News Brief by Kip Hansen — 7 March 2023
Robin Shulman Agüeros, a freelance journalist, offered us her opinion in a news article in the New York Times titled “Why the New York Area Is Seeing an Explosive Growth in Electric Cars”, published 5 March 2023 in the “New York” section of the paper, both online and in print (under a different headline).
She gives us her lede: “Ownership rates of electric cars have more than doubled in New York City and the surrounding area, propelled by more varied models, more charging stations and lower prices.” Doubled when? Over what period? “…over the past several years”.
I have to admit that Shulman seems to write the way I do….not sticking to a single topic, but finding something that piques her interest and diving in. It seems that Shulman’s interest may have been piqued by a data report from Atlas Pubic Policy’s EV section. Or, at least, that is her information source for the EV ownership data.
And Atlas? “Atlas Public Policy (“Atlas”) was founded in 2015, by Nick Nigro, a nationally known expert on alternative fuel vehicle financing, policy, and technology. Nick previously led the development of several complex financial and policy analysis tools, convened large groups of diverse stakeholders nationwide, and managed a comprehensive analysis of greenhouse gas mitigation from U.S. transportation.”
Atlas is, unashamedly apparently, an information hub for those advocating the uptake of electric vehicles in the United States. Atlas hosts the EVHub: “The objective of EV Hub is to bring a data-driven approach to policy-making around transportation electrification and accelerate market growth.” And when they say “bring a data-driven approach to policy-making” they mean advocacy and lobbying.
Shulman’s article is pretty good, though a little preachy. She avoids totally sugar-coating EVs. She notes that “while electric vehicles have become cheaper, they still cost about $60,000 on average.” She does not tell readers that this is more than any of the six cheapest Mercedes-Benz SUV models and more than the Mercedes-Benz sedans in the A, C, and E classes.
And she quotes Michelle Krebs, an executive analyst at Cox Automotive, a research and consulting firm:
“For electric vehicles to proliferate further in the future, we need electric vehicles that are affordable to the masses, which will be a challenge because the cost of the minerals used in the batteries have skyrocketed in price. We need electric vehicles with longer range. We need an expanded electric vehicle charging network.”
That’s all well and good. But my interest was piqued by the idea that there has been an “explosive growth” in EV ownership in the NY area. What she means to say is that a very small number has doubled and, in some cases, more than doubled.
This is a common misunderstanding that leads to misrepresentation of facts. Anytime any small quantity increases, it is easy for it to “double” and “triple”. We see this in stock reports (where this characteristic can make people rich trading in penny stocks), in climate science, in medicine, in epidemiology – almost everywhere in fact. The doubling of a small and insignificant number usually leads to a result that is still small and rather insignificant. This is the case with EV ownership in the New York metropolitan area.
The article notes that “Today there are about 158,000 electric vehicles in the New York City metro region”. There are 4.5 million cars in the counties that make up Greater NY alone….if we expand that to the entire Metro Region, a rather ill-defined area, a rough calculation gives about 8 million cars, with EVs making up just a little less than 2%.
But why even that many? “The governors of New York and New Jersey have pledged that by 2035 all new vehicles sold in their states must produce zero carbon emissions, and Connecticut is considering a similar rule. There are more than five million passenger vehicles, such as cars, S.U.V.s, pickup trucks and vans, in the region.” [“the region” here is limited to NY/NJ near NY City, I believe).
Despite the growing pressure to kill the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) automobile in the United States, and force the transition to EVs, the venerable Ford F-150 pickup truck (gasoline and diesel powered options) was not only the best-selling truck in America in 2022 (for the 46th year in a row) but also the Best-Selling Vehicle overall (for the 41st year in a row). And, running for the EV team, the Tesla Model Y crossover was the sixth bestselling vehicle in the country in 2022. [Note: 2023 Tesla Model Y — MSRP $54,990 – $58,990 – compare to Mercedes-Benz prices here.]
So, who is buying Teslas?
The general sensible economic rule for purchase price of a new car is the 50% rule viz: “Maximum purchase price by this formula — Income: $50,000 Vehicle purchase price: $25,000 = 50% of $50,000”. Thus if the cheapest Tesla is just under $60,000, the purchaser needs an annual income of $120,000. Which is about twice the median annual income for a U.S. family [“$61,937 may be a more accurate representation of typical household earnings.” – source ]
Compare the price of the Tesla Model Y ($54,990 – $58,990) to the Nissan Rogue Sport that sells, brand new, for about $26,000, which would be affordable for our median family (even with a few extras thrown in). [Disclosure: The Rogue Sport is my current vehicle, with AWD for the snow and plenty of room for my two-person family.] That means only the better-off, the top 34% of U.S. families, can afford even the cheapest Tesla, which costs twice as much as my Nissan – and that if they only need one car. (The average car ownership in the U.S. 1.89 per family – most families own 2 cars, some own none.)
1. Some people, and more people, are buying EVs of various types. Both Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles (like the Toyota Prius) and Battery Electric Vehicles, such as the Tesla, Ford and Chevrolet.
2. EV adoption is still hampered by price, range and availability of away-from-home charging stations.
3. Battery fires featured in the news may be affecting sales in some markets.
4. Sales, however, are not “exploding” – they are gradually increasing as governments at various levels are passing laws restricting the future sale of ICE cars and light duty trucks, and currently only have a 1-2% market share.
5. There are some available affordable EVs, under $30,000 but only the Chevy Bolt has even a barely acceptable range (see link).
# # # # #
I support the adoption of EVs, especially as family transportation. The most favorable niche is for the family’s ‘second car’ – the car used for running kids to school and sports events, daily/weekly local shopping, and for those with short commutes. A slow-charger in the garage to charge it overnight is all that is needed.
If you own a plug-in EV, charge it at home. I pay 15¢ ($0.15) per kWh at home. A charging station in NY currently charges 35¢ per kWh. Your price differential will vary by your local rates.
This opinion is not based on CO2 emissions – but on common sense. Petroleum is far too valuable to society to waste it by burning it up in ICE engines in family cars.
The rub for most Americans, at least, is this: I would not have been able to use an EV for my round trip to the Heartland Conference in Orlando, Florida (starting in Upstate NY – a total of about 2,500 miles).
In rural America, it is quite common for a family with kids to have three vehicles. (Look in my neighbor’s drive ways…sometimes four. I don’t know why….).
I am totally opposed to the efforts to force companies to manufacture EVs or to force people to buy EVs – by any means whatever. Let the market prevail.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Obviously, one needs one’s own house to have a BEV, with a detached carport, due to fire risk. One also probably needs new service run to the carport to support a rapid charger. And a conventional vehicle, in case one has to drive anywhere outside the range of the BEV.
Neglecting those costs tends to make BEVs look better than they are.
Tom ==> Yes, to be serious, one needs a fast charger, but for a little second-car runabout the village car, an overnight slow charger would fit the bill. And, certainly, a second ICE powered car to make longer trips or long commutes. My last corporate employment required a two-hour each way commute. (but…they paid me very well.)
Engineers working on 2026 model EVs in Michigan do not agree. They recommend 240 volt charging in a garage, which will usually be an extra cost. The range gained with 115 volt charging overnight in a cold garage can be surprisingly small.
They claim 115 volts is too slow in very cold weather when EV range can be reduced from -40% to -60%.
That reduction does NOT include warming up the inerios and melting the snow and ice off the windows after a typical winter storm. The test cars in northern Minnisota were fully charge and stored indoors beforetesing.
