Biden To Spend $7.5 Billion on Chargers That Electric Car Owners Likely Won't Use
It's unwise to try to force consumer spending habits in defiance of the market.

As part of its recently passed infrastructure bill, the Biden administration plans to spend $7.5 billion building 500,000 chargers for electric vehicles. But will drivers actually want to use those chargers?
The two biggest impediments to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles are the vehicles' range and their upfront cost. Right now there are only five varieties of electric vehicles with a range of more than 350 miles per charge, and none of them retail for a base price of less than $47,000. And while the Build Back Better Act passed by the House last month contains tax rebates for new electric vehicle purchases, none of the five qualify for the full amount. For comparison, a base model Ford Focus costs considerably less and can go further on a full tank of gas.
Conveniently placed vehicle chargers could mitigate the range issue: Ideally, a trip to a charger would simply replace a trip to the fuel pump. But the Biden plan is unlikely to fix this problem. There are two types of public vehicle chargers, Level 2 and Level 3. (Level 1 uses a standard power outlet.) Level 2 chargers produce around 25 miles of range per hour, meaning that a full charge from empty could take five hours or longer. Level 3 chargers produce considerably more power, and can charge some vehicles from empty to 80 percent in as little as 15 minutes. But while Level 2 chargers cost less than $3,000 apiece, Level 3 chargers cost as much as $140,000 each to build. There is no indication which the administration prefers, but if it plans to build 500,000 for $7.5 billion, it's almost certainly going to have to settle for Level 2 chargers.
With or without the Biden plan, electric vehicles are becoming more attractive: While they still cost more at purchase, they seem to cost less to maintain. With further competition among automakers bringing prices closer to what it would cost to buy a gas-powered car, many consumers will surely welcome the prospect of skipping trips to the pump—provided the charging technology advances as well. But if the long-term goal is to get more people to make the switch, then those cars have to function like the gas-powered cars people have now. Spending billions on chargers that take an entire afternoon to charge a vehicle is not the way to do that.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Central planning always works so well so I don’t get the skepticism.
Exactly. Just because electric car owners won't use them doesn't mean OTHER car owners won't use them. Right?
We’re far better off sticking with ICE cars. Keep them and get rid of the democrats.
◄ WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►
★I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly $30k, this online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I…go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart…
══════HERE► ........... Visit Here
It was all tried by the 1930s. Alt fuels, solid fuels, radial engines, 2 stroke, ELECTRIC CARS...
Nothing else works for long range mass transportation except what we use now, ICSs on liquid hydrocarbon fuel.
Internal Combustion Engines, Lichty PHd, 1939
I'm waiting for the quota to be in pounds, or charge rate, and some wise guy to game the bidding by building a few chargers which recharge the NSS Enterprise in 5 minutes flat.
"The free market is ugly and stupid, like going to the mall; the unfree market is just as ugly and just as stupid, except there is nothing in the mall and if you don't go there they shoot you."
-P.J. O'Rourke
It works - if your goal is distributing some of that sweet sweet fascist cash.
Point.. Its palm greasing and vote buying.
His party cant win without cheating.
We see their idealogical failures!
I would prefer to see the failure of their autonomic functions. Then all these problems go away.
Honestly gunning to saturate the market with more level 2 chargers is the best strategy here: they are vastly cheaper than level 3 chargers and deliver real options bro EV drivers on how they can refuel their vehicles, especially in underserved areas where finding a charging station can be a very difficult proposition.
Key here should be location: if level 2 chargers are near places your likely to stop at for a long time (a shopping center, park trail, museum, marketplace, etc) then the issues of charging time can be mitigated significantly.
There should also be options available for what kind of level 2 chargers are built as the 25 per hours the article is talking about is essentially an average. Most powerful level 2 chargers can put about 80 miles an hour onto a EV, which at that level means about 2-3 hours of charge will give most drivers more than enough range to get back on the road.
More level 2's also give better options to more drivers where before the only option available was either very expensive electricity via faster level 3 or nothing at all. More level 2's help fix this market place option shortcoming and Allows ev owners to decide how much their time is worth (that is choosing a type 2 vs type 3 charger).
Overall weird piece: I think a lot of ev drivers would very much appreciate and use more level 2 chargers, and the idea of building more level 2 chargers is actually good planning not bad.
