Using Your EV Charge Card

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

People keep talking about how as electric cars become cheaper, more people will use them. But what they keep ignoring is that they are totally useless for long trips.

The Climate Spokeswoman for the UK PM Boris Johnson, Allegra Stratton, recently let the cat out of the bag when she revealed why even she doesn’t use an EV (electric vehicle):

“Net-zero is the glide path. What we have to be doing more quickly – the science is clear – we have to be changing our carbon emissions output right now so that we can stop temperature increase by 2030.

She explained that she doesn’t want to stop to charge her car when she visits elderly relatives “200,250 miles away”.

She claimed that she visits family around the UK, including Scotland, north Wales, the Lake District and Gloucester.

Because of this, she said: “They’re all journeys that I think would be at least one quite long stop to charge.”

(Gotta admit, I have to admire the otherworldly idiocy of anyone who seriously claims that we can “stop temperature increase by 2030”. Here’s why that is ungrounded madness … but I digress.)

Now, here in Nowherica, 250 miles is considered an easy morning’s commute … a map of Texas versus Europe shows why.

So I got to thinking … just how long a charging stop would that be to go another 250 miles? Me, I drive a 2016 Ram Ecodiesel pickup truck with about a 500 mile range, although the new ones have about a 1,000 mile range. And I can “recharge” it for another 500 miles in about five minutes at the pump.

Looking for information on this question, I see that the figure in question is called “RPH”, which stands for “Range Per Hour”. This is how many miles of range you get per hour of charging. I find a site called How Long Does It Take To Charge An Electric Car that says:

Range per hour varies depending on how efficient your car is. Small full battery electric cars (e.g. Renault Zoe) are the most efficient and get 30 miles of range per hour charging at 7kW. The biggest full battery electric cars (e.g. Audi e-tron Quattro) are heavier and get ~20 miles of range per hour at 7kW.

YIKES! That’s the charge rate for the standard commercial chargers. I can see why the UK Climate Spokesbabe doesn’t want to drive an EV. If you’re stopping to recharge your Audi e-tron for another 250 miles, instead of the five minutes it takes me to recharge my diesel pickup, it will take you twelve and a half hours to recharge.

But heck, don’t worry. Here’s Edmund King, the head of the UK Automobile Association. He says that drivers should take a break after 200 miles of driving.

“Drivers covering long distances should take regular breaks to maintain safety, so this is the ideal time to charge the car. Range anxiety will continue to decrease with more chargers and improved range on new models.”

Well, that makes perfect sense. Just stop for a quick ten-hour lunch, and you’re ready for your next 200 miles. And Elon Musk, winner of the Olympic Gold Medal For Getting The Most US Taxpayer Subsidies, makes much the same point regarding the new “long-range” Tesla Model S:

Musk said that he doesn’t see a need for an electric vehicle with a range of more than 400 miles:

“What we are seeing is that once you have a range above 400 miles, more range doesn’t really matter. There are essentially zero trips above 400 miles where the driver doesn’t need to stop for restroom, food, coffee, etc. anyway.”

The comment was criticized for not accounting for the fact that a 400-mile range is closer to 250-300 miles in colder climates and depending on the conditions.

Heck, yes, I often need to stop for ten hours for restroom, food, and coffee …

Call me crazy, but with the Tesla Model S going for a cool $74,490 including ten-hour restroom breaks, I reckon I’m gonna stick with my Ram Ecodiesel.

w.

… h/t to the irrepressible James Delingpole for a couple of quotes …

[UPDATE] Several commenters have pointed out that there are faster chargers out there, that can charge at 100 or even 200 miles or range per hour. This would cut the charge time in the middle of a 600-mile trip down to thre or even one and a half hours … in theory, of course. In practice, the numbers somehow never seem to match up to theory.

But heck, yes, I often need to stop for a couple hours for restroom, food, and coffee …

4.7 72 votes
Article Rating
499 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 7, 2021 10:07 am

What may have value may be an EV city car, just for shopping or driving around for different reasons near your home.
For the rest…..I prefer my old Volvo benzine 850

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 7, 2021 10:23 am

That assumes you can afford to own two vehicles.

Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 10:33 am

No, only one, and that doesn’t change. For the shorter ways we use our bicycles.

Joe the non climate expert
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 7, 2021 11:55 am

How many bags of groceries can you carry on your bicycle.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joe the non climate expert
August 7, 2021 1:18 pm

At least the modern plastic grocery bags won’t disintegrate in the rain like the old paper bags.

Richard
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 1:48 pm

Except in counties where they have been banned.

LdB
Reply to  Richard
August 7, 2021 10:51 pm

Most banned single use plastic you are still allowed thicker so called re-usable bags.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  LdB
August 8, 2021 3:34 am

not for long
now the idiots are starting petitions to ban those also

Reply to  Joe the non climate expert
August 7, 2021 2:51 pm

My wife one, me one too, but it’s not a shopping for the week, and it’s just 1 km around the corner. I’m on the way to my 70, so not the youngest one too.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 8, 2021 12:41 am

I cycle roughly every other day, about 20-25 km depending on route to pick up daily supplies- bread, milk and perishables in a backpack from a Lidl about 2km away. I’m 71 on Friday I do it to keep active an see the countryside as I live on the edge of town.
We waste less food as Scot wasting money hurts me deeply

Dean
Reply to  Joe the non climate expert
August 7, 2021 5:40 pm

Easily enough for 2 days. Plus parking right next to the entrance is a breeze, my local mall even has bike racks.

And if you need more, then you drive. Its pretty simple. Or if its dodgy weather, you know, just use your brain a bit to decide what to do.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Dean
August 8, 2021 6:21 pm

So… you split the difference and take advantage of the bike rack fitted to the back of your car?? 😀

Redge
Reply to  Joe the non climate expert
August 7, 2021 11:29 pm

I carry a week’s worth of shopping on my back and in bags and walk the 1.5 miles each way

In my 60s

Can’t afford (or want) an EV

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 7, 2021 12:17 pm

And what do you do if you live where it snows much of the year? All the green dreams require a total lack of contact with reality.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
August 7, 2021 1:31 pm

Riding a bicycle on icy/snowy roads is fun! Crash helmet definitely recommended.

rah
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 3:58 pm

They got a fix for that too!comment image

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  rah
August 7, 2021 6:26 pm

When I was in Pt. Barrow in 1967, many of the homes had overturned snowmobiles in what passed for yards. Reminded me of cars in the south that had provided a transmission or differential for the preferred transportation.

When Spring comes in the Arctic, all the snow doesn’t melt at the same time. The natives would drive their snowmobiles in a straight line, without regard for whether they were on snow or gravel. The gravel was hard on the snowmobiles and shortened their lifespan.

I imagine that the tractorized bicycle above would suffer the same fate.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  rah
August 8, 2021 9:35 am

LOL. Works fine if the roads are snow covered, but if they plow while you’re shopping the trip home might be…challenging, to say the least.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 6:11 pm

Just don’t brake or turn, and you’ll be all right.

Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
August 7, 2021 2:53 pm

As youngster I biked in snow and ice, now of course not, and thanks CC, it doesn’t snow to much here.

Marty
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 7, 2021 12:36 pm

I’m seventy years old and recovering from cancer. Believe me, I have neither the desire or the physical ability to bicycle to the local grocery store or Wal-Mart.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Marty
August 7, 2021 1:33 pm

The good news is that Kroger/Safeway/SuperKing is offering home delivery for a modest charge. Although, the downside is that meat or fruit might not be the choice you would have made in person.

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Marty
August 7, 2021 1:54 pm

I am 78 years old and in good health but my bicycle is electric with a 50 kilometer range. I also pull a cart behind for my dog or groceries.
There are supermarkets within that range but I usually shop at more reasonably priced stores beyond that range. I use freezers and a pantry to keep my major shopping down to less than monthly.
If my wealth level allowed it I would definitely like to have a fun electric car. Practical? Not at all. I place them on the same level as a corvette. Fun driving for summer use only.
I never let my fuel tank get below 1/4 and I think you need at least a 25% reserve charge on an electric as well. That allows for unforeseen circumstances but sharply reduces the practical range.
I live in a small rural hamlet so I can see where city dwellers could have a more practical use. But if they don’t live in the suburbs where would they park and charge? I think you would need a garage or at the very least a private driveway.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rick W Kargaard
Dave Fair
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
August 7, 2021 2:02 pm

I’m pretty sure it is not a good idea to park and charge an EV in your garage. An acquaintance has a crappy-range EV and put its charging outlet on an outside fence.

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 7, 2021 2:30 pm

I am sure a detached garage would let you sleep better.
However we regularly park vehicles with tanks of highly explosive fuel and hundreds of feet of electric cables with potential for shorts in our garages. We also have multiple tools and electronics with various batteries including lithium-ion in our homes and garages, so our perception of risk may be somewhat skewed.
The real issue is warning and escape time in case of a dangerous incident. Insurance covers most of the rest.

.KcTaz
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
August 7, 2021 3:21 pm
  • How often do gas or diesel vehicles explode in garages? They may do that, but I can’t remember any that have done so, unless the garage is already on fire, that is. I’ve never heard of a can of gasoline catching fire if stored in an approved can, either.
  • Also, our batteries for tools are quite small compared to the battery in an electric vehicle. I’ve never heard of one in a saw catching fire, though, they may have. I have heard of batteries in electric vehicles catching fire, though.
  • I don’t have room in my garage for hundreds of feet of electric cables in it, and certainly, not all plugged into anything. I may have a hundred feet of a coiled cable that is not plugged into anything.
  • You must have a huge garage if you have room for all that.
MikeSwenson
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 9, 2021 1:33 pm

For Chevrolet Bolts,GM is recommending strongly not to keep them in the garage until they fix the battery fire issues. https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/07/gm-once-again-asking-chevy-bolt-ev-owners-to-park-their-cars-outside/ I own a Chevrolet Volt, it has ICE generator, best concept for Electric out there and they shut it down

Edward Sager
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
August 7, 2021 3:39 pm

Get your dog to pull the bicycle. Better for both of you and the Earth (just don’t exhale any CO2).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 7, 2021 1:29 pm

Consider yourself lucky that you don’t live in Phoenix. A typical Summer day might be 106 deg F — sometimes getting up to 118. Actually, much of the west sees temperatures over 100 in the Summer. You don’t want to be riding over black pavement at those temperatures.

Actually, even riding in a car without A/C at those temperatures is uncomfortable and drains one’s energy. But, it is tolerable to the young and physically fit. However, trying to ride a bicycle in South Eastern states or Gulf states, with high humidity, can easily lead to hyperthermia. The humidity is just enervating!

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 3:13 pm

That happened to me on a bike tour. I overheated and went though two and a half quarts of water in twenty miles finally having to stop and wait for the SAG wagon. The next day, after a good nights rest, I still didn’t have any legs. I was lucky the ride was shorter that day. Heat just sucks the life out of you. 😰

.KcTaz
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 3:40 pm

Actually, riding a bike, or even walking in Phoenix is an exercise in exploring your tolerance for risk and risking life and limb. If the heat doesn’t get you, the crazy drivers will!
Of course, it doesn’t help that many people do things like get drunk/high and walk or ride across streets while wearing all black and not in crosswalks, also, while paying no attention to the traffic. Trying not to hit crazy pedestrians and cyclists is a serious challenge in Phoenix.
As for no A/C, our daughter followed us to Phx when we moved there in 2000. She was terrified by the traffic, so we bought her a 1988 Cadillac. It was a yacht. It was fine so long as you didn’t forget to give it it’s bottle of oil every four hours.
It had another issue. The switch that controlled the Air and Heater was broken and only worked intermittently and you never knew which you were going to get but whichever you got, you couldn’t turn it off. Trust me when I say that riding around in a car in Phx. when the outside temperature was 110 with the heater on provides an excellent preview of what life in Hell must be like.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  .KcTaz
August 7, 2021 6:36 pm

I have driven a Corvette with the heater on full on a hot Summer day in the mountains because the engine needed the extra cooling from the passenger compartment heat exchanger to keep from over heating. The 327 ci block was over-bored to 350 and the stock radiator wasn’t up to the job climbing hills.