That very cold weather range loss is on top of the range reduction of 30 percentage points to preserve battery life by keeping the charge between 10% and 80%.
That means most vehicles will start with 70% of the advertised range, In very cold weather the 70% of the advertised range can be reduced to 35% of the advertised range, or less. False advertising?
Based on testing simulating parking outdoors at an airport (or parked on the street, or parked in a very cold garage) an EV can lose 2% to 4% of range every 24 hours just sitting there !.
Engineers working on 2026 model EVs are very pessimistic about customers liking the new expensive, inconvenient EVs. That mood is unprecedented among engineers developing new products. My source of this information was an EV engineer who retired at the end of 2022 and wants to remain anonymous. He was my last contact in product development at the company where I used to work for 27 years.
My full article on the subject is here — please read before considering buying an EV:
:Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: Article Expanded on Wednesday February 15: An inside view of electric vehicles from an engineer who was designing them
Richard ==> Very interesting. I’ll take a look.
Weather, mostly “very cold” and “very hot” do affect ALL battery powered equipment. Those who live in very cold laces understand this.
My daughter had a lovely VW Bug, great in the southern regions of NY, but almost impossible to start in northern Vermont in the Winter. Settled for keeping it in the garage at night, with a tiny, under-the-desk 120v ceramic heater running all night to keep the battery (which is under the back seat) warm enough to start the car when morning came.
The same is true for the starting batteries on cars and trucks in frigid areas. Witness the A/C plugs hanging out of the grill on pickups and cars in Minnesota that run to battery and oil heaters — they are plugged in at night so the vehicle starts in the morning.
Settled for keeping it in … with … heater running all night to keep … warm”
Wonder if a small heater made it into the CO2 savings calculations? Whomever paid the electric bill was subsidizing the EV investment.
Agreed, My Durango sat undriven during the height of the pandemic for 12 months. Oddly, it still had the same amount of gas (1/2 tank) as when I parked it. It also still fired up on the first try. I did add fresh gas though (after removing the Wasp Nest behind the filler door) as I was taking it to get smogged. (It passed SMOG with no problem)
Bryan ==> Not surprised the gas had not evaporated…they have special gas caps to prevent venting of gasoline fumes. Now the wasps are proof of that, they wouldn’t have been able to move in if the space behind the filler door was constantly filled with gas fumes.
Of course, even better is my sailboat, with twin diesel engines that are winterized in the Fall, sit in the snow all winter and fire up first turn of the key every spring.
In Princeton NJ I see Teslas all the time, there are three on my street of 8 houses! When I drive into town (1 mile) i always see several Teslas coming the other way. The university garages have many charging stations which is probably a factor.
“Based on testing simulating” at some point we have to stop using simulations. Simulation implies a much lower EV fleet than I see in parking lots. Real data ought to be available from lease cars.
“Engineers … pessimistic … mood is unprecedented”
There is plenty precedent for pessimism among smart people assigned unattainable goals. Good, fast or cheap: pick two. Sometimes, pick one. Always they want all three.
Good post Richard. Thank you.
Most relatively recent houses have 15 amp service to household electric outlets. Easy to check as the outlet fixtures list the maximum draw capability.
When I installed ordinary woodworking equipment, e.g., contractor saw, bandsaw, jointer, I had to have an electrician run heavier wiring from the main fuse box to the garage and then runs of the heavier wire to individual outlets. Just to support equipment that can draw 20 amps.
Equipment that draws more than 15 amps, usually at motor start of or when under load, both the wiring and the outlet can overheat. If it overheats enough, something can ignite.
To install fast charging capability requires upgrading fuse boxes, fuses, wiring and outlets to much higher voltage and amperage capability.
One of Tesla’s installation instructions lists: “Voltage and Wiring Nominal 200-240 V AC single-phase Current Output Range 12 – 48 amps” as necessary.
Few houses have general 240 volt 50 amp service beyond their A/C units. Most have generic household 200 amp main service fuse boxes and 15 amperage household wiring.
People running long cords from their household 15 amp outlets can expect maximum charging times and possible overheated extension cords.
ATheo ==> I agree with you, but for these cheap smaller cars, you could make do with the wall outlet charger. Today’s Prius do just that.
I pay $0.28/kWh here in California. That’s about ten cents per mile for many EVs. Gasoline cars that get 40 MPG are common and cheap as chips. At current gas prices that’s about eleven cents per mile. So EVs here are barely break-even.
And of course, the more EVs there are, the more the electricity will cost.
w. ==> Quite nicely stated. The new midget cars (I call them half-cars) like the “Smart Car” can get “Up to 124 city / 94 highway”. and can be bought new for < $15,000. (Not that I would ever buy one….)
Not so Smart Cars
Marketing folks are consummate storytellers.
So they were saying that the people might survive, but they will go thru life with no legs….floor where the driver’s and passenger’s legs would be is crushed into a chunk of twisted metal in both crashes. A few very brave people around here drive these Fisher Price cars, even on dark roads loaded with deer. No hood to protect from antlers and hooves busting thru the windshield and killing occupants. A couple of years ago just that happened not far from where I live. Deer came thru the windshield and killed the passenger. No idea what they were driving, but it could well have been one of these Stupid Cars.
Bryan ==> That’s just one of the reasons I would not buy one. However, few modern cars(if any) can protect the driver from a 70 mph (112 km/hr) head on crash into a concrete wall.
They make an electric model.
If one lives in The Villages of Florida, where one can lives to the end of their life without ever leaving its borders, of the self-contained development, a Smart Car might be the best choice, an upgrade over the battery-powered golf cart that almost all residents drive.
I could just about fit one of those things in the bed of my Dodge Ram 1500….well, maybe not, I’ve got a 6ft bed and not and 8ft bed!
I call them “almost a car”. 😎
10¢ per mile perhaps but when the car costs twice or more (potentially $86,000 for the Tesla-X vs a new Dodge Durango) what the ICE equivalent costs far outstrips any potential fuel cost savings on ‘Lectrons vs Gasoline over the.life of the car.
And don’t forget the heads you lose, tails you lose choice of replacement of the already enormously expensive, and sure to get MORE so, battery pack or a trade value that will be as pleasant as a thorough beating.
Example of commodity price outpacing inflation (I know a few)? Driven by a consumer product leaving early-adopter phase (I know 0)?
Yes, at current low penetrations EVs are free riders, parasites on the systems.
All costs associated with them will only go up
and the more EVs the harder it will be for wind and solar to provide the required electrcity.
Just build more of them problem solved. There is still a lot of nature that can be sacrificed to save the planet. And those forests are just fire hazards.
“Well, I checked the forecast, looks like you should be able to charge it by Wednesday when we’re due for some wind.”
I live in Wisconsin where parking an EV outdoors would mean you’d pretty much exhaust a fully charged battery just warming it up and melting the snow/ice off the windows after a typical winter storm. And I too would not park one in an attached garage – I don’t even like leaving my phone or tablet on a charger overnight. Building a separate heated garage would be a good answer except that around here you’d have to heat it with propane – kinda negates any reason to have an EV.
Plus there’s the additional licensing fees some states are levying on EVs to offset the loss of revenue from gas taxes, plus the additional weight compared to similarly sized ICE vehicles. Wait until they start adding a charging tax to the electricity at the “pump”.
Even if you have a gas car that gets half that 40mpg, electric prices are going to go up rapidly given what they’re busy doing to the electric grid (cue the Obama quote about “his plan”).