You really missed the point of the article (and this site). Why is the gov doing ANY of this?
bc the Free Market wont. They know its a bad deal.
The best plan is to eliminate all EV incentives, keep government out of installing chargers, and stop carbon credits. Carbon credits being nothing more than environmental indulgences.
I’m not here to be abrasive, to the contrary I’m genuinely reading all the comments to understand everyone’s viewpoints, opinions, etc. That said, I feel obligated to point out that this post is just flat out wrong. First off, charging should always be measured in battery capacity (kWh) vs mileage, since the latter is specific to each car model just like gas powered vehicles. But bottom line is: no level 2 charger produces anything close to 80 miles per hour charged. Level 2 chargers use 240 volt electrical lines, and typically range from 20-40 amps. The simple math means this range equates to 240x20 = 4,800 watts / 1,000 = 4.8 kWh, up to 24x40 = 9,600 watts / 1,000 = 9.6kWh, and to be honest the latter is rare. Most level 2 chargers produce about 6.6 kWh, which for most cars equates to about 15-20 miles per hour of charging. And this is in ideal weather. If it’s very hot or very cold these chargers will produce a fraction of this. So if in ideal weather your EV battery has a range of 200 miles, and you have a 50% battery charge when you pull up to the charger, you’d have to be plugged in for approx 5-7 hours to top off (to 100%). I concede that if you’re lucky enough to find a charger at a mall, maybe you could charge for a few hours while you’re running errands or seeing a movie. But anything beyond that is not practical. I’m a strong believer that a large portion of charging will be done at home, especially for people living outside dense urban areas where that may not be possible. But if you’re making any kind of trip the ONLY chargers that make any sense at all are level 3 chargers. For the transformation to EVs to fully take hold, a nationwide network of Level 3 chargers will need to be in place over the next several (say 5) years. Beyond that, these will then need to be upgraded to the point where charging your car takes no more time than filling up a tank of gas. Ford has already submitted a patent for this technology, although it’s still early.
Level 3 chargers are what it’ll take to help mobilize electric cars. But really it’s the battery tech and affordability. Biden’s administration doesn’t want to approach any of this from a sensible position. There’s so much change coming for battery tech and electric vehicles in the next 5 years - why blow so much money on chargers. If they’re Level 3 then maybe it’s not a waste but Level 2? Lol no thanks.
false.
Battery tech has little to do with it except preventing vehicle fires.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to supply mass electrical power on current power plants and grids for even a small percentage of mass transportation.
Its trillions of KWh
This is spot on. The battery tech will continue to improve (better charging in extreme temperatures, faster charging capacity, etc).
The problem that many of the comments here are people flat out resisting the move to EVs, but it’s not an If, it’s a When. And really, we already know the When. Many manufacturers, and even states, have said they are phasing out gas powered cars by 2030-2035. We need to come up with real solutions fast. Level 2 chargers are a bad strategy for battery life and really only practical for commuters to have at workplaces. Battery life is dependent on, among other things, the number of charge cycles, so the issue of speed/convenience aside, constantly plugging in to slow chargers to get 5, 10, 20% charge is not a real solution.
Congratulations to the author of this article. The amount of time he spent researching it is longer than the administration spent thinking this proposal through.
That comes out to $15k per charger. I don't know how that compares tk normal instalation
Manchin called for more investment in his coal mining stock and his buggy whip manufacturer.
barely sarcasm.
6p% of electricity is coal generated
The world’s largest coal mining firm is to "aggressively" pursue solar energy and continue to close smaller mines.
The materials to MAKE solar panels require mining that is far more damaging to the environment than coal mining is.
STRIP MINING. Silicone cones from SiO2 in the Earths crust. Topsoil.
Then ask about the toxic alloy elements like arsenic, gallium etc...
You have to kill the earth to save it!
Well the Greenies have solved the problem of toxic lithium mining. by blocking it everywhere it is proposed. They are also blocking copper mines.
The EV revolution is going to be epic.
that only helps their Agenda 21. To de industrialize the US.
They want that.
Now, Uber- horseback!
You mean The Wests' largest coal mining firm or are you literally parroting PRC's talking points?
The West's
I’m totally for this as long as it’s laid for by organ harvesting you democrats.
Manchin called for less spending, period.
That's full price, plus $1k per charger for the cronies. That $.5B scraped off the top. Not a bad grift.