Peter
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 11, 2021 12:39 am

Electric scooter is real alternative for distances up to 2 miles. It is actually usually faster than car on those distances. Slower speed is balanced by faster start, no need for opening garage, search park place, parking…
I used it also in winter, in 3 to 7 minutes transfer time you simply have no time to get cold or wet.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 11:16 am

No, it assumes that you would take public transport or rent a suitable vehicle for the tiny minority of trips over 200 miles. But guilty as charged. Our annual St. Louis to Pismo Beach round trips would be impossible without our Chev Colorado diesel/ Escape 5.0 TA combo. Or not, since a pickup could be rented – even with bed hitch – for much less than we spend to keep our one 4 wheeled vehicle. And also since most of our other trips are either on Metrolink or our 2 ebikes (with BikeBob trailer for groceries), our truck is a maintenance heavy indulgence.

Sidebar. Aren’t Ram Eco-Diesels POS’s, durability wise? As a Columbus Indiana native, the Cummins’s rule, even with their noise.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Distribution-of-distance-driven-per-vehicle-day-on-days-when-the-vehicle-was-driven_fig5_279853330

Tomsa
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 7, 2021 12:24 pm

We ran two vehicles until 2018 when we realised we only needed one since most long distance trips we took were with our F150 2.7EB towing our Escape 5.0TA. The savings on insurance alone worth it, never mind maintenance on a nine year old car. As far as EV’s go even if range and charging time are improved substantially I can’t see us ever owning one.

Reply to  bigoilbob
August 7, 2021 12:51 pm

Another example where misused averages utterly fail to represent people specifically or to represent their actual needs.

As well as vehicles that support all of a persons transportation needs, not some specious average trips of urbanites who rarely travel a few miles.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ATheoK
August 7, 2021 2:29 pm

And the biggest reason to keep the Deep State out of selecting my mode of transportation? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. My personal preferences trump all attempts of the government to regulate my personal decisions.

The U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment is the citizens’ ultimate defense against Socialist overreach.

bigoilbob
Reply to  ATheoK
August 7, 2021 5:28 pm

Another example where misused averages utterly fail to represent people specifically or to represent their actual needs.”

Too bad you failed to read my actual comment. I don’t doubt that e cars/trucks are impractical for X country trips. And for those who flip the stats on average use, IC vehicle ownership might still make sense. Just not for the rest of us – me included. We would be much better off with e vehicles or no vehicles and just renting what we need, when we need it.

“As well as vehicles that support all of a persons transportation needs, not some specious average trips of urbanites who rarely travel a few miles.”

The stats I provided are for ALL drivers. Again, reading comprehension is your friend…

CapitalistRoader
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 9, 2021 8:04 am

We would be much better off with e vehicles or no vehicles and just renting what we need, when we need it.

Paternalistic. Get rid of the we and speak for yourself. Everyone has different transportation requirements.

bigoilbob
Reply to  CapitalistRoader
August 9, 2021 8:15 am

Get rid of the we and speak for yourself.”

My “we” was my wife and I.

Everyone has different transportation requirements.”

As I stated quite plainly in my last post. But MOST of us would indeed be be better off with e/no vehicles owned, renting what we need, when we need it.

You want to use your F450 like a Rascal scooter – as many do – KYSO. But only after you pay an equitable carbon tax, fully, regularly, equitably rebated to the rest of us (after paying off CCS projects at the carbon tax rate), AND paying the fuel prices that result from the hydrocarbon prices that allow for full bonding of our Trumpian YUGE past and future oil and gas asset retirement obligations. Milton Friedman would approve…

Drake
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 7, 2021 3:49 pm

I always like socialists speaking of peoples’ “indulgences” when they want to spend other peoples’ MONEY.

Still haven’t provided a comparison the retirement plans for unreliable power to that of oil and gas.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Drake
August 7, 2021 5:35 pm

I always like socialists speaking of peoples’ “indulgences” when they want to spend other peoples’ MONEY.”

Please provide any reference to whatever money you claim I want to spend.

“Still haven’t provided a comparison the retirement plans for unreliable power to that of oil and gas.”

Asset retirement for renewables will be a fraction of that for hydrocarbons. First off, there is a century old legacy of 11-12 figures worth of shirked hydrocarbon asset retirement obligations, bonded at pennies on the dollar. It will probably be communized onto the rest of us, as most extractive asset retirement obligations have been, but they will still come due. Then, there’s the fact that renewable sites are, by definition, the best available for this purpose. They have not been depleted, as hydrocarbon acreage has. So, equipment will be removed, better equipment installed, and the same land used over and over for millennia.

This is simple stuff…..

Pauleta
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 11:21 am

Neighbour has a Tesla 3 (park inside) and a Toyota RAV4. Which do you think they use for camping? Wife is just retired and her commute was 10km/day

Editor
Reply to  Pauleta
August 7, 2021 11:48 am

Lets say someone was going camping in a EV. They would need heavy camping equipment and basic stores. There are four people. It is raining and twilight so the lights are on, the heating or aircon is on, the radio is on, the windscreen wipers are on. The route is very hilly. The camp site in the middle of nowhere.

Realistically how many miles would you get with that scenario? Far enough to get to your camp site?

Then you have to find a recharging point before you can do any sightseeing

Change that scenario slightly to a cold journey when the battery is not as efficient.

Bryan A
Reply to  tonyb
August 7, 2021 12:17 pm

Three words…
Honda Pull Start
(And GALLONS of gas to run it for the 24-48 hours needed)

Reply to  Bryan A
August 7, 2021 1:04 pm

And a lot of pissed off camping neighbors.

Most campgrounds have rules for quiet hours. I’ve reported noisy selfish sobs to the campground office/manager when their noise is really annoying and interminable.

Once when some rude campers running noisy equipment after midnight refused to comply, the park ranger kicked them out.

Campers all around the noisy campsite applauded as the inconsiderate were escorted off site at about 1AM.

Bryan A
Reply to  ATheoK
August 7, 2021 1:32 pm

Hard to force a depleted EV to vacate when they’re uncharged

John Endicott
Reply to  Bryan A
August 7, 2021 1:56 pm

They can be towed away either at owners expense in the towing, or at owners expense to get back from impound.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ATheoK
August 7, 2021 2:21 pm

My wife had an A-hole father and 5 unruly brothers. They liked to camp and her father kept a kettle of beans that was constantly refreshed, never emptied and cleaned. Her stepmother refused to go along with them. When she got old enough, my wife also refused.

They had extremely loud mountain bikes and liked to ride the bikes and hoot & holler around the campsites. On one occasion, a bunch of campers formed a “lynch mob” and physically removed them from the campground.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  tonyb
August 7, 2021 1:38 pm

The batteries are also not efficient in very hot weather. See the link I provided earlier regarding practical experience in hot weather.

Bryan A
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 6:59 pm

Well yeah but EVERYONE knows that once were converted to all electric transportation, the whims of weather will be automatically tamed and it will NEVER be TOO WARM or TOO COLD or TOO RAINY or TOO DRY. It will become a Utopia the likes of which we have never known. /sarc (Justin Case)

Dennis
Reply to  Bryan A
August 7, 2021 9:21 pm

Try to imagine the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones and EV for the military.

Maybe long lines of multi-wheel drive diesel truck mounted generators?

Question: Do most politicians have common sense, or is it uncommon in those ranks?

Dennis
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 9:19 pm

Inland Australia in summer causes solar panel ineffficiencies and failure, and then add the dusty conditions.

A farmer told me that solar powered agricultural pumps out in those remote areas do not last ten years, pumps used to draw water from bores into troughs for cattle to drink.

Reply to  tonyb
August 7, 2021 5:12 pm

Saw a post on a camping site that campgrounds are starting to say you cannot charge your EV onsite. Most campgrounds I have been to would be hard pressed to cover a trickle charge EV battery and certainly not any of the fast chargers.

Dennis
Reply to  Pauleta
August 7, 2021 9:15 pm

I regularly travel towing a medium sized caravan weighing 1,800 kg when legally fully loaded.

There are a couple of expensive EV capable of towing it, meaning double or more the retail price of the 4WD diesel I own, but with extremely limited range even fully charged because after discounting the variable factors that use energy in an EV the extra 1,800 kg towed behind cuts range in half at least.

And looking for recharge points in Australia’s remote inland countryside is an inconvenience factor I do not need during my travels in retirement.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dennis
August 8, 2021 9:58 am

Just the majority of real world driving conditions cuts the supposed (and still inadequate) “range” of battery EVs in half, never mind towing something.

The “range” estimates are probably based on a 100% charge (which they don’t recommend you keep it at for safety reasons, so you can immediately multiply that by 80%), and is also based on a fantasy world of 70-something degrees F, flat, dry roads, no wind, single occupant and no luggage (much less towing), ridiculously low operating speeds, and NO “accessory” use – no lights, wipers, HVAC, radio, navigation system, heated seats/steering wheels, vented seats, or cell phone chargers or other “plug ins” whatsoever.

Now, compare that to reality, and you can chop your 80% of 100% of already inadequate “range” in half just for starters. And the more extreme the operating conditions, the more likely it ill be even worse. Highway speeds cut pretty deep into the supposed “range,” so unless you like to meander along the “back roads,” you can assume faster you go = less distance you CAN go without recharging.

In other words, useless in the real world. A virtue-signalling toy for wealthy hypocrites.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
August 8, 2021 2:54 am

Most households will have 2 vehicles…

‘In 2019, households in England had an average of 1.21 cars. However if we exclude London (the area with the lowest rate of vehicle ownership) then the typical English household had 1.3 cars. In London, households had 0.74 cars, meaning on average not every household has a car.’

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
August 8, 2021 9:03 am

Bloody hell griff! Was that contact with reality?

John Endicott
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
August 9, 2021 4:59 am

Clearly it wasn’t as his first sentence doesn’t match the source he’s quoting (which is typical of the griffter).

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  griff
August 8, 2021 9:59 am

Most households don’t want one of the two to be useless.

JEM
Reply to  griff
August 8, 2021 10:40 am

I’m not in England, but I’ve got enough personally-owned cars (and trucks) for five average English households…

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 8, 2021 10:54 am

Math was never your friend was it griff.

First you claim that most households have two vehicles, then you cite a figure that says the average household has 1,21 cars. That’s every house having one car and every 5th house having a second. Last time I checked 1 in 5 is way, way short of “most”.

Secondly, you have been demanding that all ICE vehicles be banned. That would mean that most households have two useless cars. Assuming they can afford the car and the electricity to charge it.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Michael Jankowski
Reply to  griff
August 8, 2021 2:22 pm

Ignoring London for some stupid reason (I mean, 9 million out of 55 million people in England live in London)…1.3 cars per household is nowhere close to “most households will have 2 vehicles.” Excluding the possibility of 3 car households, the best you can get at 1.3 cars/household is 30% (13 cars per 10 households). 30% falls way short of “most.”

This is like your failed analogy where eating 3 hamburgers every day for a week was a total of 20 hamburgers.