Plus, pudgy EVs are going to start getting hit with “road taxes” to make up for the loss of gas tax revenue AND the additional wear and tear on roads and bridges. Better add more frequent and more expensive tire replacements to the budget too.
Plus, the expensive-to-replace battery packs will keep climbing in cost due to materials whose prices are skyrocketing (there’s that word again).
Plus the “range” sucks and gets shorter exactly when you need more (long trips), and the recharge times make that situation completely intolerable.
Then there’s that nasty propensity to spontaneously burst into an inextinguishable fire.
The UK Treasury raises c.£37 billion pa from road tax and fuel duty which EVs are currently exempt from. At some point these duties will have to start being paid by EVs.
“loss of gas tax revenue”
elephant in the room
Yeah, except for Republican politicians, when has government ever reduced taxes?
And when EVs in California begin to be charged are excise taxes for either mileage or operating hours, that will make ICE vehicles significantly cheaper to operate.
Government EV subsidies is wealth redistribution and not an accurate indicator of a free market society. Subsidies includes government installations of charging stations. I don’t recall our government building Sinclair gas stations.
Outfits with local fleets are already experimenting with electric. Market incentives will determine the best path forward, not morons like Hochul, Murphy and Inslee.
missoulamike ==> Local-use fleet cars and vans are a good market for EVs because they generally return to a central garage or yard every day — making it easy to recharge them overnight. If the price is right, companies will buy them. The reduction of maintenance costs is a major selling point.
In my experience, even a small corporate motor pool with a dozen ICE cars required two full time mechanics.
So more mechanics losing their job. But than you have to bring your EV to a specialised garage. Any idea what they would charge per hour? And when do they start working on your car ? Remember you are just one of their many clients.
Robert ==> My Nissan dealer charges $150 to diagnose any problem with my ICE Rogue Sport.
Yeah, but that price gets rolled into the cost of the repair if you get it done there.
What would be the investment to charge a dozen of EV cars overnight ? And you will still need a person just for safety reasons on a more expensive night shift (doing nothing most of the time).
What safety requirements are insurance companies going to start to impose? Spacing requirements between vehicles perhaps? What does that do to the cost of storage space?
“What safety requirements are insurance companies going to start to impose?”
Safety cost becomes socialized?
Robert ==> I covered some of the answers to that in this essay.
Wait till the first EV fire takes out a whole row of them (and any building they’re in or near), and then we can reconsider the “economics.”
Sooner or later the insurance companies are going to catch up to the fire risks of an EV. When that happens the insurance costs are going to go up as well.
Since property taxes are typically based on the cost of the vehicle and EV’s are so expensive have the property taxes every year been properly accounted for?
Depreciation expense, especially for a commercial operation, will also go up since it should be based on replacement cost for a an asset.
Just not sure all the costs are being compared properly for EV vs ICE.
Lithium-ion battery blamed for yet another fast-moving fire, New York City officials say
March 6, 2023, 6:38 PM UTC / Updated March 6, 2023, 11:40 PM UTC
By David K. Li and Andrew Blankstein
“A lithium-ion battery sparked yet another fast-moving fire, this one in New York City on Sunday, leveling a supermarket and neighboring laundromat, authorities said.”
The more these batteries proliferate, the more fires we are going to have.
Hypothetical situation: Some government agency buys a bunch of EV’s for their agency and they are parked in an underground parking garage and then one of the EV’s catches fire and the whole parking garage and the building on top of it goes up in flames.
How are our genius officials going to prevent something like that from happening?
In Norway they passed a law that all Public Authority procurement of cars had to be zero emission vehicles from 2022 and all City Buses likewise from 2025.
It’s going to be a hot time in the ole town tonight! 🙂
Citing businesses that only work during daytime hours seriously restricts the businesses that can use EVs.
For general business use, capital equipment sitting static earns zero profit for the business.
As does doubling or tripling fleet sunk costs in order to have two shifts or three shifts.
All cause increase to the cost of that business’ services.
I’ve worked in a number of businesses that kept zero mechanics on staff. All had contracts with local repair services.
Yes, they had vehicle knowledgeable people whose assignment was to verify repair need and schedule repairs with the service shop. All had regular jobs that they had to put on hold when a vehicle went down.
One of these businesses was USPS. Over 20 vehicles on the lot ranging from old AMC jeeps to 5 ton trucks. Service contract with a service station covered all repairs.
A rather specious bias comment.
Most new cars have years of usage with minimal maintenance hours and cost.
ICE vehicles may require minimal maintenance for years, they also serve the customer 24/7 during those years.
Oddly, most EVs require most of the exact same maintenance, windshield wipers, wiper fluids, brakes, tires, lights, etc. etc.
By your own admission, EVs are down for half the day. That throws a major monkey wrench into households that need to use a vehicle in the middle of the night.
Making EVs lousy for emergency usage.
Households with one or two cars end up sharing vehicles amongst multiple drivers. Again, the need is for vehicles running at all hours of the day.
Nor are EVs simpler devices.
Every circuit board in an EV has hundreds to thousands of electronic components and yards of solder to connect those components and wire connectors. Along with miles of wiring.
Electronics and wiring hate vibration. Large ranges of temperatures increase the stresses on those components.
All it takes is for a solder connection or solder run to crack to cause intermittent effects.
Loss of a electronic component might only cause minimal trouble or it might disable the entire circuit board.
Isolating and repairing electronic or electrical faults is a nightmare for mechanics.
When EVs have run over enough bumps, sat in the sun for many hours, bumped into curbs, cars and walls, these little electrical problems will occur.
Manufacturer repair shops will simply identify the faulty circuit board and then replace that entire board, not inexpensively!
When our refrigerator stopped cooling, the repairman we hired identified a 2.5″ by 8″ circuit board as the problem source.
We were outside of the period when the manufacturer maintains new circuit board stock.
Our repair guy located, purchased and installed a remanufactured circuit board, at $240 for just the board, labor not included.
That board did not run the icemaker, a fault apparently overlooked by the remanufacturing shop…
Most of the larger shops use a soldering station that refreshes/re-melts solder runs. A practice that should fix solder cracks, but often fails to fix large cracks or broken wires.
I believe the law requires car manufacturers to maintain inventory of new parts in the USA for ten years after manufacture.
After ten years is when people will end up searching for remanufactured parts.
Setting up a much more dangerous situation than my refrigerator.
ATheoK ==> Most of your arguments against EVs also apply to ICE vehicles, in varying degrees. Whether ICE maintenance is in-house or farmed out to service stations is a mot point — they must have service.
The same is true for EV, of course. And, yes, new ICE cars can run for a very long time without much service other than usual mileage-based checklist items. Myprevious Nisssan (a 200SX) ran of 187,000 miles without any repairs. The first repair was replacement of a windshield wiper motor.
Today’s ICE cars are impossible for shade-tree mechanics to work on, having the same huge number of electronic components and more than one computer.
That said, so did my nearly problem-free Nissan.
Tradeoffs. A few guys still want to swap an engine under a tree and a few guys want the latest cellphone SW rev on the dashboard console. I think most of us just want to get to work safe and maybe hear a podcast.
What little decrease in maintenance cost that there may be, is more than compensated for by having to replace the battery long before an internal combustion engine would have worn out.
I’ve owned ICE vehicles all of my life, and 90% of my maintenance costs were for things you would find on an electric as well.
And the EV subsidies are from the poor to the well off!
That’s what the Democrats do. They take from the poor and give to the rich while claiming they are doing just the opposite.
“I don’t recall our government building Sinclair gas stations.”
No but they heavily subsidise the fuel that goes in to IE cars.