The whole thing is just a reward for political allies of the democrats.
When a private company puts in a Level 2 charger, it costs $3k and takes a couple days to complete.
When the federal government puts in a Level 2 charger, it takes 3 months to complete, costs $15k, and breaks down next Tuesday.
Keep in mind that the price includes the diesel generator required to run the charger.
Racist!
I’m not pro big govt, but Chargepoint and other private chargers tend to be garbage. I’m an ev owner and frequent user. The whole system needs to improve, and quickly.
"But while Level 2 chargers cost less than $3,000 apiece, Level 3 chargers cost as much as $140,000 each to build."
These are all solar powered, correct?
Solar, except for the slave labor required to acquire any rare earth metals for manufacture. Green energy is so progressive, everybody works for free.
Yes. The Sun makes coal, oil and water cycles for hydro power.
The Level 3 chargers can be all solar powered because no one ever needs a fast recharge after 3 pm, before 9 am, on a cloudy day, or when there's snow on the solar panels, and because there are always square miles of space for solar panels near a freeway exit. But even with all those problems, solar-powered charging stations might work out better than building charging stations with several Level 3 stalls plus new power lines to the new power plants that will be needed to provide the power to charge all those cars.
in the dark or cloudy days?
Shirley you jest
“All those cars”? It’s a solution trying to solve a problem that would exist if more people took advantage of the tax rebates which subsidize the EV manufacturers.
This makes no sense. Yes, of course people travel and need supercharging at all hours. Commuters likely do not. But not everyone works 9-5 at an office. And solar power can be stored in battery packs, it doesn’t go to waste if not used real-time. That said, we’re talking about alot of electricity required for supercharging, and solar alone would be a very difficult to solve solution for all of it.
No, they’re exclusively powered by democrat feelz and intentions.
Why not build cars with exchangeable batteries? Pull into the station, a robot pulls your dead pack, slots in a charged one, you pay and drive away? Probably because they can't compete with the price of gasoline. Wait for politicians to fix that...
Why not exchange your (rented) *car*? You know, like the electric scooters.
Why not exchange your (rented) *car*?
Once self-driving cars reach an acceptable performance level this will be the general use. Very few people will own their own cars.
All part of the left's plan to limit mobility to state-sanctioned means.
Indeed. Better we plan to dispose of the left.
There no reason to believe fleets of self-driving taxis will be government owned.
No, the democrats will just make sure that the only approved businesses are owned by party members in good standing.
So you are on a road trip and you plan to exchange your rented car when the battery gets low. You pull into the rental lot, do some paperwork, get the keys to a fully-charged car and prepare to move all your luggage, food, drink, and electronic devices to the other car - but then you discover that the previous renters left food, drink, and substances you'd rather not identify spilled on the seats.
Or you get pulled over by the cops in one of those tiny towns that funds their government on traffic fines, etc., extorted from travelers from out of state. Their drug-sniffing dog alerts, and after 2 hours of pulling the car apart, they find drugs in a secret compartment. But hey, if you have good enough credit to rent a car in the first place, you can make bail - and the cop hints that no one will be looking for you if you never come back and forfeit the bail...
Seriously doubt a self driving car will be taking me on 50 miles of gravel roads to go elk hunting.....piss off.
Those roads are all slated for closure. Only rich guys getting helicoptered in are going to bag that elk.
Only the party elite, and their wealthy donor friends.
Those are the king's elk.
Some Teslas have over 45 bolts to join battery to the auto - which can be reused maybe ten times without wear or stripping. And no two OEM’s make the same battery pack. Logistically impractical.
We’re basically switching to EVs for the sake of switching to EVs.
Because these batteries are huge. The Tesla batteries weigh at or over a thousand pounds and cost $5-6,000. Exchanging them would be time consuming, require huge amounts of specialized equipment, and who would take the chance of their brand-new battery being replaced by one on its last legs?
https://themotordigest.com/how-much-do-tesla-batteries-weigh/
Anyone who suggests this as a serious alternative does not understand the nature of these vehicles.
Yeah, I had the same idea as Jima until I really thought about it and looked into what it would entail. With fast chargers an EV can be ready to go in 20-30 minutes. It would probably take more time to swap out the batteries, and like you said who knows what you're gonna get.