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael Jankowski
John Endicott
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
August 9, 2021 5:02 am

LOL, math clearly isn’t griff’s strong suit.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 7, 2021 1:14 pm

And Bolt owners have to wait six moths for the fix to the battery back that makes them sometimes burn up. It’s going to be an exciting six months for them, playing EV Russian roulette every time they use their EV.

Bob Hunter
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 7, 2021 2:34 pm

Here in Canada, about once every 2 years most cities have a freezing rain snow storm where a 20 – 30 minute commute becomes 4 hrs. Don’t think the heater can operate for that long

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Bob Hunter
August 8, 2021 10:00 am

Don’t think an EV would last 4 hrs under those conditions without the heat on.

stewartpid
Reply to  Bob Hunter
August 8, 2021 10:58 am

The weather in Calgary is pretty F*^&$d up but the one thing we don’t get is freezing rain. I’ve seen it once at my place in Fernie BC ….skating on the highway … fun on skates … not so much fun in a car. Where I grew up in Ottawa freezing rain was almost a yearly occurrence during the 1960’s & 70’s.

Dennis
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 7, 2021 9:09 pm

But not value for money as a city car.

Old Gobie Jumper
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 8, 2021 8:29 am

Has anyone thought about land use? If it takes 120 times as long to charge up as at a gas station and there is usually 6 cars taking 5 minutes to fill up at our stations, that’s 720 cars charging up. Where are you going to park 720 cars?

MarkW
Reply to  Old Gobie Jumper
August 8, 2021 10:56 am

Not to mention where the mega watts worth of power needed to charge those 720 cars will come from?

Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 8, 2021 8:07 pm

Willis, your comments started a lot of discussion, including many wrong or misleading facts presented by both sides. I am especially entertained by quotes from 2017 trying to be used to criticize the current state of a rapidly changing technology. Charging rates are way up. Teslas precondition the battery for charging efficiency and safety on the way to the supercharger. But Willis, some of your comments show more bias than facts, and this is a shame, because it could change the perception of many (including myself) that have enjoyed your comments on a wide range of subjects on this site. The Tesla Model 3 was best-selling premium sedan in the world in Q1 2021, gas or electric. Ford and Chevy no longer produce sedans, making this easier. Tesla’s cheap car, made possible by the higher priced models, is yet to appear. They use the profits from their limited production of each generation of more expensive cars to fund the technology developments of each successive generation of less expensive, more advanced models, with higher production numbers. Their next price target is $25k. In addition, in 2014, Tesla gave away the rights to all for free, fair use of all of its Patents. This allowed the great advancements by all worldwide manufacturers in the technology. Forcing electric car use on all makes no sense, economically or from a ‘save the earth’ stance as many have pointed out. Neither does driving a Porsche Turbo SUV than can go 150mph. But as Porsche pointed out when asked, “Of what practical value does a 150mph SUV have?”, producing a practical vehicle is not their market. Musk wants the profits to fund his trip to Mars…

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  The Rude Dude
August 9, 2021 10:12 am

There are reasons Ford, Chevy, and others are kicking sedans to the curb…dying market Rise of S.U.V.s: Leaving Cars in Their Dust, With No Signs of Slowing – The New York Times (nytimes.com).

Tesla couldn’t hit their $35k target. They pulled that lowest-level model shortly after announcing the Model 3 was available. But they’re going to hit their $25k target? Announced for 2023? Sure. In 2018, Musk said it would arrive in 2021. Oops. Tesla has 3 more models to start production on before the $25k one. And that $25k model will likely be built in China. So don’t hold your breath.

How many years ago was it that Musk had a fake demonstration of a battery swap that would bypass the need to wait for a charge?

Tom Abbott
August 7, 2021 10:10 am

I hear that about one-third of EV owners end up going back to internal combustion engines, because charging the EV is too much of a hassle. That’s what one reporter on tv was reporting yesterday.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 7, 2021 10:23 am

They are pushing an immature technology down our throats.

Scissor
Reply to  Curious George
August 7, 2021 10:42 am

There’s a vaccine for that.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Curious George
August 7, 2021 10:44 am

They are actually pushing a mature, but impractical, technology down our throats.

Last edited 1 month ago by Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 7, 2021 11:01 am

Yes, the first Studebakers, around 1910, were electric.

Alexander Mentes
Reply to  David Wojick
August 7, 2021 11:14 am

The 1905 Baker Electric had a range of 90 miles. We haven’t seen much improvement in 115 years

Dennis
Reply to  Alexander Mentes
August 7, 2021 9:23 pm

And then along came Henry and released his Model T Ford with internal combustion engine, petrol/gas tank and room on the running boards for spare tins of fuel.

MarkW
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 7, 2021 1:50 pm

This site neither opposes nor supports those.
Individuals on this site have a bad habit of ridiculing stupid ideas and the people who push them. But the site has nothing to do with that.
You really do have a persecution complex.

Lrp
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 3:47 pm

Get over yourself

.KcTaz
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 4:44 pm

Mark, I take it you are a fan of Arrhenius? He was the first Peak Oiler, among other things.

This is quite an interesting article explaining how we got into this mess today.
Greta Thunberg And Eco-Eugenics
https://climatecite.com/greta-thunberg-and-eco-eugenics-2/

Arrhenius, besides being the first Peak Oiler, and Greenhouse Earther was, also, the first Alarmist.
“…Any alarmism worth its salt has an end-game (massive social change) and so must also offer solutions that will bring about this desired result. Accordingly, Arrhenius suggested that the use of oil and coal be limited, if not eliminated; that electricity replace oil as an energy source; that fuel efficiency be practiced; that bio-fuels be used; that atomic energy be developed. Arrhenius, in fact, gave modern environmentalism all of its talking points.

“…But how did his ideas [ARRHENIUS] become foundational to environmentalism today? Arrhenius was largely ignored until 1979, when the Charney Report, entitled, “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” was published. It relied heavily on Arrhenius and thus gave him instant legitimacy.
Then, in 1990, the IPCC used the Charney Report as the basis for its own report, which turned Arrhenius’s hypotheses of man-made climate change and global warming into “settled science.” Henceforth, climate could only and “correctly” be viewed through the lens of Arrhenius. Those who refused or objected would be labeled as “deniers” – i.e., heretics….”

Arrhenius was right about one thing, nuclear power. It’s a shame that the one thing he was correct about, they failed to follow, unlike all the other garbage they chose to adopt when it became convenient for them.

Oh, he was, also, a huge fan of Eugenics but that’s a story for another day, though, with all the CAGWers in power today and all their talk about “too many people on Earth,” I would not be surprised to see some version of Eugenics reincarnated.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  .KcTaz
August 7, 2021 6:11 pm

Eugenics was already in fashion and tried successfully

In a month it’s the 80th anniversary of Babi Yar.

1932-33 (almost 90 yrs ago)
Ukraine famine estimates between 3.3 and 7.5million starved to death.

China’s Great Leap Forward led to the Great Famine during 1958-1962, was responsible for 30 million people starved to death.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  .KcTaz
August 8, 2021 10:16 am

Actually, he was right about something else.

He said if humans could warm the climate by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere through the buring of fossil fuels, it would improve the climate.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 5:30 pm

In your juvenile mind, unless a site does what you tell it to, then it is actively opposing you.
I’ve read the articles you submitted. They were utter garbage.
They also weren’t articles, at best they were paragraphs.

Get over yourself.
Learn to behave like a professional.
Learn how to fully understand a subject before pontificating and declaring that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is ignorant and against you.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  MarkW
August 8, 2021 11:31 am

>>Learn how to fully understand a subject before pontificating and declaring that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is ignorant and against you<< if he was capable of that he wouldn’t be an alarmist.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Curious George
August 7, 2021 12:18 pm

And it will always be an immature technology.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
August 8, 2021 10:20 am

Well to belay all arguments about “maturity,” why don’t we just say that it will always be a useless technology.

Hauling around batteries that weigh a great deal, take a long time to charge, don’t last very long under reasonably expected operating conditions, and are potential inextinguishable firebombs will never be a viable replacement for liquid fuels.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 7, 2021 4:18 pm

According to this study is was 20% and most of those were PEV hybrid owners. Those who bought straight EV’s were less likely to return. If you bought a Tesla then less likely again.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/energy/551207-new-study-explains-why-nearly-20-percent-of-electric

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
August 7, 2021 5:31 pm

TheHill, really?
Doesn’t take much to impress you.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 5:41 pm

I can see why you hold the views you do if you think The Hill is some left wing rag. It’s pretty neutral in reality.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/

LdB
Reply to  Simon
August 7, 2021 10:58 pm

Yeah not left at all … do we need to ask him if he is a card carrying member
https://muckrack.com/christian-spencer/articles

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
MarkW
Reply to  Simon
August 8, 2021 10:59 am

Ah yes, the old all socialists are actually middle of the road line, that the socialists keep telling each other.

John Endicott
Reply to  Simon
August 9, 2021 5:10 am

“if you think The Hill is some left wing rag. It’s pretty neutral in reality.”


Last edited 1 month ago by John Endicott
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
August 8, 2021 4:11 am

Tell it to the reporter, Simon. You say 20 percent, he said 33 percent. He didn’t differentiate between hybrids and all-electrics in his report.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Simon
August 8, 2021 10:25 am

And how many had one or more other, gas of diesel powered vehicles in their “household” already? I imagine there would be a far higher percentage of “returns” for people who had ONLY an EV, since there then wouldn’t be a better alternative at hand.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  Simon
August 8, 2021 11:38 am

I know four people who have purchased Teslas, two Ss and two 3s. One dumped his 3 after one winter, the poor winter performance was not acceptable for him. Two regularly use their Ss for ~ 1/2 hour each way commutes and seem quite happy with them. One has a 3, lives in Boston, and regularly comes to NJ to visit family. She flies, of course, an hour long recharge stop in the middle of the five hour drive is still not quite enough to make it all the way with a margin of safety.

Fran
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 8, 2021 4:47 pm

EG, my brother who took his EV in the annual town parade. The next year he bought a hybrid because the EV just would not do it. Now they are a 2-car family. But they do not use plastic wrap in the kitchen and recycle religiously and feel very green.

Stu
August 7, 2021 10:12 am

I think the people pushing this have invested heavily in motels with charging stations as a feature rather than swimming pools.

Insufficiently Sensitive
Reply to  Stu
August 7, 2021 10:20 am

Charging, $1.00. Meals and sleeping pad, $150.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Insufficiently Sensitive
August 7, 2021 10:45 am

Meals and sleeping, about 9 hours of time invested.

Fully recharging a typical BEV at a typical charging station, about 12 hours invested.

Tom Johnson
August 7, 2021 10:21 am

 I drive a 2016 Ram Ecodiesel pickup truck with about a 500 mile range.”

“Range” is not the important parameter. The distance you travel before “range anxiety” forces you to stop is the important number. This is determined not only by the distance to run out of fuel, the possible damage from running low or out, and the availability of refueling stations. EVs are particularly bad on the latter two, and likely cut the actual range at least in half. Running out is no fun with most diesels, either.

On the outer Barcoo
Reply to  Tom Johnson
August 7, 2021 10:38 am

Then there’s the weight factor and also the topography.

Bryan A
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
August 7, 2021 12:20 pm

I drive to Las Vegas from Santa Rosa 612 miles (12 hours) almost yearly and have driven from Santa Rosa to Seattle 735 miles (16 hours) a few times

ScarletMacaw
Reply to  Bryan A
August 7, 2021 12:40 pm

You drive too slowly!

Peter W
Reply to  ScarletMacaw
August 7, 2021 1:17 pm

The faster you drive, the less range you get.