You mean they heavily tax the fuel.
They also TAX the hell out of the fuel at the end user point! How is that going to be transferred to the electricity to charge an EV?
Not anywhere in North America or most of Europe.
And apparently you failed to back up your specious claim with actual facts rather than repeating alarmist fake drivel.
Once Simon gets a good lie, he never lets go of it.
Every single one of the so called “subsidies” that Simon has listed in the past, are just companies deducting normal business expenses.
“Every single one of the so called “subsidies” that Simon has listed in the past, are just companies deducting normal business expenses.”
No they are not MIUMarkW. They are specific to the FF industry and have been put in place to reduce the cost of fuel to the consumer. If they are just what every other industry gets I’m picking you would be fine with the removal of those that are targeted at the FF industry. Are you?
You can read all about it here…
And true to form, Simon trots out his many times refuted list.
Simon is still upset that companies that drill oil wells are the only ones who get to deduct the cost of drilling oil wells.
In the UK ICE vehicle drivers pay fuel duty on the petrol/diesel they buy plus vat on top of that. EVs are exempt from this and neither do they pay Vehicle Excise Duty (Road Tax)
“EVs are exempt”
So “Really” what?
Really is my name is Simon? Yes.
Really does the FF industry get specific subsidies. Yes.
Really can pigs fly? Not in my world.
It really is cute when Simon pretends to not understand the responses to his nonsense.
OK now I feel uncomfortable about you saying I’m cute
“EV subsidies .. wealth redistribution”
TO those who can afford the Tesla FROM those who cannot
Credit to the Manhattan Contrarian:
Side note: A frequently used claim that EV costs are coming down ignores the case that, due to real shortages, U.S. dealers are charging as much as 50% over MSRP as “delivery fee” or “dealer prep.”
government subsidies is more taxation and or printing press making everyone poorer. So who is gone buy those cars?
I don’t know how reliable the following information is, but the latest developments in Sodium-Ion batteries certainly seem impressive. A recharge time of only 15 minutes to 80%capacity, and a life cycle of 3,000 charges, and a much lower over all cost, compared to Lithium-Ion batteries. Wow!
“CATL has solved sodium-ion batteries’ energy density problem. Last year, they unveiled their first-generation sodium-ion battery, and its specifications are incredible.
It has an energy density of 160 Wh/kg, and CATL has a patent to raise this to 200 Wh/kg. This means they are only slightly heavier than lithium-ion batteries, which sit at about 220 Wh/kg, making a sodium-ion-powered EV possible. The battery itself can be charged from 0% to 80% capacity in only 15 minutes. Its life cycle is rated for over 3,000 charge cycles, equivalent to driving a million miles. It is super cheap at only $77 per kWh, equating to $5,500 in savings per EV (given that current lithium-ion packs cost $132 per kWh). CATL has predicted they can produce them at a staggeringly low $40 per kWh once production is fully scaled, equating to $9,200 in savings per EV!”
Proof is in the pudding because over hyped claims only rarely happen WRT battery tech and performance, lol.
Vincent ==> The world is waiting for a battery breakthrough — don’t know if that is it or not.
When we see the first 1000 cars powered by Na-ion batteries on the road tested and evaluate, we will know.
No breakthrough, but iron-phosphate (LFP) is helping to keep cost down.
Cobalt has several issues, as we all know.
Commendable scepticism. But CATL is the world’s biggest maker of Li batteries, so the claim is not to be taken lightly.
CATL and their $400 per share stock price has to be concerned about the growing awareness that lithium battery prices at the current rate of price increase is unsustainable and will dramatically reduce BEV sales. Likewise, grid scale battery storage for more than four (4) hours is forever too expensive even if the batteries were free because the associated “packet cost” is $200/kWh, batteries not included.
Big companies never invest in experimental technology that fails to pan out?
Those are most likely keep funding our research press releases, “we almost got it”.
Claim per the article:Its life cycle is rated for over 3,000 charge cycles, equivalent to driving a million miles. : Great! 1,000,000/3000=333 miles per charge!
On the other hand, a two minute Google search found a one-year-old article reporting:
While the lithium-ion batteries found in modern electronics can recharge thousands of times, most variations of sodium-ion batteries can only cycle a small fraction of that.
Note: I report you decide.
So after 250 000 mile/ 750 charge cycles just put those batteries into a brand new chassis and of you go. How many drive a million miles in a lifetime?
A million miles? How? If I charged every night, that’s 8.2 years. At an average of 12K per year, that doesn’t even hit 100,000 miles.
I think the point is if these work as claimed you will have a battery that will last the life of the car and pretty much as long as any ICE car.
With a mountain of the usual disconnected-from-reality assumptions applied to achieve all of these “estimated” range figures.
In a heavier battery, with less energy density, and even more inadequate “range” to start with.
Maybe they should just make *corded* EVs./sarc
If that is the case, then we should hold off on pushing the electric toys until someone has developed and deployed a battery that is actually fit for purpose.
My hunch is when this BEV will replace ICE vehicles by 2060 farce losses its momentum in < five years the fallout will make the dot.com collapse look like chicken feed.
Yes, its possible, how likely is very hard to assess. But the plan at the moment is to move everyone to cars which cost twice as much or more and are much less usable for many current purposes, and even look like they will cost more to refuel. While at the same time moving electricity generation to wind and solar.
And with the assumption that this can all be done while keeping current lifestyles.
It seems pretty obvious that this cannot all happen at once. The question is which will break. The US, Britain, NZ and Australia, maybe Canada too, are rushing into this without having done any proper studies of social and economic consequences.
Germany seems to have recently had a sudden rush of comprehension about what it is all going to imply. I find it very difficult to see what will happen. Its hard to see governments and the political classes blinking. But its also very hard to see them persisting in the face of an economic disaster of the scale this may produce.
Most politicians have only one objective, to the exclusion of all other considerations. Getting reelected. The typical low information voter is afraid of plant food (CO2) and is excited about how free wind and solar is going to teach utilities and big oil a lesson. RE (Ruinous Energy) is their chance to get even with utilities and oil companies for such high electricity and gasoline prices.
They look up to hard-nosed leaders like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi for “looking out for their rights” by standing up to big utility and big oil,
Once the average voter finally begins to realize that the more wind and solar on the grid and the more restrictions on oil and gas that the progressive/liberals impose the lower their standard of living becomes, the voter support can turn on a dime. If it doesn’t happen soon a deep dark economic depression is inevitable IMHO.
“will make the dot.com collapse look like chicken feed”
If you were in semi or web tech in 1998 you know there is no comparison.
A lot of IFs in there
Of course what is needed is a magnitude better performance where this isn’t as good as lithium ion, and a magnitude lower cost, not 0.5.
A million miles? Total BS!
3,000 charges covers 8.5 years.
I notice you don’t supply the information regarding battery capacity for 1,000 or 2,000 charges, let alone by the 3,000th charge.
Each charge degrades the battery and reduces total battery capacity. Rapid charging degrades the battery much faster.
Your source identifies your claim as a “prediction”.
What is the actual state of research?
Strictly laboratory tests?
Field trials? Doubtful.
A) your link states that their “sodium ion” batteries are less energy dense than lithium ion batteries. patents are just paper until construction proves a capability.
B) Sodium is just a volatile as lithium and burns just as easily and dangerously.
C) Marketing claims are not real world results. A lab technician charging a small sodium ion battery in minutes is not the same as an EV charging a massive battery.
D) Similar technology (sodium ion versus lithium ion) is not revolutionary, at all. Instead it is same old same old, yawn!