Plus, the new engineering Tesla is doing is to make the battery pack a structural component. They are pushing to eliminate parts... And the new Model Y has 3 pieces that form the entire frame. The front and rear are huge castings and the center third is a battery sandwich.
This makes manufacturing much faster and reduces costs. You could not swap batteries on this.
If it's a structural component, what happens when the battery goes bad in about 3 years? Do you pay $5,000 for a new battery and another $5,000 for disassembling and reassembling the entire car, or do you have to replace the car?
If it's the latter, remember that melting a car down and remaking it will have considerable carbon emissions - I think more than a Tesla can save over an internal-combustion engine car in the life-time of the first battery pack.
"what happens when the battery goes bad"
The day when we start to find out is rapidly approaching.
Tesla warrants battery degradation to 70% original capacity in 8 years or 100,000 to 150,000 miles depending on the model. At least one Tesla went to 300,000 miles before needing a battery replacement. This article has some interesting scatter diagrams of degradation seen in all Tesla vehicles up to 2017:
https://electrek.co/2020/06/06/tesla-battery-degradation-replacement/
"Tesla warrants battery degradation to 70% original capacity in 8 years"
Meaning that you could suffer a loss of almost a third of your normal range and Tesla won't help you a bit.
Oh yeah, on average cars are scrapped with about 200,000 miles or 11 years of use.
It also runs into the 'Network Effects' retardation that Jim Poole keeps punching himself in the face with, as well as discrete reduction errors. To compete directly with superchargers, your battery station is going to have to keep a stock of 24-48 extra batteries on hand for any given day. Sure, you could probably get by with less, but your charger will continue to run while your swap station is out of batteries and, more critically, Tesla has to produce more batteries to stay competitive. Similarly, if you only need half a tank of gas or half a charge, the service station or supercharger has got you covered where as the swap station is, one way or the other, going to fuck you over (or themselves get fucked over or... well let's just say Tesla and Elon are at the back of the 'get fucked' line).
DoT regulations require a mechanical mount designed to 20x the fuel ( cell, tank etc) weight. (IIRC)
That must be tied into the vehicles frame for crash safety.
Aint happenin, Captain.
And the newer battery packs are structural components, reducing weight, complexity and manufacturing time.
Making them hot swappable would require entirely different design choices
Cant do it with the current design philosophy of hydro formed frames welded.
Here's a thought - design the vehicle upfront with the intent of exchanging batteries. I'm not talking about your neighbor Bob's Tesla in the driveway right now. Make exchangeable battery packs a design goal, pick a few standardized configurations and go. Think a little deeper than the paint job fer chrissakes!
Just stick with ICE. At least until better technology is available. This whole thing is a big leftist push.
That's definitely the winning pick for now. If they ever actually come out with some breakthrough battery tech one day, then revisit the electric car idea.
Just keep gas powered cars.
“Get a horse!”
Nope. ICE doesn’t have all these problems. ICE wasn’t pushed through massive government welfare for corporations. ICE wasn’t required by government mandates. Horses weren’t pushed into obsolescence by crushing federa and state regulations.
if the long-term goal is to get more people to make the switch, then ... chargers that take an entire afternoon to charge a vehicle is not the way to do that.
If, OTOH, the long-term goal is to get people to travel less, ....
Only the hoi polloi. Our elite leaders will continue zip around in private jets, limousines, and luxury train compartments solving existential problems and saving the world!
Yep, when Joe and Nancy and Chucky start riding their butts around in electric powered limos, then I'll consider buying an electromobile.
I’m sure they will. At taxpayer expense. That’s why it won’t matter to them. They don’t have to pay for anything. Not like us.
Covid restrictions!
Government spending isn’t for what average people need, it’s for what the ruling elite wants. Their luxury cars need charging stations, so you and I will pay for them.
There will be a bunch of level 3 stations around DC and Silicon Valley and a lot if cheap useless stations everywhere else for political posturing.
Ford calling that slot-racer station wagon a Mustang hurts my soul
To be fair, the name cybertruck was already taken.
Ford Virtue
I hate that my new habit of reading details of a government spending plan is to look for the trillion mark. If I see billion, I feel, for a second or two, better about it.
Let’s go Brandon
Nothing is free. Who knew?
Tax cut for the rich? Although they might have to peel off a little to lawmakers to keep it coming in.
SALT on your wounds.