Dennis
Reply to  Peter W
August 7, 2021 9:33 pm

An Australian EV enthusiast with too much time on his hands drove around Australia on Highway One in a Tesla 3, he admitted that the most economic speed was 80 kmh (50 mph) and I wondered how heavy transport truck drivers would react catching up to the slow moving road hazard as their vehicle thundered along at 100 kmh or higher speed, and needed to overtake?

We have Road Trains here: Semi-trailer is a prime mover and one trailer, then a B-Double has two interconnected trailers on turntable hitches and then prime movers connected to up to four trailers.

Bryan A
Reply to  ScarletMacaw
August 7, 2021 1:34 pm

On 12 – 16 hour trips one must stop for meals refueling and potty stops. Those hours are trip time not driving time

Dennis
Reply to  Bryan A
August 7, 2021 9:36 pm

I drive long distances, on average 50,000 kms a year all over Australia and I stop for fuel, a drink and maybe a light meal but waiting for up to an hour for an 80% EV recharge and therefore 20% less range than when fully charged is not to my liking.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dennis
August 8, 2021 10:33 am

And that’s before “real world” driving conditions cut that in half, and your well-reasoned “range anxiety” cuts that in half again.

Reply to  Bryan A
August 7, 2021 1:23 pm

Folks who live in the country across America’s Midwest, Southwest and Western states routinely drive long distances.
Three hundred miles is a short drive.
500 to 1,000 miles is a days drive to a little over a day.

Many Eastern commuters, campers, hikers, sports involved, fishing, hunting and all commercial drivers routinely drive far beyond alleged expansive EV limits.

Calculating pretend vehicle mileage averages that mostly encompass nondriving city dweller driving distances are falsehoods when applied to almost anyone living in a rural area and especially those living west of the Mississippi.

And yes, most of these folks do not worry about range. What matters more is how many fill-ups will it require to reach the destination and open gas stations along the way.

Nor are these people fools. No-one serious about driving safely long distances fails to carry water and extra fuel when fuel stops are few and far apart.
Driving across Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and even California I never carried less than two steel 5 gallon cans of fuel.

StevenF
Reply to  ATheoK
August 7, 2021 8:43 pm

My experience driving across Texas all my life is that I have never had trouble finding fuel. The idea of carrying an extra 10 gal of fuel seems foreign.

The only time I was worried about finding gas in Texas was Christmas Day 1976. My new wife and I had left Fort Bliss (El Paso) around 4 in the morning and were traveling back to visit her parents in New York. We were 250 miles east of El Paso getting on I20 and I realized that it was 7 am Christmas morning and no gas stations were open. But we found one that was open when we were almost down to fumes. It was some little station on the side of the road. Thank God it was open. Back then you didn’t find the large mega gas complexes we have today.

In hindsight it was stupid to leave that early Christmas morning traveling East on I10. The longest stretch of practically uninhabited highway in the US. Back then I10 wasn’t even finished. But I was right out of College and not really thinking.

jimH in CA
Reply to  Bryan A
August 7, 2021 4:27 pm

While we were retiring to Nor.Cal, from So.Cal, I drove the 440 miles from the LA area to north of Sacramento, on I5, using 11 gallons of gas and taking 5.8 hours with no stops, [ averaging 75 mph] .
My ’97 Chevy Cavalier is a 2.2L, 5 speed…. remember manual transmissions.
I’d inflate the low RR Michelins to max pressure of 44 psi…

Oh, and I paid $12k for it in 1997…[ 0,15 Teslas ]

Dennis
Reply to  Tom Johnson
August 7, 2021 9:29 pm

I drive an Isuzu MU-X 4WD SUV, a 2017 model purchased new but with a diesel fuel tank providing 850 kms range (500 miles is 800 kms), the latest 2021 model can achieve 1,000 kms with a larger fuel tank installed.

Refuelling from near empty take several minutes including paying the bill.

Is there even one EV that can match the range of 850 kms and recharge that quickly?

And could that EV tow 3,000 kg if required?

Too bad, I will buy ICEV until EV can match the real world importance performance and pricing, 0-100 kmh in under 5 seconds does not interest me at all, but I know the Highway Patrol could be interested on public roads.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Johnson
August 8, 2021 10:30 am

And since the “range” is probably already at about 40% “best case” due to recommendation not to “store” with greater than 80% charge, and all the ridiculous assumptions about operating conditions vs. the real world cutting THAT in half, you’re probably talking about 50% of 40% of “estimated” range best case before you are nervously looking for the next advertised “charging station.”

In other words, useless for all but wealthy virtue-signalling hypocrites.

Mike
August 7, 2021 10:22 am

It takes me 15 minutes to recharge my Tesla Model 3 from almost empty to 80% full. I have 310 miles of range. I’ve enjoyed many multi-thousand mile road trips. Buy a Tesla.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
Gregory Woods
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 10:30 am

Thanks, but no thanks – I’ll pass….

Bryan A
Reply to  Gregory Woods
August 7, 2021 12:22 pm

Tesla is the ONLY one that can say that due to their exclusive SUPERCHARGERs but the initial cost of even the 3 can buy you 2 ICE vehicles that recharge in 5 minutes. Try your trips again but avoid the Superchargers

Last edited 1 month ago by Bryan A
Leo Smith
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 10:31 am

Unlikely. you can get an 80% charge from a purpose built charger in an hour, so I think you are exaggerating the other way to Willis.
15 minutes will be arund a 25% charge replenishment that would take you from a little under half charged to a little over. If of course you can find a tesla charger

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 7, 2021 10:13 pm

Tesla superchargers are being built that are 250kW. The Model 3 midrange battery is 62kWh. Do the math.

Does his statement apply universally to charging everywhere? No.
Is he lying? No but he’s stretching the truth for sure.

Is your argument and understanding of charging sound re: “you can get an 80% charge from a purpose built charger in an hour” ? No.

Scissor
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 10:53 am

I’m not calling you a liar, Mike, but I don’t believe you.

Your charging claim does not match commercial specs or the slightly poorer real-world observations. https://www.zap-map.com/charge-points/tesla-model-3-charging-guide/

And on enjoying many multi-thousand mile road trips, I have to ask what circumstances or kind of idiot would enjoy that hassle?

Reply to  Scissor
August 7, 2021 1:27 pm

Part of what makes the fairy tale so amazing is that dealers admit that high mileage Teslas and EVs in general are very rare.

John Endicott
Reply to  Scissor
August 7, 2021 2:05 pm

scissor, it’s ok to call someone telling lies a liar.

Scissor
Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2021 4:14 pm

I thought perhaps given the chance to correct himself, then he might come clean. I thought wrong.

Steven F
Reply to  Scissor
August 7, 2021 4:31 pm

Your link states that when connected to Tesla super charger it will reach 80% charge in 20minutes. Mike said 15. not a big different. In any case with a tesla and using a teal supper charger you could drive 600 miles iin about 10 hours with one 1 hour break for a full charge. That is a total of 11 hours add one more hour of supper charging you could drive another 4 hours. At that point you need to sleep.

So for a tesla with the supper charger network you can drive very long distances without long multi hour charging times. For most other EV made by the major manufactures you have to wait several hours to get a full charge if you can find a fast charger. But most public chargers are slow chargers. so long drives are not practical non Tesla EVs.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Steven F
August 7, 2021 11:48 pm

Your link states that when connected to Tesla super charger it will reach 80% charge in 20minutes. Mike said 15. not a big different. “

That’s out of date and quotes charging rates of 120kW. There are 250kW chargers now.

Shoki Kaneda
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 11:14 am

No, I’m buying another Suburban this year to replace my present one, the fourth I’ve owned.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 11:35 am

Funny that the Tesla website doesn’t back you up. It says it takes 20 minutes with a “Supercharger”. 5.5 hours with a “Fast” charger, and 20 hours with a “Slow” charger. How many Superchargers are there around? If you only drive around LA, quite a few. Between Portland and Seattle, none.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Robert Hanson
August 7, 2021 1:44 pm

Isn’t there a longevity penalty for the supercharging? If so, then it increases the cost per mile over the life of the vehicle.

Steven F
Reply to  Robert Hanson
August 7, 2021 4:32 pm

Tesla typically has a supper charger every 90 miles or so along major freways. On the tesla supper charger map I count 12 supper chargers between canids and portland along the Interstate 5 corridor. And even more between Portland and LA. There are 25000 supper chargers world wide with 1088 supper charger stations in the US with many station having multiple supper chargers. Just go to the tesla site and look a the supper charger map.

MarkW
Reply to  Steven F
August 7, 2021 5:34 pm

What happens if two drivers want to recharge at the same time?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 8:19 pm

Pistols at ten paces.

JEM
Reply to  MarkW
August 8, 2021 10:45 am

Most Tesla Supercharger sites near shopping centers, freeways, etc. have between 8 and 24 charging stations.

The map in the car will tell you how many of them are in use.

If you’re using the map for routing it will predict availability based on usage and plot your charging stops based on best availability and minimum total charging time.

MarkW
Reply to  JEM
August 8, 2021 11:03 am

You are counting the number of charging ports, not the number of charging stations.

StevenF
Reply to  Steven F
August 7, 2021 8:51 pm

Wow, there is another Steven F posting on this site. Popular name I guess.

I recall that at Thanksgiving in 2019, there so many Teslas on the road between Seattle and Los Angeles that the wait times to get to a Tesla Charger were up to 10 hours. Maybe they have more chargers, but imagine showing up with very little remaining charge and then having to wait hours to get to the charger.

gbm
Reply to  Steven F
August 8, 2021 4:17 pm

I have never seem an EV charging station much less a Tesla super charger–by the way I have been to two state capitals in the last year.

Editor
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 11:56 am

Everything you need to know about charging a tesla

How Long Does it Take to Charge a Tesla? – AutoPilot Review

I think you underestimate the time and it depends if other vehicles also want charging. Frequent fast charging does not do the battery any good.

At $80000 the Tesla is not cheap but for an EV performs quite well, but not as well as a conventional car. You do know the moral and ethical considerations of the materials used in the battery?

Derg
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 12:36 pm

You should be thankful our taxes support your sports car.

Meab
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 1:04 pm

That’s an outright lie, Mike. Car and Driver just did a good story on actiual charging times for many different models of EVs under favorable conditions. A Model 3 on the fastest Tesla supercharger takes a half hour to charge to 80%. However, frequent fast charging degrades the battery much faster than slow charging and is not recommended. If you have to share a charger with another car or use a standard supercharger charging times are substantially slower – could be an hour to get to 80%. The time to go to 100% charge is about twice that long as the charging rate in the last 20% slows waaay down to avoid damaging the battery.

I’m disgusted with you Tesla fan boys claiming 300 plus miles of range. The actual range of a Model 3 at highway speeds as tested by Car and Driver is 250 miles. If you run the car between 80% and 20% to limit battery degradation it’s more like 150 miles, and that’s only in pleasant weather. The 80-20 range is as little as 120 miles when it’s bitter cold, and that’s with a new, undegraded battery.

.KcTaz
Reply to  Meab
August 7, 2021 4:57 pm

Does air conditioning reduce mileage as well as the heater? I have read that running the heater is an issue, as well, but don’t know if that is true, or not. Thanks.

meab
Reply to  .KcTaz
August 7, 2021 10:31 pm

Yes, running the A/C reduces range too, by up to 17% at 95F. Running the cabin heater isn’t the only reason range drops by 30 to 40% in very cold weather, the battery works extremely poorly in cold temperatures so EVs often need a battery heater too.