Will these ‘sodium ion’ batteries just replace lithium iron phosphate batteries but not the lithium nickel cobalt required by heavier vehicles ? The IEA notes half of all EV models are SUVs which require larger batteries to travel the same distance.
“Sodium is less reducing than lithium, meaning that more substances are thermodynamically stable in direct contact with the metal.“
“Sodium-ion batteries have several advantages over competing battery technologies. Compared to lithium-ion batteries, sodium-ion batteries have somewhat lower cost, slightly lower energy density, better safety characteristics, and similar power delivery characteristics.”
“slightly lower energy density”
“slightly lower energy density”
“slightly lower energy density”
In a free open market price is usually the measure of value, the above statement suggests Kip has a different or overriding value, worth, importance for petroleum in mind.
Chris ==> Petroleum is the feedstock for the production of “nearly everything”….burning it is a waste.
“Petroleum products include transportation fuels, fuel oils for heating and electricity generation, asphalt and road oil, and feedstocks for making the chemicals, plastics, and synthetic materials that are in nearly everything we use.” [ source ]
That list left out fertilizer (which equals food).
Here is a link to a list of products that are made from petroleum.
It would be nice if they cost only 1/2 what they do now.
Includes car battery cases, wire insulation, printed circuit board, etc.
This kind of thinking is similar to those who used to declare that the US shouldn’t pump any oil now, because in the future, once oil starts to run out, we will be able to sell the oil for so much more.
This thinking ignores several issues.
First off money made now can be invested and create more wealth for the future. So by leaving the oil in the ground you end up decreasing economic growth which means our descendants are actually poorer.
Secondly, you run the risk of something being discovered that replaces oil as a power source. If that happens, the value of the oil in the ground will drop, and the sacrifice of leaving the oil in the ground will have been in vain.
Now leaving the oil in the ground so that it can be used for other purposes is not an exact analogy with leaving the oil in the ground in hopes that it will be more valuable in the future.
However the difference is not significant.
But is not making everyone poorer the only way this centrally controlled economic system has managed to survive the last 100 years and especially since they took the dollar off the gold standard? Wasn’t it the goal of the Federal Reserve to make everyone poorer by 2 % annually. Just imagine what that does to your savings especially with low or negative interest.
Then there is also the time value of money. Because of inflation, money in the future has less value than money today.
“In a free open market price …” but gas is not in a free market price situation. The guaranteed subsidies they receive means the price is considerably lower than it would otherwise be.
There are no subsidies for oil companies.
I bet Simon will now trot out the same list that has been discredited dozens of times.
I’ll take that bet, because Simon will not respond. He knows his use of “subsidies” is fraudulent.
“Doubled when? Over what period? “…over the past several years”.”
No, she says:
“In 2020, there were about three electric vehicles per 1,000 people in the New York City metro region (excluding locations in Connecticut, which didn’t collect data by county); today that number has more than doubled to about seven vehicles per 1,000, according to data from Atlas Public Policy, a research firm.“
nick ==> 2020, 2021, 2022 = three years = last several years.
Nit pick Nick strikes again.
With irrelevant information.
Kip’s question was
“Doubled when? Over what period?”
The information was there. I pointed to it.
And how many of those EVs are purchased by (local) government driving up the cost of their fleet ?
Genuinely, an interesting question.
I do see a lot of EVs in parking lots lately.
Vincent. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent on building factories to manufacture lithium ion batteries. If sodium batteries are so much better how has this escaped them? The electric crowd massivly engage in magical thinking, don’t be one of them. If you follow the money you can seldom go wrong.
Electric cars and trucks definitely have their place. Think of the thousands of vehicles that circulate cities during the day delivering stuff, passengers etc , and could charge at night. Secondly there are also very well to do folks looking for toys that will give them a justification for being rich, and a justification for just being.
It hasn’t escaped them.
Research into the Sodium-Ion battery, as a better alternative to the Lithium-Ion battery, has been ongoing for years. The largest producer of Lithium-Ion batteries, in the world, is a Chinese-based company called CATL, which stands for ‘Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited’.
From the following Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CATL
“CATL, is a Chinese battery manufacturer and technology company founded in 2011 that specializes in the manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage systems, as well as battery management systems (BMS).”
From CATL’s own site: “CATL has been dedicated to the research and development of sodium-ion battery electrode materials for many years.”
“As of now, CATL has started its industrial deployment of sodium-ion batteries, and plans to form a basic industrial chain by 2023. CATL invites upstream suppliers and downstream customers, as well as research institutions to jointly accelerate the promotion and development of sodium-ion batteries.”
Yeah they have a Place.
In The Museum For Bad Ideas.
My current utility charge:
Fasility Charge: $25.50 per month + $0.0982 $/kwh
Summer temperature often above 100°F
Winter temperature often 10 above to 10 below
I could move about 60 miles and lower the kwh by 40%.
The big dams on the Columbia River (Thanks America),
provide the electricity.
Still, the high (AC needed) and low (Heater needed) temperatures
are region wide.
John ==> Thanks for the ground truth from western Canada. Interested where you could pay less than 10¢/kWh for electric.
We too were in Orlando last weekend for the Heartland Climate Conference. Our original intent was to take two days to get back to our NJ home from Orlando, but a Winter Storm advisory indicated snow in northern NJ on Monday, so a game-time decision was made to go straight though and avoid driving in a snow storm. Splitting the driving, we made 1,110 miles in 16 hours and 35 minutes, including three stops for gas and food. Got in at 3:15 AM.
Not interested in an EV.
Bob ==> Wife and I stayed through Tuesday and left Wednesday morning…drove up between storms, taking Wednesday, Thursday an Friday morning. Snow hit us in the Central Hudson Valley Friday nighr through Saturday.
The author suggests that EV’s make a great second car. Surely, the majority of BEV buyers have two vehicles. But any family at a mere $!00,000 isn’t likely to have a $40,000 “second car”. I don’t agree with the 34% of households being in the BEV market, 25% is a more likely “cap”. When looking at current inflation rates for mineral intensive EV’s, especially the batteries, that 25% of targeted buyers better be pushing $150,000 if the 2nd vehicle is a new BEV (will anyone buy a 10-year-old BEV needing a replacement battery? I don’t think so).
Dennis ==> The second car would not be the luxury BEV of course, but one of the cheaper Chevys or Fords. Just for running around town. Price differential between these and other less expensive ICE cars isn’t much — a few thousand.
I capped the EV buyers based on a a $60,000 Tesla Model Y (and the “average price of an EV” at $60,000 given by Shulman in the Times.) That (by the 50% rule) means a family income of $120,000. Using the chart here (halfway down the page) for the percentages.
Look around your neighborhood, estimate the new car value of the cars (and pickups) in their driveways, and let me know.
Not sure I agree with your analysis. It would work if the primary car never needs to be offline for repairs. If you lose access to your primary vehicle, for whatever reason, that second car has to be capable of fulfilling the family needs which will probably be much more than transporting kids or going to the grocery store. Those cheap Chevys or Fords probably won’t be up to the task. Result – you’ll need the more expensive EV models or an ICE vehicle as the second.
This becomes even more of an issue if the primary vehicle is a working one, such as a van, pickup, or SUV.
Tim ==> Good points, but not very pragmatic. Many families have only one car. Many two-income families have two cars, but both are needed 5 days a week to carry them to work. Any vehicle breakdown causes complications and is a minor disaster, but temporary. This does not change if one is an EV.