It seems to me that the "market" is taking good care re the availability of charging stations. I see them everywhere.. at most of the supermarkets, some drug stores, theaters, etc. In those places where they have more than one charger, I have never seen them all being used at once.
Of course, just because it isn't a problem, doesn't mean the government won't try to fix it.
In those places where they have more than one charger, I have never seen them all being used at once.
Several places I go where there are a half-dozen chargers and I've never seen more than one being used. It's almost like the market didn't necessitate such a surplus...
Last time I went to Trader Joe's (their medium roast coffee is really fucking good) I saw a couple cars plugged in.
In my suburban Houston area, I rarely see charging stations. And I've never seen any at Kroger, HEB, Target, the mall, strip malls with World Market, etc. And certainly not Buc-ee's lol.
You know, places that real people go.
Whatever. They'll pry our gas cars from us just like they'll get all the guns "out of the hands of criminals".
There are a few on the richer section of Katy and Sugarland. Almost always empty. It's effectively reserved parking for owners of certain expensive luxury sportscars
Hey, there’s a market for fake charging ports for gasoline cars there. All the parking convenience of an electric car without the hassle or expense of actually driving one.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that none ever get used. I more meant to imply that the Trader Joe's I drive by has like 6 stations and is never more than half full. While the Bank of America, across the street, also has 6 stations are virtually never occupied and the two stations at the strip mall on the other corner are never more than half full. Admittedly, most of the gas pumps I see sit unoccupied most of the time too. Of course, it doesn't take 20-30 min. to fill up a car.
You should go some of the places that I go.
Kettleman City, CA, is on the main north-south highway in the state. The charging station there often has a line of Teslas, each waiting their turn to sit for half an hour or longer, because unless they charge up, those cars aren't going to get to the next plug.
There's a guy near me who had (has?) an open bet that he can start in the Bay Area in his car at the same time that a Tesla owner starts in his/her electromobile, both drive the speed limit, and he will be checked into his hotel in Salt Lake City and finished with dinner before the Tesla driver even gets into Utah. I guess there are only a handful of public plugs along I-80 (one of the three most-traveled east-west highways in the country). and they often have waiting lines.
Is this a "market"? Or is a government paying them to have these? Or is a car manufacturer paying them because the government requires X number of stations per locality to qualify for subsidies?
The market is not working well at all as you yourself indicate without saying so. EV are only selling at the luxury end. Charging stations are only built where luxury EV drivers visibly want to go. There is a big chicken-egg problem. Exemplified by the theme of this article - that gummint should be focused on increasing subsidies and infrastructure to the luxury EV class via 'fast-charger' stations.
There are 35,500 EV stations in CA - 5,200 in TX - 200 in MT. 80,000 total in the US compared to 800,000 in China and 37,000 in NL. As long as EV drivers can't really 'go from anywhere - to anywhere', then there is no mass market for EV cars. EV car makers aren't going to build out charging infrastructure. Utilities could - but there is a huge difference between electric utilities NOW and gasoline companies in 1910 (when gas stations began to build out). In 1911, Standard Oil was broken up and each of those pieces decided to create their own brand to the public - via gas stations. THAT (not the previous Standard Oil) created gas station infrastructure. There is nothing on the horizon now that indicates NEW electric company consumer-facing competition.
We don't DO infrastructure in the US. We do subsidies and cronyism. If we were to do infrastructure, it would focus on normal charging (fast charging is for the market to create and price) and it would focus on geographic distribution. If we did post offices rather than postal delivery, those would be great nodes for federal EV stations. But postal delivery is not infrastructure and we don't do infrastructure.
I beat all 200 on MT are in Bozeman and Missoula.
Very few EV's even in Missoula. In fact I've never even noticed a charging station, Lived here since '78.
Is there a reason I can't find the carbon impact of making one of those massive batteries? You know, including the rare earth mining, manufacture, ocean shipping, and local distribution?
Because it is literally zero like the cost of BBB. No need to put a number to something that feels so good.
True. Which is all that matters to a democrat. I have a cousin who voted for Obama because of all the awesome things he said. She would say “he makes my heart sing!”. Which made sense because she is an ignorant moron. With no interest in understanding anything.
I think this is the case for the majority of democrats. They’re ignorant, soft headed fools, who don’t want to think for themselves. Little more than useful idiots. The real problem are the minority that are committed marxists. They need to go. And soon.
