Parking lot Solar Panels/Shade Structure

Jeff:
you only really need to charge enough to get to your next stopping point.

Brandon:

I don't get why you keep mentioning this as a benefit to EVs, considering that the same is true of a gas vehicle,

I think the basic point here is that you can charge at home, but not pump gas at home. So, many of your "filling" needs are done while the car would be just sitting there anyway.

Or, if you know it'll take 30% to get to the hotel you're headed to you can just charge to, say, 50% (saving time) and worry about the full charge after you get there.

Look at Jeff's math. 12 hours of pumping gas to go 61K. It might take longer than that to charge a battery enough to go 61K, but for the most part that isn't YOUR time because you're off doing whatever you'd normally be doing while the car is charging.

djDaemon:

I could, I guess, add only a quarter tank or whatever if I wanted to "save time" at the pump, even though all I'm really doing is making sure I have to stop to refuel sooner than if I had just filled it up completely

Exactly. With an ICE car, you have no choice but to punch your clock at the gas station. With an EV you can limit your time there, because when you get home the car magically fills up in your garage.

I have an idea! Maybe you can get gasoline sent through small pipes in the ground directly to your garage, and build a pump that trickles the fuel into your car overnight while you sleep. That would be a HUGE time saver for ICE cars. That way you could skip the gas station all together for 90% of your driving. Maybe that is a good business venture / product that you can sell to members of that tribe.

My wife goes one better than that: I put gas in her car.

And I thought they are the Guardians now not the Tribe?

That said, there is probably some psychology at play here which is why maybe this feels more like "wariness" to some and not illogical. Pumping gas is something we have all done with some regularity since we were 16 or whatever. It's just something that has to be done. We don't view the time it takes as a choice or a waste or whatever. We just don't think about it. However, when on a trip if it takes longer to fill an EV than it does to pump a tank of gas then that is something that sort of sits front and center and we notice. So, one side of the tradeoff sort of smacks us in the face and the other side doesn't. And, so, I guess I can see how, without thinking too deeply, someone might say "gee, that sucks" or feel some general wariness or apprehension.

What mallman said. Fill-for-minimum range is not a thing in gas car, because there's no gas to be had in your garage. It's a different way of thinking. Similarly, people will, with half a tank, go to a gas station before road tripping, and that isn't necessary either because you always leave home "full" in an EV. It doesn't matter if charging takes longer than filling when the 80/20 use case leans toward the car idling in your garage while you're sleeping.

Re: batteries, you're making a strawman argument. Yes, battery technology will continue to improve. That's awesome, but if that's a reason to hold off adoption, it's not a very good one. The batteries that exist today meet the needs. I mean, Amazon is going electric, Pepsi is hauling sugar water around California in EV rigs, and if I had to guess, every fifth car around here is an EV. It doesn't seem like the technology isn't good enough if it's being used to that extent.

That Norway has incentivized the transition was my whole point. That it was not a free market phenomenon is immaterial to the fact that the outcome, everyone happily driving EV's, is evidence that the barriers are not technological.

djDaemon:

And I fail to see how a member of one tribe stating unequivocally that all members of another tribe are willfully ignorant and stupid isn't part of the problem.

At no time have I assigned anyone to tribes, but yes, it's my opinion that people who politicize EV adoption are the same assholes who were against vaccination and deny climate change. Science is still real even if one chooses not to believe it.

I am completely confused now. The ICE'ers hate going to gas stations, but they have to because of the type of car that they drive. The EV'ers love going to gas stations so much that they make it an event, even though they do not need to go to a gas station because of the type of care that they drive.

Jeff:

...if that's a reason to hold off adoption, it's not a very good one.

It's not a very good one for you personally. Others can disagree with you and it doesn't make them willfully ignorant. They just have different priorities.

The batteries that exist today meet the needs.

That they meet your needs doesn't mean they meet others' needs or wants, and again, their needs and wants not aligning with yours doesn't make them willfully ignorant.

Jeff:
At no time have I assigned anyone to tribes...

Followed immediately by:

...but yes, it's my opinion that people who politicize EV adoption are the same assholes...

People can be wary of buying an EV without it having anything whatsoever to do with politics, or with how tragically stupider than you they are, is all I'm saying. I feel like this should be self-evident, but here we are...

Then again, maybe if EV drivers and proselytizers band together to launch a marketing campaign to explain to those mouth-breathing EV-wary morons how dumb and stupid their priorities and concerns are, you'll sell them on buying an EV. :-)

There is something oddly refreshing about seeing an argument between Jeff and djDaemon 😉

Yeah I was thinking that too. Very rare sight indeed.

mallman:

We don't view the time it takes as a choice or a waste or whatever.