Families with one car don’t need to rent a short-range EV. They need something to temporarily replace the main (only) vehicle.
If both cars are only used to get to work then what is used for other purposes?
Things certainly change if your primary vehicle goes down and you are left with only an EV. Your life choices are restricted due to the problems EV’s have, e.g. long charge times, lack of charging points, short range, winter use, etc.
Really? Can *you* afford a new Prius? I can’t. On edmunds.com a used Prius hybrid runs from $20K to $30K. I can buy a *new* Ford Maverick pickup for $35K. Why would I want a used Prius that is less useful?
Get a grip, people. From Statista: In 2021 light trucks and automobiles sold in the U.S. included 15.3 million new and 43.1 million used. What do you think massive introduction of EVs into the market will do to people forced by economics to buy used? Goodbye American dream.
I think they make a horrible second car. In fact, make that a horrible ANY car.
My wife and I have two cars, and I wouldn’t want either of them to be so limited in usefulness as an EV is. ESPECIALLY given their cost, and propensity to ignite themselves (and anything nearby that burns).
For someone like Jay Leno, who has a garage, hell a BARN full of choices, an EV might be a nice “toy” for the “collection.” Preferably not parked near the others.
Normal folk aren’t going to find them very useful, and to the extent the auto makers get too enthused with trying to sell them without other (read: ICE) alternatives, they’re going to end up cratering their own industry.
What’s the service availability for Teslas and other EVs?
nailhead ==> Don’t know. I wouldn’t get one if there was not dealer within a reasonable drive, just as I would own a Mercedes in farm country.
“The governors of New York and New Jersey have pledged that by 2035 all new vehicles sold in their states must produce zero carbon emissions, and Connecticut is considering a similar rule.
The Moody Blues perhaps say it best….
The Moody Blues – Your Wildest Dreams – YouTube
“The governors of New York and New Jersey have pledged that by 2035…” they’ll be gone (if IRAs work out).
Readers ==> Will be back to handle your comments in the morning….
“I am totally opposed to the efforts to force companies to manufacture EVs or to force people to buy EVs – by any means whatever. Let the market prevail.”
That is my biggest gripe about EV’s is that the people driving and promoting them think they are saving the planet but in reality it is just another option for the consumer that is heavily subsidized by the government to attempt to level the playing field. Left alone in the market, EV’s would probably be a footnote in the history of automobile sales statistics.
Some of the first autos were EVs and a footnote in history, LOL.
The thing that puzzles me about the proposed restrictions on new cars is how it fits in with free interstate commerce For instance:
It would seem to me that even one hold out state could make a fortune in supplying the rest of the country.
old engineer ==> Who knows? I suspect the law applies to new car sales within the state. It does not outlaw ICE vehicles.
Any NY state legislators reading here? If so, please clarify. (Or anyone with the time and energy to research the question — for any of the states with announced restrictions on ICE car sales after a date.)
The interesting question is, what happens in all these jurisdictions when the ban on new ICE cars comes into force?
In the UK its due to happen in 2030, at which point new hybrids can still be sold. Then in 2035 all new sales must be EVs.
The first ban is only seven years away. Very difficult to forecast, but it must be possible that the result will be car sales fall off a cliff. Whether people will buy the ICE cars in volume in the later years up to 2030? Whether they will even be available, because manufacturers are going to have to switch over their production lines ahead of the cut-off date?
We are probably going to see a head on clash with reality in the UK, which will be accentuated by the concurrent attempt to move power generation to wind and solar.
The thing that is certain is that right now if you have a medium size ICE car in the UK, its going to cost twice as much or more to get an EV with comparable range and performance. And the age of old used cars running reasonably well for 5,000 or less will be over. What will the less well off do?
People say that most car trips are short distance, and they are. But consider the implications of the annual mass migration to Cornwall and similar destingations every spring and summer. That is going to have to stop, it simply won’t be possible for that number of people to refuel on the way.
It won’t just be that people can no longer afford cars, or can only afford them by reducing other purchases. The move also looks like it will bring very significant changes in social (that is, economic) behaviour.
And it also looks like not only will the cars cost double or more, the refuelling costs will also be higher. Wouldn’t want to be managing an auto company in the next few years. But also, wouldn’t want to be in government and a responsible Minister as the cliff gets closer and closer, and either alternative looks unacceptable. The dogma and the chorus of abuse from the Guardian and BBC and the London woke will not let you change the magic dates, and the reality will not let you keep on with them.
In Europe there was tepid initial resistance to the ban from Italy, Poland, and Bulgaria, which has now, as you alluded to in another comment, gained an ally in the form of Germany.
Germany has it’s own perfectly reasonable reasons for blocking the situation, not least being their interest in transitioning to synthetic fuels.
The reality of such an abrupt revolution such as banning ICE vehicles is beyond the competence of myopic idealists in the European parliament.
The chaos will be legendary.
Michel and Alpha ==> Ah, this is a slowly approaching train-wreck. We can see it coming, but cannot predict the exact outcomes.
The near-present dates, such as 2030, will be the first level test. I don’t believe that manufactures can produce sufficient numbers of PHEV or BEVs (plug-ins or battery) to meet new car sales demands by that date. The UK alone is expected to have new car sales near 2 million in 2024. 10 million in the EU, 14 million in the USA.
Currently they estimate that there are about 1.446 billion vehicles on Earth in 2022.
Today, there are an estimated 7 million EVs of all kinds in the world.
Thus, the math alone makes the task of adhering to those laws next to impossible.
Kip don’t know where you got the 7m figure from but in their Jan 2022 Commentary ‘Electric cars fend off supply challenges to more than double global sales’ the IEA estimated there were 16m EVs worldwide at the end of 2021.
However you are right about the impossibility of replacing over 1.4 bn ICEVs with EVs by 2050.
In their ‘Global EV Outlook 2022; Securing supplies for an electric future’ the IEA looked at the ‘Stated Policies’ and ‘Announced Pledges’ around the world and estimated there would be 200m – 250m EVs world wide by 2030 whereas the figure necessary to reach net zero was over 350m. Even the latter was optimistic in thinking EVs could replace the remaining billion ICEVs by 2050.
Dave ==> You are correct — I quoted EV sold in the most recent year and called it total EVs on the road. My error. (Too many numbers….) (-:
Two D-cells and a strip of duct tape?
Telegraph Headline:“Race to net zero drives up new car prices by £12,000Average cost rises 43pc in five years as electric models flood the market
They’re using the ‘flood’ word – are ‘UK floods‘ equivalent to ‘NYC explosions‘
We do see what it’s about, that £12K means £2,000 extra tax revenue for UK Exchequer.
And STILL the UK is bankrupt.
Meanwhile down at Tesco:”More empty shelves expected with food system ‘at breaking point’
About a year ago today, the farmers warned of this: They said they weren’t going to buy as much fertiliser and ‘Hope for a nice summer to make up yields’
And what happened: A drought happened, that’s what happened.
So where were The Computer Models?How could they possibly NOT see the drought coming. Why didn’t they suggest to Government that farmers should be ‘subsidised with fertiliser’ and so head this thing off?
And where was BoJo – crashed out on the sofa in front of the telly
Look at him now, demanding a knighthood for his father.
sigh. The memory’s going.
Over the last 10 days or so, ‘Cadent’ has been digging up the road outside my coffee shop.
Cadent being the organisation responsible for looking after the UK’s network of natural gas pipes.
And that’s what they were doing, replacing a section of old (15 inch dia cast-iron) pipe with some lovely new yellow plastic pipe. About 7 or 8 feet under the main road.