I did find this a while back (I seemed to have lost the link), which addresses that question. Make of it what you will.
'“The Argonne National Laboratory ran a side-by-side comparison of hybrid and conventional vehicles over their entire life cycle, which includes vehicle production, vehicle operation and the energy required to produce fuel for both cars. If you assume that both vehicles travel 160,000 miles (257,495 kilometers) over their lifetime, the conventional vehicle requires 6,500 Btu of energy per mile compared to 4,200 Btu per mile for a hybrid. That higher energy input results in far greater lifetime greenhouse gas emissions for conventional vehicles compared to hybrids, more than 1.1 pounds (500 grams) per mile compared to 0.75 pounds (340 grams) per mile [source: Burnham et al].”'
Note: When talking about “plug-in” hybrids, however, AND if your home electrical power is provided by a coal-powered plant, this pretty much goes out the window. Of course, coal-powered plants are slowly becoming extinct. (The percentage of electrical energy produced by coal has halved in the last twenty years)
More to the point: batteries which based on are most definitely not, IMO, the long-term solution. But we may see a change in that quite soon: batteries based on carbon nano-tubes are supposed to go into production from a couple of outfits (initially for cell-phones), within the next two-to-three years. Carbon is rather common.
And, to be fair to the mining of cobalt and lithium, we also cannot pretend that petroleum "mining" also has drawbacks.
The biggest source of carbon for manufacturing currently is... Wait for it... Coal.
And, again, the engine that can both utilize the electrical storage properties of carbon nanotubes as well as consuming the nanotubes themselves for energy would, all else being equal, have superior functionality to either/or engines.
Greater freedom comes offering solutions, no proscribing them.
I just find the idiots who think changing to EVs and renewable energy will end the need to drill for oil or mine coal. Hydrocarbons will always have a use, if for no other reason than they are great big fucking chains of carbon.
And carbon has so many uses in today's world.
All of history. It would be one thing if they were trying to dial back smartphone technology after the invention of the Blackberry, but they're essentially trying to undo fire.
The bulk fabrication of nanotube carbon is a nut that hasn't been cracked just yet.
I was thinking more along the lines of BTTF's "Mr. Fusion" where the engine that runs on everything from banana peels to beer cans is demonstrably superior to both wall chargers and ICEs. Admittedly, we aren't even close, but the market seems to be moving decidedly away from something like a solar/wind/biofuel hybrid where I can travel pretty much anywhere I want to with a little sun, a little wind, a can of gas, *or* some used french fry oil.
the battery is irrelevant.
There is ZERO chance of generating and transporting multiple trillions of KWh to power MASS transportation.
Zero. Zip Nada.
Perhaps we can reduce emissions by burning democrats for grid energy, thus reducing coal consumption. This should be beta tested in blue states.
The Argonne National Laboratory ran a side-by-side comparison of hybrid and conventional vehicles over their entire life cycle, which includes vehicle production, vehicle operation and the energy required to produce fuel for both cars.
I'm not saying they didn't include disposal costs, but if they didn't, that is an incomplete analysis.
"I'm not saying they didn't include disposal costs, but if they didn't, that is an incomplete analysis."
True. The number of facilities designed to recycle and reuse these batteries is limited, but growing.
Extremely toxic lithium.
Itll end when they have a couple facility fires and discover the environmental costs of a fraction % of lithium lost to the atmosphere.
Lithium is EXTREMELY toxic to humans. CNS damage.
Lithium is toxic, but I would not call it extremely toxic. We use it as a drug to treat various mood disorders. With acute oral doses of about 2 gm per day and maintenance doses of about half that. It takes a pretty substantial amount, taken chronically, to develop any permanent toxicity.
Let's not forget that it is a naturally occurring rare earth metal, and can even be found in fairly high concentrations in some natural spring waters. So, even in the case of an accident the solution to pollution is indeed dilution. The main problem with lithium is that we will never be able to mine and refine enough to meet our demands.
Not unless we drastically reduce individual energy consumption to third world levels, that is...
Youre lying.
You made a deliberately false comparison between pure concentrated lithium in batteries and microscopic amounts in pills.
Im not as stupid as you look.
Yeah, it’s not the same thing. EV batteries are not easily recycled, and are highly toxic.