I view it as a waste. I loathe going to the gas station, even if it is quick, because it's never when it is convenient to you (ironic I know). And those late nights when you have to be up early in the morning so you skip the gas station because all you can think about is sleep? Bad decision. Morning gas station stops absolutely suck when you are tired and need to get to work. The idea that my car could be ready to go 250+ miles every morning I wake up is a dream I hope to someday enjoy.

The semantic debates are exhausting, hanging on word choices and nuance. It isn't about me or my opinion, I'm giving you the general reality of what's going on. I'm also not even lumping you in with "those ignorant people," but you sure seem to be hung up on that. If someone says something like, "Have fun replacing the battery," or, "There isn't enough charging infrastructure," and they're unwilling to hear about why that is, objectively, not true, not relevant, and/or not how it works, and they're unwilling to understand why, then yes, that is willful ignorance. That's not about their opinion, they're just wrong. There are 2.4 million EV's on the road in the US, representing an annual $50 billion business. That's not some emerging niche, that's mainstream.

There's an article in the NYT today about Apple cancelling its car effort. The comments, even for a paper that is mostly read by well-informed, educated people, show how opinions overshadow the reality of the situation. And keep in mind, Apple's intent was electric, their intent was autonomous driving.

The EV market has been artificially supported by the government's subsidies not by market demand from luxury car buyers.

Initially, in the US, yes, but most of the growth has occurred since the previous incentives ended. It also implies that government is evil and shouldn't have a role in shaping society, which is absurd to me. No one blinks an eye when it spends money on the military or subsidizing fossil fuels. Selective reasoning, indeed.

Imagine if we invested billions into developing ultra-efficient internal combustion engines?

The auto industry has already done that. The average is double what it was 50 years ago.

EVs are a niche product for wealthy urbanites wishing to parade their virtue.

Double stupid. Not only are they (finally) not the exclusive domain of the wealthy, but the last part is like saying, "You're just against racism because you want to parade your virtue." As if wanting a healthier environment is some kind of thing to be ashamed of.

Trying to talk to Americans about EVs is like trying to talk to Americans about cycling infrastructure. It’s not what we’re already doing, so it must not be possible.

OK, so that one resonates. 😀

Jeff:

There are 2.4 million EV's on the road in the US, representing an annual $50 billion business. That's not some emerging niche, that's mainstream.

To be fair, those 2.4 million EVs represent less than 1% of the ~279 million registered vehicles in the US. That's obviously changing very rapidly, but I don't know if ~0.9% market share qualifies as "mainstream" just yet.

How many of those 279 million are daily drivers for the purpose of commuting and getting groceries? Still a high number I am sure but that is the number I would put up against the 2.4 million EVs.

I don't see what that has to do with anything given the context of the conversation, but for fun, even if we use the number of licensed drivers, EVs are still at <1%.

Sure, if you increase the denominator enough then anything looks small. But, the average age of those 279 million cars is over 12 years old. We keep these things a good while. The overall "on the road" car population reflects past choices. If one looks at new car sales, EVs (and hybrids) are many times 0.9%. And, trending up fairly steeply. EVs aren't a majority; not even close. But, that doesn't mean they aren't a sizable--and growing--market in terms of current choices.

I don't dispute that, I was disputing the "on the road" claim.

In 2023, EVs made up about 8% of total new car sales in the US. Which, as a point of reference, is about the same percentage of people who run ChromeOS or Linux on their PC.

As a long time unix geek I can assure you the curve for new EV sales is way steeper than the curve for new unix geeks. :)

That aside, I am not sure what that has to do with anything. There are more EVs sold every year than purple and grey tu-tus. So, I guess that means ... um ... EVs are awesome?!

(And, yes, I know you didn't start the "cars on the road" thing. Several were using that. My not-the-whole-story reaction was to all of it, not just to you. And, yes, of course I made up the tu-tu thing, but clearly you could find some completely unrelated but real statistic that makes the same point. Or, um, non-point. I didn't because I am just a lazy unix geek ...)

Repost from my car crash thread on CoasterBuzz...

A few of you mentioned BYD... an op-ed in the Times today says Detroit is screwed already if they can't figure out how to catch up and compete before they get here. I've been saying this for years, and take no pleasure in seeing it come true.

Wait and see never works out in a global economy.

Just to add fuel to the fire of the EV discourse; there is a story on cleveland.com titled "How Lordstown Motors - both figuratively and literally - went up in flames." Gory photo's of one of their Chevy pick-ups which burned on a test run. That type of story will scare the sceptics.