I kept a good eye on them, (holes in the ground fascinate me) and when they were nearly finished: Whoopeee, The Boss arrived to see how they were getting on
(Needn’t have bothered, I could have told him BUT, he had A Point To Make)
Hello John, got a new motor?
Was it it a wise point. I always knew to respect electricity vs water, but is this what Ms Shulman was alluding to: A mix of gas and electricity?
Research it. that “plastic” pipe you saw was probably some other material coated in plastic. Often metal (not copper unfortunately) utility pipes are coated for burial – except pvc drainpipe.
Kevin ==> about the pipe. ..our local utility, providing both gas and electric, recently replaced all of the underground main gas pipes in the local village. They used a pipe that is yellow on the outisde, and black on the inside. It is solid plastic all the way through. I know because I begged an 18″ cut off to use as a planter in the garden.
Something bad, somewhere, must be “surging”. For a while I copied headlines containing the word “surge” into one file. I deleted the file because reading it was a negative experience. Nothing good ever “surged”.
“Existential threat” is another one. Every threat during the past 3-5 years has been “existential”, especially climate-related threats. I think “existential threat”-ism might be due to mainstream cultural nihilism.
Re: ” Petroleum is far too valuable to society to waste it by burning it up in ICE engines in family cars. ”
Fischer–Tropsch process http://www.oilfieldwiki.com/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
Fischer–Tropsch process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
Coal liquefaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction
OVERVIEW OF COAL-TO-LIQUIDS: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
10.6. DIRECT LIQUEFACTION PROCESSES
Karlock ==> The liquefaction of coal is an interesting topic. The creation of liquid hydrocarbons (Fischer–Tropsch process) in possible but not very pragmatic, certainly not when you consider the vloume needed in modern society, which increases every passing minute.
Put the nuclear plant (SMR) at an old coal generating plant location.
All necessary water for cooling, railroad for delivery of the SMR vessels and COAL and power transmission lines are in place.
Most also have oil and/or natural gas pipeline(s) to the facility so that liquids or gas produced by one or more of the above processes can be PIPED out for use. Those that don’t have the rail line to haul the fuel out. Warren Buffett and the Democrats he donates to will prefer that to pipelines, communities at derailment locations be dammed.
Good article that I recommended to others but at 4am, when I first read the headline, I thought it said EVs were exploding, which would have been more exciting. Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
“I support the adoption of EVs, especially as family transportation.” In an article that was fair and balanced until that point, why make any recommendation? This was not a proper EV road test article that supported such a conclusion. How about recommending that people make their own choices?
Those choices, unfortunately, will be limited by the 2026 model EPA 49mpg corporate average fuel economy standard. The current EPA fine, likely to increase, is a $150 penalty for every mpg under the 49mpg requirement. For an ICE pickup truck getting 24mpg, that would be $150 times 25mpg (49mpg minus 24mpg = 25mpg) which is $3,750 of profit per vehicle down the drain.
The net profit margin on a Ford F150 pickup truck, the company’s most profitable vehicle, is about 15% of the average cost of about $45,000, or $6,750 per truck. Ford is not profitable, so there is no income tax on that profit. High volume F150 profits keep the company out of bankruptcy. A $3,750 EPA penalty would be a big deal for the company, and would get bad publicity too.
The least expensive EV most people would be interested in, considering the size and rang, is the Tesla Model 3 which has a MSRP of $42,990. That is a compact vehicle with low dependability (3 years in service) and low reliability (3 months in service), per J. D. Powers surveys.
An alternative is a larger mid-sized Toyota Camry LE Hybrid at $27,980, with a high dependability and reliability rating, and cheaper insurance too. The Camry hybrid gets 51mpg city and 53mpg highway.
Buying the Camry hybrid would save $15,010 up front.
$15,010 would buy 4288,6 gallons of gasoline at $3.50 a gallon.
4288.6 gallons of gasoline would take the Toyota 218,718,6 miles at 51mpg,
Conclusion: The lifetime cost of a Toyota Camry Hybrid would likely be less than a Tesla Model 3, assuming the Tesla batteries would last 218,718.6 miles.
That simple calculation does not incluse any adjustment for the income earned on the $15,010 upfront savings for the Toyota purchase … or interest costs on financing that extra $15,010 borrowed to for the Tesla purchase.
Or the obviously higher insurance costs for a $43k Tesla versus a 28k Toyota
I own a 2016 Toyota Camry and previously owned a 2005 Toyota Camry.
Richard ==> You don’t mention the Chevy Bolt, which at $25,600 is mostly affordable, has a decent range for an in-town run-about (278 miles according to Edmunds).
I can not explain why Ford’s F-150 is America’s best selling vehicle….bambozzles me, but it is and has been for 41 years.
I did not recommend anything, I just said I support the idea. And I do. For the reasons stated.
Ford F series is #1, but the GMC and Chevy trucks combined sell more.
The reason is people like trucks. I have owned a PU truck for most of my adult life, and I find I have NEEDED a truck often enough to make owning one worthwhile, and currently a diesel is essential since I have a 5th wheel that I tow regularly.
With a crew cab and a short-bed the F150 doubles as a passenger vehicle and a utility vehicle. Not the best for either but far better than an EV.
LOL, if the headline said “EVs are Exploding,” that would be more accurate and honest!
You’ve got to wonder haven’t you, what sort of money-grubbing trip Musk et al are on.
Meet Yudo Yunta: LiFePO4 batteries for lots and lots of charge/recharges and no catching fire.
I think you can only charge them at 0.5C, unlike LiIons that are OK for 1C charging
An extra 1,500USD gets you the 415kilometre (250 miles) version
Pre-sale Starts In China At 13,400 USD
Peta ==> Interesting…and the price, in China, is right. Again, for Americans, the range is a limiting factor.
I couldn’t find anything suggesting it will be sold in the USA.
Dear Mr. Kip,
I live in the rural South. My relatives live 3-5 hours away from me. That’s about 230 – 350 miles away. Because of the heat and humidity, air conditioning is used most of the time even in cold weather. So, how long would it take me to drive these distances with an electric vehicle? What do I do if my relatives do not live anywhere near any EV chargers?
George ==> Perfect — and those are the questions Americans should be asking their legislators about EV mandates.
My answer is “You’re stuffed!”
You can drive to your relatives in the same amount of on-the-road time….but for the furthest relative, you’d probably have to stop for a charge (while being forced to eat a McDonalds hamburger while you wait) depending on the exactly model of EV you had. You’d have to stay overnight if using the built-in 120v 15-amp charging system in the car.
However, if you were a two-car family — one an open road ICE SUV and one an about-town EV, you’d take the SUV for the visit.
Just no accounting for personal opinion.
ATheoK ==> Ah, but it is a solid opinion! 95% of the time, a little Chevy Bolt EV would suit my little two-elderly-person family. Even with winters here.
In the past, when I was working, we were always a two-car family — one for wife and kids, one for work-a-day Dad and family vacations. For a period, we also had a motorhome, and other periods a pull-behind camping trailer. (And, of course, we still have the 42 ft 4-cabin catamaran cruising sail boat…just in case).
It is that other 5% of the driving that would need that dependable ICE workhorse SUV.
People’s needs are massively variable, even within a single family over time.
Remember, I speak of the EV (PHEV or BEV) as the in-town run-about vehicle, with a ICE for other longer duties.