Never said otherwise. But it's not really the lithium that makes them problematic. It's that the lithium is in the form of hexafluorophosphate and cobalt salts.
Now those are toxic as hell.
e.g.
Potassium chloride can be toxic, but requires pretty decent doses to cause problems. Meanwhile potassium cyanide is deadly in minute quantities.
Meaning the potassium is not really the issue. Likewise it's really not the lithium in the batteries that is the problem.
Lithium polymer batteries are extremely toxic. That’s a proven fact, not speculation. You need to educate yourself.
Theyre made of ground Unicorns.
No carbon costs.
Take 50% of the cost of any product, multiply by the cost of oil, and you’re in the ballpark.
Ideally, a trip to a charger would simply replace a trip to the fuel pump.
Except filling up with gasoline takes 2 minutes, while charging up your car takes 2 hours or more, if the grid isn't down because the windmills froze up.
Yeah, we are traveling to see the in laws for Christmas. It is 869 miles and a 15 hour drive (depending on the roads, which is always iffy traveling through the northern Rockies in winter time). Technically I could get by with one fuel up for the trip if I started with a full tank, but generally I like to keep it above half a tank when traveling in the winter. We'll probably stop in Butte or Missoula for the night (ugh Butte). So, it'll be a two day trip. With electric vehicles it would probably be closer to three days.
Not true. It might add 3 hours at most.
Not true.
I’ve done it.
Did you factor in the subzero temperatures we usually experiment this time of year? You've driven from Culbertson, MT to Priest River ID at the height of winter?
Who would want to do that?
Won't be subzero until the way back. The arctic air arrives Sunday/Monday. EV's are worthless in the winter at present, Haven't heard about how the newer types of batteries do in the cold. Then again miracle batteries have constantly promised and have yet to appear.
Extreme cold is no match for a new battery.
The rechargeable cells still work even at –70° C. The new battery, described online February 28 in Joule, contains a special kind of electrolyte that allows ions to flow easily between electrodes even in the bitter cold. The researchers also fitted their battery with electrodes made of organic compounds, rather than the typical transition-metal-rich materials. Ions can lodge themselves in this organic material without having to strip off the electrolyte material stuck to them. So these organic electrodes catch and release ions more easily than electrodes in normal batteries, even at low temps.
Don’t forget the added resistance of driving through snow. That can really reduce fuel economy.
Ideally, a trip to a charger would simply replace a trip to the fuel pump.
"Ideally" in one hand and shit in the other and see which gets full first.
Ideally, the government wouldn't collect gas taxes and subsidize ICEs and, yet, here we are.
subsidize ICEs
Subsidize EVs...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljd-vxxjrvA
Charging Stations should be located at SuperMarkets, Movie Theaters, Restaurants, Eric Swalwell's girlfriend's house ... places you will spend more than 15 minutes out of the car.
Not at a convenience store where you are trying to get out of there as quickly as possible.
You mean bang bang's house = Eric Swalwell's girlfriend's house
You are correct. It would take longer than 15 minutes with Eric Swalwell's girlfriend.
the lines too long at Kamalas house....
Willie has a reserved space at the front door.
you ever thrown a toothpick into a volcano?
Biden hasn't bothered with the math regarding level 2 or level 3 chargers - and those Democrats that have done the math don't care - they plan to grab more money later.
Publicly available level 2 chargers are useless bullshit, but they are a good tool for convincing people that electric cars are garbage.
I agree with you on that. Level 2 chargers might be okay for hotels/motels, though. I have a plug-in hybrid, and use a level one (at home), which is just fine for my purposes.
Illegal Aliens on charger bicycles.
Problem. Solution.
It only takes 10 immigrants 72 hours to charge your Tesla to 10%
It’s the democrat way.
Pretty sweet deal for whoever gets the contract.
Which will likely be the next company Hunter Biden forms with John Kerry’s stepson, and maybe that nasty looking spawn of Kamala.
Congress could mandate that Level 2 chargers charge faster.
Google says "Level 3 charging" takes 300kW to charge a 60kWh battery to 80% in 30~40 minutes.
I'm guessing a medium-sized truck stop can gas up 100 cars per hour. Similar capacity to to fuel up electric cards requires 50 charging stations, running 100%.
300kW * 50 = 15MW.
I wonder if Flying-J is willing to install a small nuclear reactor at each station ...