JEM
Reply to  Meab
August 8, 2021 10:49 am

Our 80/20 experience is closer to 200 miles, but yeah, you might get the claimed 318 miles if you pumped the tires up to 60psi, charged to 100%, maintained a steady 50-55mph, and coasted to the charger at the other end on a stray amp or two.

My wife once called me wondering why the car was puking vast amounts of water onto the ground while it was standing still plugged into the Supercharger. This was in 100-degree SoCal weather, and the car was running the AC full blast to cool the pack while charging, pouring off a river of condensation.

Clyde
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 1:04 pm

That’s 20 minutes (minimum, assuming the charger doesn’t trip off and stop charging, as they are wont to do), and that requires the SuperCharger, and you can only do that a certain number of times before Tesla permanently limits your charge rate to prevent the battery spontaneously combusting.

Meanwhile, I can fill up my ICE vehicle in ~5 minutes, time after time after time after time, and I’m not permanently limited at some future point from filling at the maximum rate.

And I don’t have to replace my gas tank after a certain time, at an average cost of $13000 – $20,000… but you? You’re going to have your charge rate permanently limited at some point, and you will have to purchase a new battery at a cost of $13000 – $20000 at some point.

The economics don’t work out until gasoline gets more expensive than ~$4/gal, and the carbon dioxide emissions for a Tesla Model S right off the factory floor are more than a 40 MPG vehicle will emit over years and years.

From my drop-kicking another TeslaTard:
———-

Let’s talk emissions!

According to the DOE EV Emission Calculator, an EV in Illinois driving 12,000 miles per year will emit 2389 pounds of CO2 equivalent.

The Tesla 100 kWh battery requires ~30,600 pounds of CO2 to produce. We’ll assume both gasoline and EV vehicle production requires 30,000 pounds of CO2 emission.

A gasoline-fueled vehicle with 40 MPG fuel efficiency will emit 5,960 pounds CO2 per year at 12,000 miles/yr, per EPA.

Production + (Annual * T_gas) = Production + (Annual * T_EV)
30,000 + (5,960 * T_gas) = 30,000 + 30,600 + (2389 * T_EV)

Solving for T (years required for EV to offset emissions) gives a breakeven point of 8.569029 years and 102,828.348 miles. Before that breakeven point, the EV has emitted more CO2 than the gasoline-powered vehicle.

———-

Let’s talk economics! (Now updated to reflect actual average electricity price in Illinois, and a gasoline price above current average price)

Assumptions:
– A gas vehicle with 17 km L-1 fuel mileage

– An EV with 88.9891 Wh/km/1000 kg consumption and 2107 kg vehicle + 85 kg driver = 2192 kg total weight, for 195.0641072 Wh km-1 total consumption.

– 482803.2 km driven

– $1 L-1 for gasoline (~$3.785/gallon)

– $0.1332 kWh-1 for electricity

– The battery efficiency alone (power delivered to the battery vs. the power delivered by the battery) for Lithium batteries tops out at 90% for newer or highly-expensive batteries, and can be as low as 80% for older or consumer-grade batteries:
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/sun1/

– The Tesla charger has a 92% efficiency for 240V at 24A, and 94% efficiency for 240V at 40A/80A:
https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/18017/charging-efficiency

– So, given that you have a used vehicle, we’ll be generous and assume 85% battery efficiency, and we’ll assume you’re charging at 24A:
100 * 0.85 * 0.92 = 78.2% “wall to battery” efficiency

Gas vehicle:
((482803.2 km / 17 km L-1) * $1 L-1) = $28,400.19

Electric vehicle:
((((482803.2 km * 195.0641072 Wh km-1) / 1000) / 0.782 efficiency) * $0.1332 kWh-1) = $16,041.50 + $13,000 battery replacement = $29041.50

Remember, that $13,000 battery replacement is a low-end quote… if can range up to $20,000, depending upon labor costs and complications.

$29041.50 > $28,400.19

I save $641.31 driving my ICE-powered vehicle 300,000 miles vs. your toy electric clowncar, even with gasoline price higher than it actually is. Gasoline prices are inflated in the US due to libtard politics… as of July 2021, the worldwide average price for gasoline was a mere $1.56 / gallon, making EVs an even worse choice outside the US.
———-

Clyde
Reply to  Clyde
August 7, 2021 1:13 pm

And the above just goes to show that what I frequently state is absolutely true:

“EVs are products designed for and marketed to people who are incapable of doing the simple math to determine that EVs are products designed for and marketed to people who are incapable of doing simple math.”

LOL

Steven F
Reply to  Clyde
August 7, 2021 5:17 pm

“that requires the SuperCharger, and you can only do that a certain number of times before Tesla permanently limits your charge rate to prevent the battery spontaneously combusting.”

tesla doesn’t permanently limit charging rate with frequent supper charger use. if they’d the face numerous lawsuits. That has not happened.

Any battery will be damaged if it overheats when charging. Tesla batteries are actively cooled when charging and driving to prevent overheating. Also the charge rate will slow as the pack gets close to full charge to prevent overcharging. I have talked to tesla owners and non reported problems supporting to the above claim.

Also every 15 minutes somewhere in the US are car catches fire while driving or while parked. Most are gas cars. very few are EVs but if you just look at the new and this site you would think that most car fire are in EVs. Which is not true. I work a mile away from the tesla factory. I see a lot of teslas daily I have also gotten gas near tesla supper charger sites. How many tesla fires have I seen, zero

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steven F
August 7, 2021 6:46 pm

… every 15 minutes somewhere in the US are car catches fire while driving or while parked.

That’s almost 2200 per year. I find that hard to believe. In 60 years of driving I have never had a car catch fire! I have actually only witnessed a couple of cars burning along side the road in all those years.

How about a citation for your claim?

Clyde
Reply to  Steven F
August 7, 2021 8:49 pm

Tesla most certainly does permanently limit charge rate if you’ve used SuperCharging a lot. In the case mentioned, they limited it to 90 kW (top charge rate is 120 kW).

https://electrek.co/2017/05/07/tesla-limits-supercharging-speed-number-charges/

As to fires, the NFPA acknowledges that EVs currently have lower fire numbers because:
1) They’re sold to people who can afford to take care of them, being expensive vehicles. So maintenance isn’t generally deferred.

2) They’re relatively new and haven’t had the deferred maintenance and breakdowns of older vehicles.

As EVs come down in price and as used EVs enter the market at prices where even the barely-managing-to-survive can afford them, they’ll undergo the same deferment of battery replacement as ICE cars experience deferment of maintenance, and we’ll see the number of fires skyrocket.

Remember, the same battery technology is used in grid-scale battery farms, and thus far, of the 200 tracked grid-scale battery farms, 2% of them have erupted into unquenchable hellfire flames… you can imagine how embarrassed you’re going to be if EVs match that percentage.

An ICE fire is easily put out with water or foam… an EV is practically unquenchable unless the entire vehicle is dunked in water, and even then, the vehicle has to be placed somewhere where it’s at least 50 feet away from anything combustible, and watched for as long as a week for any signs that it’s going to reignite.

Clyde
Reply to  Steven F
August 7, 2021 9:07 pm

According to Tesla engineers, once vehicle has been DC fast charged over a specified amount, the battery management system restricts DC charging to prevent degradation of the battery pack. According to Tesla engineers, this vehicle has seen significant DC fast charging and is now has permanently restricted DC charging speeds.

And the more you use the SuperCharger, the more your charge rate is limited. Permanently.

MarkW
Reply to  Steven F
August 8, 2021 11:08 am

There are several million times more ICE cars than EV. On average the ICE cars are much older as well
PS: The active cooling is able to dissipate 90kW+ of power during charging? That’s impressive, if true.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Reply to  Clyde
August 7, 2021 8:26 pm

Clyde:
I did not check your calculation but it is ballpark to a Nov 2019 MIT
report: https://energy.mit.edu/insightsintofuturemobility
Bottom line: BEVs were not cost effective wrt an ICE (they compared it
a Tesla to a Toyota Camry) and likely won’t be for ~10 years or so.
Mainly due to costs of the battery (and MIT assumed you would NOT
ever have to replace the battery).

And don’t forget Insurance: the Tesla costs more as well.
Last year I got quotes for a used Tesla3 and it was ~$600 more per
year to insure than a new Sonata.

Clyde
Reply to  B. ZIpperer
August 7, 2021 8:57 pm

Wow, $600 more? I only pay $248 / yr through GEICO for my vehicle. I do get a discount through my employer, though.

GEICO – Government Employee Insurance Company

If you work for any government entity (or government contractor), you qualify for that discount.

Douglas Lampert
Reply to  Clyde
August 9, 2021 10:05 am

When I moved from CA back to AL, my commute went from ~1 mile to ~15 miles (both one way), and my insurance for 6 months dropped to substantially less than 1 month had been in CA, with better coverage in Alabama.

Basically, based on personal experience, the rates are circa 90% less in some places than others.

Auto insurance rates are highly dependent on location (and also on the driver’s age and record).

fretslider
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 1:27 pm

I can fill my car in 5

Slacker

MarkW
Reply to  fretslider
August 7, 2021 1:57 pm

And you won’t damage your car by doing so.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 1:53 pm

You can fast charge your battery, or you can have full life from your batteries.
You can’t have both.

jimH in CA
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 4:33 pm

Wow…Where’d you find a 1,200 amp, 240 vac charger, assuming a 90kWhr battery.?

.KcTaz
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 4:53 pm

What happens to your mileage in cold, or hot weather with the heater or A/C running? How many miles do Tesla batteries last before they must be replaced and what is the cost of replacing a Tesla battery?
I have read that replacing an EV’s battery is very expensive and that the battery drains very fast if running the heater or A/C.

Dennis
Reply to  Mike
August 7, 2021 9:38 pm

Not good value for money in my view, premium price with too many inconveniences when compared to an equivalent ICEV

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Mike
August 8, 2021 11:57 am

So 15 minutes after you reach the Tesla sponsored (for how long?) “Superchargers,” which aren’t exactly found everywhere. Now add 15 minutes for every car in front of you (if the masses were to foolishly adopt BEVs in quantity). I’ll be about 12 miles (or more) down the road if you’re first in line, and you can add another 15 miles (or more) down the road for every car in front of you – and I would be able to do far less “fuel stops” than you will have to do “recharges” to safely reach my destination without being stranded.

Plus, my car won’t spontaneously start an inextinguishable fire in my garage or while I’m in the middle of a trip. And my “range” grows at highway speeds, while your (fictitious) range shrinks.

I’m not downgrading to a Tesla.

James Beaver
August 7, 2021 10:27 am

Well, in the U.S. the State will use the new “infrastructure” to disable the vehicle once you’ve exceeded your State determined allowance of miles per week. You’ll be using your boots or your bicycle to get around until next week.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  James Beaver
August 7, 2021 6:48 pm

And those new mandated electric trucks will be turned off from Socialist Central, so no one will be able to get groceries.

Leo Smith
August 7, 2021 10:27 am

you can get 80% or more charge from a dedicated fatst charger in an hour Willis, EVs are bad, you don’t need to step of the path ot truth to make them look it. Really

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 7, 2021 1:59 pm

1) How often is the supercharger only charging one car? If there are a lot of travelers trying to charge up at the same time, having a dedicated fast charger will be rare.
2) You are referencing a super charger, not a fast charger.
3) Super charging drastically reduces the life expectancy of your battery.

rbabcock
August 7, 2021 10:27 am

With “hours” of charging time required at a charging station, it wouldn’t take long for lines to start forming just to get to a charger if/when electric cars become more numerous. Are we going to put up charging station centers with a 1000 units to satisfy these cars along major interstate highways here in the US?