That will change once EVs are required to pay their “fair share” of excise taxes. Among European countries, fuel excise taxes, with few exceptions, are half of the pump price of fuel, some places much more. Governments will sooner or later be forced to levy some equivalent amount from EVs to make up for increasing revenue shortfalls. One more reason why EVs won’t be so cheap to operate after all.
pflashgordon ==> EVs will have their place in the world. Personaly, I don’t think we will be able to transition 100% to EV, without some technical breakthroughs and a lot of spending on infrastructure upgrades. Nor should we….
The problem is that even if I never buy an EV for my own use, I am paying for others to own EVs through my tax dollars by providing tax credits for their EV purchase, purchase of an ICE vehicle at higher cost due to the manufacturer must buying O mpg credits from an EV manufacturer to meet CAFE standards and my gas taxes building and repairing roads the EVs use without paying their fair share.
Wrong is just wrong. Everything to do with EVs is just wrong.
Some key points on BEVs.
The way to get a higher market share is to command it, increase subsidies well beyond $7,500, or regulate/tax ICE cars out of existence. The left is trying all these ways and none of them are market driven.
kvt1100 ==> Yes, as I said, only the top income 1/3 of families can afford even 1 Tesla BEV (or equivalent).
However, there are a lot of Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid electrics sold in the USA…and I am shocked by the number of people in my personal circle that own one. However, sales lagged last year. All PHEV Prius owners that I know personally just use them as ICE cars — they do not plug them in at night, just gas them up at the Shell or Mobile station.
Your data shows that 65% of families have two or more vehicles. This is lower outside of big cities where there are many families that own none, which drags down the averages.
However, if your family is going to own two cars, and over 90% of daily trips, outside of daily commute to work, is done within 15 miles of home. Most golf carts could fill that bill. In fact, in many Florida communities, families have one car and one battery-powered golf cart!
Tour-du-force of fact providing.
“Ownership … cars … New York City”
Kevin ==> Yes, the subway and the buses and the Ubers and Lyfts are why many NY city residents don’t own a car.
My aquaintences there find it cheaper to to taxi in the city if in a hurry, and to rent a car for a weekend trip to Vermont.
I suspect the market for your used EV will be non-existent given the cost of replacement batteries.
DWM ==> Maybe, but there are a lot of used EVs advertised for sale, at CarMax and cars.com, mostly PHEVs.
Kip, IIRC PHEVs are to be banned by the autocrats (pun intended). [Did I just start a new meme? I haven’t seen autocrat used in that manner.]
That’s horribly outdated thinking. Nobody making only $50k has any business buying a $25k car, especially if they finance it.
If you can’t pay cash for it, you can’t afford it. There’s a massive debt problem in this world, and it’s not just at the government level.
renbutler ==> Not my fault — that is a finance-world consensus position, and, YES, too many people buy cars that they can’t really afford. (houses, too, which they can afford even less).
This is a rule in our family (just my wife and I, not with our kids) “If you can’t pay cash for it, you can’t afford it” — but on the few occasions we have bought a new car we have always taken advantage of the financial incentives offered by the manufacturer (cash discounts, zero interest periods) if financed through the corporate finance arm. These come with a requirement to make a minimum number of monthly payments, after which one can (and we alwasy did) pay off the loan with cash.
I admit, not many working people can do that.
Right, I understand you didn’t come up with the 50% rule — that’s just the old “rule of thumb.” I just think it needs to be updated. As for 0%, it isn’t always really 0%. But I’m sure banks LOVE EVs, because they’re sold as a way to save money on gas, even though most buyers are likely paying huge amounts of interest on the massive sticker prices.
Thanks for the reply.
Electric vehicles are experiencing explosive growth similar to Betamax.
“For electric vehicles to proliferate further in the future, we need electric vehicles that are affordable to the masses, which will be a challenge because the cost of the minerals used in the batteries have skyrocketed in price. We need electric vehicles with longer range. We need an expanded electric vehicle charging network.
he average new car sold for $49,507 in the United States at the end of last year, but the average fully electric car cost 24 percent more — $61,448, according to data provider Kelley Blue Book
50% rule then would say ICE buyers income was 100K. EV buyer 122.
50% rule is a bad guesstimate
“which will be a challenge because the cost of the minerals used in the batteries have skyrocketed in price”
We need electric vehicles with longer range nope
average driving for 1 week is 260 miles.
if EV will work fine unless you live in wyoming or alabama
after 2030 people will have to buy ICE cars with a Spare parts package, as ICE will be outlawed by 2035
‘We need an expanded electric vehicle charging network.
you sound like Joe Biden its T ends in A has esl in the middle
Mosher ==> The quote you open with is from the Times piece, Shulman quoting Michelle Krebs, an executive analyst at Cox Automotive.
Krebs is not the only person in the world worried about EV battery materials cost and availability. She expresses a widely held concern.
As for range, it is the limited range of smaller (non-Tesla) EVs that lead to my expressed idea that they make fine second- and/or around-town cars.
I don’t know where you grew up, but I grew up in Los Angeles and could almost use up my “260 miles” weekly average allotment on a single Friday Night date. And it certainly would be exhausted by my usual weekly summer Saturday Surf Safari — not counting my 30 miles a day, five days a week, commute to and from work, even as a teenager.
The “average driving for 1 week is 260 miles” is a fine example of how using “averages” can totally distort a reality. If we can trust the polls on why people don’t buy EVs, Americans (who are considered by many non-Americans to be all involved in a Car Cult of some sort) want to be able to jump in their car and go go go. Not just a couple of hundred miles — they want to stop for a bathroom visit, fill up, and go go go even more.
[That’s me, as a teenager, using the mobility of my first car as a therapy tool to fight teenage angst and depression.]
My current car, a Nissan Rogue Sport, can go 500 miles on tank of gas and takes less than 5 minutes to refill. That, sir, is the American expectation.
However, if my wife needed a car — say if I [shudder] were to go back to work — I would get her something akin to the Chevy Bolt EV.
Kip, you say you’re bamboozled by how the F150 is so popular. One guess I have is that so many people (especially men) are into sports such as fishing, hunting, boating, camping, where a pickup is almost a requirement to do these things. Over the last decade Ford (likely followed by the other manufacturers) has concentrated on making super crew pickups which can be used as a family vehicle.
In our case we just picked up our new 2022 F150, our third, since we have a small fifth wheel trailer which has seen most of the US and Canada. Five years ago the F150 became our only vehicle and we’re on or second one with the economical 2.7 EB motor.
I agree with your statement about borrowing. We only have done so for vehicles and mortgage. In fact with interest rates rising we lucked into .99% financing for our new truck and I’m in no rush to pay it off since I can make more investing.
Living in a small border town 100km from a large city an EV would make little sense for us. Our daughter and family will be moving to California in two years and son-in-law is considering buying a Tesla, thinking it would be cheaper than gas, but I hope electricity prices there don’t go through the roof which I suspect they may if they keep going their nut zero route.
Tomsa ==> Thanks for your personal experience withe F-150…my son owns one as well , and is young enough to use it as a camper when he puts his extra tall cap over the bed.
-The bottom line is that, in fact, electric vehicles are just a rich man’s toy. As C. Douglas Golden recently said: “Listen to certain people and electric vehicles come across like
magical unicorns that run on fairy dust and can do anything you want them to — including
powering your house”. He’s dead right. They can’t possibly meet the present
needs of people living in advanced, civilized countries. They are just a psychopathic
fantasy of leftist lunatics. People will suffer and be made to circumvent or flout
the law in order to live if and when the new draconian, anti-ICE regulations are
brought into effect. Or else mass suffering and chaos will ensue.