperature is not the best metric for comparison, it’s the typical lows in January.
A continental climate is always going to have greater extremes than an island or oceanic country, basically no matter the latitude.
Most of Iceland, outside of Reykjavik is colder then Fargo. And Reykjavik is comparable to Minneapolis. Most of the Midwest is vastly warmer. Also, that last part is not true. Oceanic climates can and do experience extremes, such as the polar vortex example you bring up regularly effects Iceland more often then interior North America. We tend to live in places where it doesn’t do to the patterns of human development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk
“Despite its northern latitude, temperatures very rarely drop below −15 °C (5 °F) in the winter.”
“the lowest-ever recorded temperature was −24.5 °C (−12 °F), recorded on 21 January 1918.The coldest month on record is January 1918, with a mean temperature of −7.2 °C (19 °F)”
Meanwhile in Fargo:
“There is an annual average of 43 days with a minimum of 0 °F (−18 °C) or lower.”
Reykjavik (or anywhere in Iceland) is in no way shape or form comparable to Fargo or Minneapolis in winter, and in fact the idea is laughable. You’re mistakenly using the annual average temperature, which is close at around 42 F, but that’s just because Iceland doesn’t get warm in the summer either.
Using Monthly average actually and, also the Icelandic Low and Winter ice/snow cyclones are a thing there. I would rather be in Minneapolis in January than Reykjavik. Also using other populated parts of Iceland outside of its warmest city. Also I can’t link it due to being mobile, but Minnesota DNR list an average of 19 days that touch below 0 for Fargo. I found some extreme weather website that list 50+ (They don’t link source)- pretty sure they are using feels like, which wouldn’t be relevant. Even then we’re comparing Americas coldest city to Icelands warmest. Both are significantly large geographical areas with multiple weather patterns and averages.
If you have a driveway and it gets that cold you leave the car plugged in like you would with a block heater.
Funnily enough I’ve heard that the Nissan Leaf handles Norway’s winters very well.