Last edited 1 month ago by rbabcock
Scissor
Reply to  rbabcock
August 7, 2021 10:55 am

Depends on whether the big guy can get 10%.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  rbabcock
August 7, 2021 1:27 pm

This is already a major problem on the European motorways. I avoid all service stations with EV charging because of the fleet of EVs endlessly circling waiting for a free charger.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  rbabcock
August 7, 2021 1:47 pm

And, what happens in the future of Biden-mandated EVs when people try to evacuate because of a flood or hurricane? They can’t afford the luxury of sitting in line waiting for other cars to be re-charged.

Ronald Stein
August 7, 2021 10:28 am

California EV user’s experiences do not bode well for projected EV sales in America as the states’ EV users may be sending a caution to the wind (no pun intended) message to America that the EV usage in the state is slightly more than 5,000 miles a year.

 

The limited usage of the EV’s is a reflection that the EV is a second vehicle, for those that can afford them, and not the family workhorse vehicle.

.KcTaz
Reply to  Ronald Stein
August 7, 2021 5:08 pm

Ronald, given California’s frequent brown and blackouts, which are only going to get worse, I would think depending on an EV for one’s sole transportation would be quite sketchy, esp., if you live somewhere where wildfires are a concern not to mention other natural or man made disasters.

Clyde
Reply to  .KcTaz
August 10, 2021 4:16 pm

Heap on top of what you wrote, that CA wants to be able to use EV batteries as grid storage and supply… so during a brownout or blackout, they’d be draining your EV battery.

You can imagine the scenario unfolding… a period of low wind and cloudy days, so they’re pulling your EV battery down to supply the grid. The wind kicks up, forcing PG&E to cut off power to prevent fires due to power lines hitting trees, so you can’t charge your car. PG&E isn’t fast enough, and one of those power lines touches off a wildfire. And you don’t have the charge in your car to escape.

They keep heaping stupidity upon stupidity.

Gordon A. Dressler
August 7, 2021 10:32 am

She explained that she doesn’t want to stop to charge her car when she visits elderly relatives “200,250 miles away”.

Ummmm . . . I thought England, along with the European continent, had adopted using kilometers (km) instead of miles for road distances. I guess I was wrong.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
OweninGA
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 7, 2021 11:00 am

Highway signage in England is in MPH. England is in a bit of a no-man’s land between metric and imperial. When I lived there, I asked a traffic engineer why the speed signs were in MPH and he told me that the public had pitched a very large fit when the labor government of the day tried to change it that almost took down the government. No one else has been brave enough or fool-hardy enough to try it since.

Vuk
Reply to  OweninGA
August 7, 2021 12:32 pm

But if you’re market trader selling potatoes in pounds you will earn yourself a fine from the weights and measures inspector.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Vuk
August 8, 2021 9:10 am

Not any more.

Steve Taylor
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 7, 2021 11:29 am

For engineering, science and construction, and many other things, we went metric years ago, but for things in common usage “MPH”, “MPG” and distance, we stayed imperial. Also we now buy gas (petrol) in litres, but beer in (UK, 20 oz) pints.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Steve Taylor
August 7, 2021 11:40 pm

I went to Purdue, and so measure temperature in degrees Rankine….

Howard Dewhirst
August 7, 2021 10:34 am

This is one reason why Norwegians didn’t sell their petrol/diesel car when they bought heavily subsidized EVs

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
August 7, 2021 11:42 am

That, and the fact that the range of EVs drops precipitously in cold weather.

IanE
Reply to  Robert Hanson
August 7, 2021 12:25 pm

And what about traffic jams getting into/out of/through cities?! That must surely significantly lower range also.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  IanE
August 8, 2021 4:27 am

They actually get OK mileage because they are not moving. But if you have the heat or AC on, all bets are off.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
August 8, 2021 12:11 pm

Yeah but who needs heat in Norway. Oh wait! 😀

On the outer Barcoo
August 7, 2021 10:36 am

Emissions from vehicles can begin right now, simply by lowering speed limits as was done in the US during the 1970’s OPEC imbroglio.

Shoki Kaneda
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
August 7, 2021 11:11 am

Jimmy — is that you?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
August 7, 2021 2:03 pm

Follow the trail of peanut shells.

John Endicott
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
August 7, 2021 2:15 pm

Mork: “Do you like peanuts? then you’ll love Jimmy”

AWG
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
August 7, 2021 11:50 am

Yes, that would be true. And as an engineer, that would be a policy to recommend. Nevertheless, we are dealing with human beings, not chattel livestock. Each person has the God Given Right to make decisions for themselves as opposed to receiving One Size Fits None orders from a bureaucrat.

Linus Pauling, after noting that both parents had to have the sickle-cell trait in order to pass the disease to their children, advised that those positive with the trait should be tattooed on the face so upon recognition that both are positive, would not become a couple and procreate. Pauling understood diseases, but he clearly did not understand humanity.

Or is the Purpose of Man to serve capricious whims of authoritarians?

IanE
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
August 7, 2021 12:27 pm

On busy roads that would just lead to massive congestion – with really low speeds (and dreadful mpg values).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  IanE
August 7, 2021 2:06 pm

Yes, an individual car on the road is different from many cars. Once gridlock sets in from too many cars trying to use the available lanes, you can forget about what the individual optimal speed is.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  IanE
August 8, 2021 12:13 pm

Just think of the congestion when EVs immobilize themselves for want of “juice” and there’s no “gas can rescue” that will quickly get them on the move again!

huls
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
August 7, 2021 1:12 pm

logical fallacy. The amount of work and thus the energy is still the same, independent of speed, for most real life cases.
An “error” often made by those with an agenda.

MarkW
Reply to  huls
August 7, 2021 2:09 pm

Wind resistance increases with the square of speed.
When you travel twice as fast, your car has to deal with 4 times the wind resistance.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 6:48 pm

No, rolling resistance increases with the square of the speed. Wind resistance increases with the cube of the speed.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 11:47 pm

Wrong on both counts, Clyde. The resistance (i.e. force) of aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed, while rolling resistance (i.e. force) increases linearly with speed. It’s the power consumption (Force times Velocity) that increases as the cube and square of drag and rolling resistance, respectively.

Douglas Lampert
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
August 9, 2021 10:11 am

Basically, your power need (energy per unit time) based on wind resistance goes up with the cube of speed, but your energy per unit distance (what people most often care about) goes up with the square of speed.

You need to be clear on what the denominator is. Cube and square are both correct depending on the context.

lee riffee
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
August 7, 2021 1:52 pm

Problem is, it doesn’t help when the vast majority of people simply ignore the speed limit! I’m old enough to remember driving on freeways in the 80’s and if you actually did 55 people would blow around you like you were standing still….

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  lee riffee
August 8, 2021 12:12 am

Reducing the speed limit on roads designed for 70 mph is a recipe for disaster, and that was known by the federal government when they did it in the 1970s – but they did it anyway, and doubled down on the lie with the slogan “55 Saves Lives.” It was the first time in history that the fatality rate per million passenger miles increased, and it was only on highways (most fatalities on US roads are on surface streets). A friend and former colleague of mine worked in the federal highway department, and acknowledged these facts recently. The statistical distribution of highway speeds is determined by road design, and 80% or more of drivers will drive at or slightly above the safe speed for the road. The rest will drive in a tight distribution around that speed. When you reduce the speed limit to significantly below the safe speed for the road, the distribution of driving speeds becomes very broad. Collisions then become much more frequent and energetic events, with differences between vehicle speeds in collisions widening. Maryland did a very expensive and prolonged upgrade to the I-95 north of Baltimore over the past few years, and the safe speed for the road is easily 80 mph. The speed limit, however, is 55 mph, and the accident and fatality rate reflect that. My friend, formerly of the federal highway department, said that they knew of the higher accident and fatality rate, and refused to change the speed limits because they believed it was “moral” to drive more slowly, and would keep those limits until people obeyed them. And he was an advocate of federal regulation (just not of that one).

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael S. Kelly
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
August 8, 2021 12:25 pm

Just one correction – the design speed for the Interstates was actually 75mph, not 70mph.

And that was a design metric from the 1950s when Interstate construction began, when your typical car:

  • Was “body-on-frame” w/o engineered “crush zones”
  • Had solid axles on leaf spring suspensions
  • Had bias ply tires
  • Had unassisted recirculating ball steering
  • Had unassisted 4-wheel drum brakes
  • Had plate glass windows
  • Had no seat belts
  • Had no air bags
  • Had no anti-lock braking systems
  • Had no collapsible steering columns
  • Had no padding on their metal dashboards

If vehicles with those “attributes” were seen as safely capable to go 75mph, today’s infinitely safer vehicles should be perfectly safe at even higher speeds on most stretches of the Interstates.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
August 7, 2021 2:03 pm

… simply by lowering speed limits …

That may be true for some cars. But, I imagine that when the Detroit engineers designed their cars they took into account the fact that the legal speed limit on open highways was 65 MPH — and people typically pushed that. Not surprisingly, when I went to considerable effort to try to determine the optimal speed for my ’65 Corvette during the ’70s Arab Oil Embargo, I concluded that it was about 68 MPH. The gas mileage curve is very steep approaching the optimum, and much flatter beyond. Lowering the speed limit below the optimum for the average car increases gas consumption. It is only by discouraging long trips at reduced speed that there were any significant savings.

If you want to go to the trouble of changing the gear ratios in the transmission and differential, and re-jetting the carburetor, you can probably lower the optimal speed AND get better gas mileage — at the cost of reduced performance, which may be undesirable if you live in the mountains.

old engineer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 8:45 pm

Clyde-

Re-jetting the carburetor? You are certainly showing your age. I can’t remember a car in the U.S. with a carburetor after about the 1990 model year, maybe earlier.

Clyde
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 9:35 pm

Yup, my car doesn’t enter lean-burn mode until I’m on a flat stretch of roadway, and doing at least 62 MPH. So it’s more economical for me to travel at 65 MPH than 55 MPH.

I plan on reprogramming my ECU to drop that lean-burn lower speed down a bit, with water mist injection into the intake headers to moderate peak combustion temperature so I don’t burn the valves. That’ll boost fuel economy quite a bit, since water phase change expands so much more than air for a given temperature change. Gives more torque, so you can gear up and depress the throttle less.

Fortunately, I drive a stick-shift, so regearing the transmission isn’t so much of a chore as regearing an auto-tranny would be.

John Dilks
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
August 7, 2021 2:29 pm

Oh, he’ll no!

starzmom
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
August 7, 2021 3:25 pm

Yes, I remember New Jersey highways at 55MPH speed limits. If you went anything under 80MPH you were in serious danger of being run over. So yeah, let’s just change the speed limits.

.KcTaz
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
August 7, 2021 5:48 pm

People who lived in low population states who traveled long distances with very little civilization in between and few cars on the roads did not appreciate Jimmy’s “solution” to the Oil Crisis any more than people who lived in large cities appreciated having designated days to fill up depending on their license plate numbers and having to wait in long lines with either their cars running getting zero mpg or having to shut off the engine and restart every five minutes. Fortunately, I lived in a state that did not come under Jimmy’s edict. Until Obama and now, Biden, Jimmy was the worst President of my lifetime, though, LBJ was and remains a strong contender for that “honor”.
I am confident Biden, having attained the honor of worst President in my lifetime mere weeks into his Presidency, will retain the throne.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
August 8, 2021 9:13 am

What emissions? Drive a modern petrol car down Oxford St and the exhaust is cleaner than the ‘air’ going in. It burns off city pollutants. CO2 is plant food, not an emission.

Gordon A. Dressler
August 7, 2021 10:42 am

In my younger days as a college student, I made several “blitz” trips between California and Florida in 3-4 days, averaging around 800 miles per day (on one trip logging over 1000 miles in one 24 hour period, but I couldn’t safely repeat that today!).

This was and is possible with ICE technology, but such would be impossible even today using battery EV technology (i.e., no hybrid EV).

James Baker
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 7, 2021 12:48 pm

One recent EV Cannonball run (New York to Los Angeles) by three guys in a Porsche Taycan took 44 hours 26 minutes.

To bed B
Reply to  James Baker
August 7, 2021 1:39 pm

“Using powerful and fast DC charging, you’ll be able to restore 310km of range in just 22-and-a-half minutes.”
I figure, starting on a full battery, you need five and half hours of charging, assuming you don’t need to resort to slower 8 hour charge time. That is a 72 mph average, so plausible, but you would be losing range going fast enough to average that and not getting to recharge all the time in 23 minutes in the real world.

MarkW
Reply to  James Baker
August 7, 2021 2:10 pm

Was the battery still usable after all those fast charges?

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  MarkW
August 8, 2021 9:15 am

No.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  James Baker
August 7, 2021 2:37 pm

James, New York to LA distance via I-40 W (predominately) is 2,780 miles. If done in 44 hours 26 minutes, that’s an average speed of 62.6 mph, less than the posted speed limits over most of this route.

So, maybe a “BB pellet” run, but not qualifying as a Cannonball run in any historical sense.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Rich Lambert
August 7, 2021 10:43 am

I’ve done many 1,200 to 1,300 mile trips in 2 days and a full night’s sleep with a gasoline powered car costing less than $15,000. I didn’t have worry about where to refuel either.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rich Lambert
August 7, 2021 2:13 pm

One time I was out in the middle of nowhere in Kansas and had been driving for hours without seeing a gas station. About 10 PM I finally came across one. I was down to about 1/2 gallon of gas. Even with ICE vehicles, there are still places where refueling can be problematic. That will be even more common if we transition to EVs.

[Incidentally, should anyone be tempted to give me advice about how to avoid running out of gas, I should advise you that in more than 60 years of driving, I have only run out of gas once. That time I was a block from a gas station.]

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 8, 2021 12:34 pm

I’ve never run out of gas, but I’ve got some years to go before I catch up to you in that respect. ;-D

Should be harder than ever to run out of gas these days, my vehicles with modern “infotainment” systems both have a “range to empty” indicator right on the dash that recalculates according to your driving conditions as you go.

David Dibbell
August 7, 2021 10:44 am

Even with the fast chargers out there, it’s too long. “The Chevy Bolt EV has a DC fast charger option, and charges at a rate of up to 55 kW, which allows the Bolt EV to recharge up to 80% in about 1 hour.” Sorry, I just don’t see how I would want to hang around that long on a road trip.

Besides all that, every high-rate commercial charging station has to have electrical service. The Siemens Sicharge D, rated for 300kW to serve several vehicles, would need about a 400 KVA feeder. So every one of these or similar units looks like a mid-sized factory to the electrical grid, with far less predictable demand. Imagine a dozen of these units at a charging center!

Reply to  David Dibbell
August 7, 2021 11:13 am

Yes the entire distribution system will have to be rewired. For home chargers as well if there are very many. A slow home charger still draws like a house. By design the present system is close to capacity.

Editor
Reply to  David Wojick
August 7, 2021 12:31 pm

David ==> You are spot on. The problem isn’t really the cars — it is the infrastructure necessary to implement. Re-wiring every neighborhood in the entire country to provide superchargers for one Ev or even Fast Chargers for multipe EVs at each home is beyond the capability of our economy — and possibly beyond the ability of the Earth to supply enough new copper or aluminum to manufacture all the wire to accomplish this.

Peter W
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 7, 2021 1:28 pm

Try doing it with “renewable” energy.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Peter W
August 8, 2021 12:35 pm

Which is the fantasy world of the climate fascists. Sheer lunacy.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 7, 2021 2:15 pm

Buy copper futures!

.KcTaz
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 6:24 pm

I thought about buying copper but then read that earth has plenty of copper in the ground, the shortage is because copper prices were not high enough to pay back the mining costs and make a profit. If copper continues to be in high demand, I suspect that will change and for the supply to increase. Of course, I could be wrong.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 7, 2021 2:16 pm

The new Infrastructure bill has billions of dollars in it for new charging stations. It looks like Joe is going to give it a shot.

I think the Powers-that-Be are overestimating the enthusiasm people are going to show for electric vehicles. What if they don’t sell very well? What will the alarmists do then? Mandate, I guess. That’s usually their solution to everything.

Editor
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 7, 2021 5:56 pm

Tom ==> The feeble amount to be spent won’t even make a dent in the need when it comes to the residential power grid. every home to be upgrade to 300-400 amp 120 VAC, from the current 100-200.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kip Hansen
August 8, 2021 4:56 am

I agreee the grid is one of the problems.

Forcing all-electric on all the population in a short period of time is what is going to cause problems.

The authorities should allow this transition to evolve slowly.

But of course, the alarmists are in a hurry because they have an inappropriate fear of CO2.

Trying to manipulate market forces is not a good idea. The market will push back and spoil their plans.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 8, 2021 12:36 pm

It will just be more wasted taxpayer money; it’s easy to spend, spend, spend when it’s not your money.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
August 9, 2021 6:33 am

Yes, you are correct.

John Hultquist
Reply to  David Dibbell
August 7, 2021 1:45 pm

A big diesel generator hidden in trees behind every refueling station will solve the problem.

saveenergy
Reply to  John Hultquist
August 7, 2021 3:26 pm

Like this –
comment image%3Fssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1

Bryan A
Reply to  saveenergy
August 7, 2021 4:33 pm

The only trailer your Tesla will ever need

Of course the Truckla is kind of cool

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Bryan A
August 8, 2021 12:39 pm

LOL. A recharge time measured in days, maybe weeks – and then ONLY in sunny weather – plus an aerodynamic drag that will cut your highway range to about 20% of what you might otherwise get.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  John Hultquist
August 7, 2021 3:31 pm

It would have to be really BIG

Steve Case
August 7, 2021 10:46 am

I want an electric car because the are really neat to drive. Have you driven one yet? They are great as the 2nd car in the household Especially if you charge it up in hour own garage.

That’s right, these things aren’t meant to take the Great American Road Trip to Yellowstone.

Steve Taylor
Reply to  Steve Case
August 7, 2021 11:30 am

I agree, I drove my friend’s new electric Mustang last week. Lots of fun. It will work well for his usage, but not mine.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Steve Case
August 7, 2021 12:29 pm

Most people do not drive a car for “fun.” They need a reliable vehicle that gets them from point A to point B with whatever cargo they need to transport.

What they don’t want is an $80,000 car, with a reliability rating of #20 out of 26, that requires an hour of charging half way to their destination in winter.

Shoving a not-ready technology down everyone’s throat because a twit like Buttegieg and a proven failure like Granholm say so is typical Democrat government stupidity

Rick C
Reply to  Steve Case
August 7, 2021 12:30 pm

Thanks, but no thanks. I don’t want anything pulling 10+kW for several hours every night in my garage while my family sleeps. I just saw that Chevy Bolts are being recalled because of their tendency to burst into flames while charging. Tesla’s seem to do the same occasionally. Charging outdoors might be safer, but I live where it snows a lot.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Rick C
August 7, 2021 1:17 pm

Absolutely. How long before an occasional disastrous battery fire causes death, and EVs are banned from all car parking buildings, tunnels, and attached garages? Even the deluded “green” politicians will be forced into that.

Peter W
Reply to  Rick C
August 7, 2021 1:30 pm

Snow helps put out the fire, too.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Peter W
August 8, 2021 12:41 pm

Until it melts, you better shovel fast!

MarkW
Reply to  Rick C
August 7, 2021 2:18 pm

You can’t charge a lithium ion battery when it’s temperature falls below 32F. So charging it outdoors isn’t a year round option.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
August 8, 2021 12:43 pm

Details! 😀

In my neck of the woods, that “not year round” may apply for the better part of half the year, depending on the weather!

Weather dependent transport powered by weather dependent electricity. What could go wrong?! Hope everyone like hiking, biking and cross-country skiing!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steve Case
August 7, 2021 3:08 pm

Again, do you think it is wise to charge it in a household garage?

Rick C
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 7, 2021 4:24 pm

I don’t even leave my string trimmer battery charging overnight in my garage.

Reply to  Steve Case
August 7, 2021 3:42 pm

Roads into and out of Yellowstone are well populated, often by wealthy elitists who feel entitled with plenty of services to cater to their desires.

Driving north from Winnemucca heading towards Denio and then west on 140 to Oregon. Precious and common opal to the west of Denio, e.g. Royal Peacock. Sunstones in Oregon north of Lakeview.

Driving west from Salt Lake City across the salt flats is an experience itself.

Enjoying history like following the Pony Express Route out of Fairfield on rte 73 then taking the Pony Express Road just past five mile pass is quite an experience. We drove for six hours without seeing another person. Lots of Mormon crickets, but no people.

That road takes you into central Nevada where every road is a long lonely drive.

Or driving across the San Carlos Apache Reservation in Arizona.

These are just a miniscule sampling of wonderful roads long on scenery and very short of gas stations and alleged EV chargers. All of the Western states have these long roads far from urban blight.

August 7, 2021 10:54 am

The range limfac with my pickup driving long distance without stopping is typically not my gas tank, but my bladder volume and my coffee thermos that keeps filling it. The gas station stops are usually welcome pee breaks.

Ozonebust
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 7, 2021 1:58 pm

Joel
Such a wise man that you are, more coffee equals more pee and increased dehydration.
I gave up coffee, alcohol and fizzy drinks some time ago, and drink water at 9.5ph.
Give it a go and step out of old habits.
My best regards

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 7, 2021 2:19 pm

That covers 5 minutes of the 1 hour you need to recharge.

Shoki Kaneda
August 7, 2021 11:09 am

Urban parasites love electric cars. If they drive at all, it is rarely more than a few miles. And they do not care if that negatively impacts people who do not live as they do, because those people are obviously stupid for not herding in cities.

Dave Irons
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
August 7, 2021 11:19 am

Actually the first Studebakers were Conestoga wagons. Of course, the y weren’t called Studebakers but that’s where the company came from. My second car was a Studebaker sport coupe, six cylinder that got around 20 miles per gallon, but at 25 cents a gallon, who cared? Our two Volvo AWD wagons get 20-24 mpg and have a range around 400 miles. The only time it takes more than 5 minutes to refuel is if there is a line at the pump and I know that the CO 2 I produce is greening the planet.

Shoki Kaneda
Reply to  Dave Irons
August 7, 2021 11:25 am

Dave – I think you are replying to the wrong post. I owned a ’60 Studebaker Silver Hawk 289 V8 and loved it. A beautiful car.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
August 7, 2021 6:44 pm

One of my brothers had a ’62 Gran Turismo Hawk, and my other brother had a ’57 Golden Hawk, supercharged. Great machines.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Irons
August 7, 2021 2:20 pm

… but at 25 cents a gallon, who cared?

You were probably earning about $2.50 per hour, if you were lucky. It isn’t the actual cost that matters, but how long you had to work to buy a gallon of gas.

Tim Crome
August 7, 2021 11:14 am

Living in Norway I’m used to seeing EVs everywhere and have several friends who own them and are very happy with them. However, we enjoy driving holidays, on the last day of last years we drove from Berlin back home, a distance of over 600 miles, wouldn’t have been so easy in an EV!

On holiday in Spain at the moment, when I parked at the local airport in Norway at least every other car there was an EV. Here in Spain I have seen 2 (1 Tesla and 1 Jag) in 10 days, covering long trips and several cities.

It makes it very obvious that the only reason they are extremely popular in Norway is the high level of subsidies and other benefits they enjoy, these are lacking in Spain, so nobody buys them. I guess running the air-conditioning in around 35 deg C (95 F) would also lower their range substantially too!

Derg
Reply to  Tim Crome
August 7, 2021 1:30 pm

Yep all that fossil fuel money went into subsidies

Dave Fair
Reply to  Derg
August 7, 2021 3:12 pm

Don’t forget the hydropower.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Derg
August 7, 2021 6:28 pm

Lots more goes into generating electricity to charge the EV, usually via a dirty great steam engine.

Even NPP have to boil water.
Technology has fundamentally not advanced much since 1840.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tim Crome
August 7, 2021 2:23 pm

600 miles is a typical day’s drive on a three or four-day trip across the US.

Beta Blocker
August 7, 2021 11:20 am

In a Green New Deal America (GND-A), we won’t be using private cars to visit Auntie Em who lives 250 or 300 miles away. We will be doing things similar in some ways to the way we did things a hundred years ago when we had limited access to energy.

If we decide we would like to visit Auntie Em in person and talk with her face to face, we will take a cab or a shuttle bus to the train station. We will buy a ticket and get on a train to the station nearest to where Auntie Em lives. When we get to that station, we will then take a cab or a shuttle bus to her apartment.

It’s also possible that when we get to the town where she lives, we might decide to rent an EV from the huge EV rental parking garage which is sited next next to the train station. A person’s presence inside this huge garage will be monitored in real time in case an EV catches fire and everyone must be quickly evacuated.

More likely than not, Auntie Em won’t be living in a small town or suburb somewhere up the road from where we ourselves live. She will be living in a large urban city in a quadplex or an apartment, in an environment where electricity is in short supply relative to what we have today and where energy consumption can be closely monitored and controlled.

Reaching President Biden’s announced goals of a 50% reduction in our GHG emissions by 2030, net-zero emissions in the power generation sector by 2035, and full net-zero by 2050 requires that in some ways, dear Auntie Em must become someone who is not quite human.

Rather, she must become a video image and a speaker-amplified voice which sometimes appears on our smartphone screens. If she is to be something more than that, either she moves a lot closer to where we live and work, or we take the time and trouble to go through all the hoops needed to get from our own home to hers.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 7, 2021 1:23 pm

Maybe, but what will that “firewatcher” actually do, apart from chasing all people out of that EV rental parking building? Since even the fire brigade folk cannot extinguish the fire, they will watch from a distance for several days while the building and its contents burn out. Rebuild and await the next fire?

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Mike Lowe
August 7, 2021 3:45 pm

A multi-level EV rental parking garage must be designed from the very beginning to be highly resistant to an electric vehicle fire. Meaning that the structure will be comparatively expensive to construct, to operate, and to maintain.

It’s possible that each parking space might have to separated from the space next to it by a firewall.

Which raises another question: will all existing parking garage structures have to be upgraded to allow EV’s to be parked there, possibly reducing their capacity by a third or more?

And then there are the car ferries plying the waters of harbors and channels. And the car ferrying transport trains. And the Chunnel and the Holland Tunnel.

Last edited 1 month ago by Beta Blocker
MarkW
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 7, 2021 5:56 pm

If you have to put a firewall between each parking spot, you are going to drastically increase the amount of space needed for each space.
Let’s say you need 3 feet of clearance in order to have enough room to open a door far enough for the passengers to get out. In current parking, there needs to be 3 feet between each car.
Put a firewall in, and each car would now need 3 feet between the car and the firewall. This means that the distance between cars has gone from 3 feet, to 6 feet, plus the thickness of the fire wall.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 6:47 pm

And all the carbon dioxide from all the unnecessary extra concrete.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 7:41 pm

With these kinds of space requirements, it’s possible an EV-armored parking garage might have only half the parking capacity of a similar sized ICE parking garage.

Here’s another consideration. Will an EV-armored parking garage be required to have a safe zone surrounding it, making its footprint on the ground larger than an ICE garage — even if the vehicle capacity is half that of a similar ICE garage?

At any rate, the big three American auto makers have committed to making EV’s half of their total production by 2030.

It is hard to believe the Big Three could reach that target unless government-enforced anti carbon mandates of one sort or another left consumers with no other choice but to buy an EV instead of a conventional ICE vehicle.

Last edited 1 month ago by Beta Blocker
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 8, 2021 12:54 pm

If that happens, I’ll make a prediction that’s probably far more realistic that the “climate science” based temperature predictions – they’ll be lots of lots full of unsold EVs in the future.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 8, 2021 12:52 pm

You’ll also need to parking spaces to be waterproofed, with automatic fire-sensing watertight doors and a water tank above each space capable of dumping enough water into the sealed parking space to completely submergg a burning EV, since that will be the only way to put an EV fire out.

Oh – and of course all EV drivers should be issued a life jacket so they won’t drown if they survive the fire.

Peter W
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 7, 2021 1:38 pm

Now, let’s see if I got that right. She will be living in an environment where electricity is in short supply, and you will be renting an EV locally?

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Peter W
August 7, 2021 3:53 pm

Yes, that is what a Green New Deal America will look like, among a myriad of other lifestyle changes Americans must get used to.

A variety of conflicting policy choices will be presented to those who decide what our future is to look like.

For example, if you are visiting Auntie Em in another city and choose to rent an EV locally rather than taking a cab or a bus to her apartment, then you will pay through the nose for the priviledge.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 7, 2021 2:31 pm

But, if I want to go to South Dakota to collect minerals in abandoned pegmatite quarries, I need several pounds of collecting tools, cardboard boxes and packing material, clothes for several days and changing weather, and perhaps specialized tools like a hand-truck and battery-powered rotary hammer drill. Once I’m there, I’m going to need a vehicle that will navigate narrow, unpaved, steep roads. One size does not fit all.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 7, 2021 4:17 pm

You will have several options living in a Green New Deal America:

— Give up your hobby of traveling to South Dakota to collect minerals in abandoned pegmatite quarries and choose another hobby which doesn’t consume nearly as much energy.

— Travel to South Dakota by train or commercial bus and rent a suitably outfitted vehicle, and all the other equipment you will need, from a local outfitter of some sort, maybe SoDak Mineralogy Adventures LLC or some such local business. You will being paying a lot of money for the privilege. But that’s the way the micaceous cookies crumble.

— If your mineralogy hobby is your passion, and maybe your avocation, then you might think about starting up your own business as an outfitter for mineralogy expeditions — SoDak Mineralogy Adventures LLC for example.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 7, 2021 7:10 pm

It has been my experience that such outfitters are catering to city slickers that don’t have a clue about what to do and how. The outfitters are two pages ahead of them in the textbook.

The outfitters could learn from me. However, I’m retired. I’m not looking for another job.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 7, 2021 2:37 pm

Exactly what Massachusetts’s Sustainability Chief to the Governor said in February. David Ismay, Gov. Charlie Baker’s under secretary for climate change, told Vermont climate advocates that it’s time to go after homeowners and motorists to help reduce emissions.

Mr. Ismay’s direct quote is: “So let me say that again, 60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person across the street, the senior on fixed income, right … there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts to point the finger at, to turn the screws on, and you know, to break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will. Right, I can’t even say that publicly.”

And this guy was in a GOP governors office … Gov Baker and his staff are just RINOs.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 7, 2021 4:32 pm

Reaching President Biden’s announced goals of a 50% reduction in our GHG emissions by 2030, net-zero emissions in the power generation sector by 2035, and full net-zero by 2050 requires that we all go back to the lifestyle world of 1920, or maybe even some earlier time in America’s energy consumption history.

If David Ismay had to do it all over again, would he still say the words that he did? Or would he simply have told his climate activist listeners to just get on with doing whatever it was they were doing; and, as far as his own rhetoric went, just let it go at that?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 7, 2021 6:48 pm

What will this goal accomplish?

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 7, 2021 10:17 pm

For a committed climate activist, reaching President Biden’s announced goals of a 50% reduction in our GHG emissions by 2030, net-zero emissions in the power generation sector by 2035, and full net-zero by 2050 is its own reward.

Am I a climate activist myself?

The answer is no. I’m a lukewarmer who thinks that if climate activists are serious about pursuing their very ambitious GHG reduction targets, then they should be completely honest and transparent about what it will take to get there.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 7, 2021 6:46 pm

Who is this “we” you write about?

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 7, 2021 10:13 pm

“We” is everyone living in America in the year 2035 who is a member of the middle class, or some lower class, and who wants to visit another location some distance away from home, for whatever reason. Roughly 90% of the US adult population would be a close enough estimate.

Murphy Slaw
August 7, 2021 11:26 am

I have a little generator on a little trailer and I tow that behind my EV. That way I’m fully charged when I arrive!

August 7, 2021 11:28 am

Every EV driver needs to keep their tow truck recovery service on cell phone speed dial.

Tesla-anxiety.JPG
lee riffee
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 7, 2021 2:13 pm

Last weekend I saw a Tesla sitting on the side of the freeway and (apparently) someone had stopped to try and help. Not sure what was going on, but if the car was out of juice, I don’t think there would have been anything AAA would have been able to do, other than summon a tow truck. The traffic was backed up and moving slowly at the time, and the weather was hot. Also possible the driver decided to just park it for a while and get out to avoid having the AC draw the battery down to low. But either way, if you run out of juice, there’s no way AAA (or any other roadside assistance) can bring you a charge….
If I was to run out in my ICE vehicle they could bring me a couple of gallons and I’d be on my way to the next gas station.

markl
August 7, 2021 11:29 am

EVs will remain niche vehicles until range and charge times meet user demands. Great while within their niche, not so much outside it.

Rud Istvan
August 7, 2021 11:30 am

The Tesla supercharger operating at 72KW can supposedly do an RPH of 200. What Tesla doesn’t tell you is that it also dramatically permanently reduces battery capacity and so shortens battery life. I researched this and found a real Model S datapoint: a Model S owner who drove about 10k miles in 6 months, about 8k of that with supercharging even tho Tesla says not a problem “but don’t do it too often”. At the end of the six months his battery capacity was permanently diminished by 12%. Which is why the lowish RPH is inescapable for any reasonable EV battery life.
Guess is buried somewhere in the Tesla battery warranty is a ‘void if more than X supercharges’. And I suspect it is very easy for the car to keep count.

MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 7, 2021 2:26 pm

The charging is controlled by electronics. I see no issues with incrementing a counter every time the charging current exceeds X Amps.

Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2021 2:46 pm

The whole charge-discharge cycle by cell is monitored by software and microprocessors. Individual cell voltage and current draw, multiple temperature sensors in the battery pack are all continuously montiroed and logged and filed for every charging and discharging session. This is technician-level data stuff that requires analysis software to download and diagnose battery cell failures and overheating, as well as all the charging loads.

Last edited 1 month ago by joelobryan
alastair gray
August 7, 2021 11:30 am

Don’t worry your pretty little head about that. Boris’ Charger Fairy will look after it and what makes. you thiink that an unworthy prole like you would have wheekls in Bris;’ Brave New World

bill Johnston
August 7, 2021 11:32 am

Many of us live in fly-over country. A 300-500 mile day trip is not all that unusual. EV’s are not practical.

MarkW
Reply to  bill Johnston
August 7, 2021 2:27 pm

If the liberals get their way, all of us will be forced to live in cities.

AWG