Now that right there is funny. Into focus it comes.
Have you ever seen a Buc-ee's in Texas? If they were to be all electric, they'd need their own powerplant.
I wonder if Flying-J is willing to install a small nuclear reactor at each station ...
Wait, are smaller-scale private nuclear reactors on the table?
Yes. Being developed at ORNL and in OR.
75 MW propane tank like cylinders
Mega-watt. Not some candy ass solar farm.
Buried. Cooling water.
I didn't mean do they exist. I meant are private entities free to purchase or franchise/license them? My understanding is the proposition even for just a kW reactor is between "In your dreams." and "After you hire a team of 50 regulators and complete 20 yrs. of environmental research."
Cite please if I'm wrong.
They dont exist yet. I dout think theyre quite at prototype testing yet.
The down side is nuclear securuty.
Wont happen. Its a terrorists dream.
The International Nuclear idealogs would have to OK it, then the control freaks at DoE, NNSA, DoD and State Envirowhacko Agencies woukd have to approve it.
That will take a few million years to accomplish
/ sarc
So youre EXACTLY right.
Ps. Idiots named Carter, Reagan, Ibama and Reid made sure this cant happen.
They are all famous in the nuke world for stupid moves to destroy our nuke future:
Carter- fuel reprocessing treaty with Russia. No reprocessing.
Reagan- ordered FFTF shut down overnite. Hanford.
Obuttfuck and Reud got caught in breach of contract illegally shutting down Yucca Mountain.
Then the 1970s lawsuit that caused plant construction costs to go insane.
Googhole search will bring basic info on each idiotic event.
"takes 300kW to charge a 60kWh battery to 80% in 30~40 minutes"
20% efficient. What a fking joke.
Gas engines are 30% efficient.
Gdam retards are going BACKWARDS
There's something wrong with your arithmetic. 300KW for 30 minutes is 150KWh, and the 60KWh battery capacity is 40% of that.
The efficiency figure I remember for gasoline engines is 15%, and that's only running on the highway at the optimum speed with no stops or changes in speed. But that was quite a while ago; I expect it's improved, but I doubt it's doubled to 30%.
However, the big problem is that a natural-gas fueled electric power plant is only about 37% efficient. Then there are line losses, so by the time the power reaches the plug, the efficiency is perhaps 33%. Lose more than half of that in charging the battery, and you are doing worse than the 15% piston engine, even before you consider the losses in the control system and electric motor, and that the e-car is heavier by at least a ton for the battery so you need more power to the wheels.
In city driving, the electric car has the advantage that the efficiency does not degrade with stop and go driving, and that maybe it can use regenerative braking. An e-car charged from natural gas power plants and used only in the city and suburbs might beat the piston-engine car in the overall energy use from oil or gas well to the road, but it's a slim advantage compared to the higher cost of the e-car. When you hit the highway, the advantage will swing the other way.
And all of this assumes that we make a massive investment in increased electrical generation and beefing up the electric grid - but the leftists want to shut down power plants, not build more! You aren't going to avoid this with solar and wind power - people need their cars charged when they come to the charging station, not when the sun shines. And don't even talk to me about charging your commuter car in your garage overnight from renewable energy while the vast majority of possible sites for renewable energy are for solar panels...
Gasoline engine efficiency is 30-35%, diesel is 50%.
The de o rats have made sure diesel won’t be an option.
Maybe you can get that efficiency in hybrid where the engine is coupled to the wheels _only_ electrically (not like a Prius). This lets the fossil-fuel engine be set up to run at just one RPM and load, and either run in these conditions with any excess power charging the battery, or shut down and let the car run on the battery. Gear the engine to the driving wheels so the engine has to run at varying RPM's and load, and the efficiency suffers considerably.
This makes no sense, the math is very simple. (As a sidenote this is a great example of why relying on google searches for everything is an awful idea). A 300kWh charger refers to the flow of energy. If you have a 60kWh battery capacity and are able to charge at 300kWh (which i believe no cars can right now) then you could charge 0-100% in 60/300 = 1/5 x 60 min/hr = 12 minutes. Most charges are somewhere around 20-80% capacity, since you’re almost never completey out of juice when you charge and going over 80% on a normal basis is not great for battery life. So if you’re only trying to fill 60% of your battery capacity you could complete this charge using a 300kWh supercharger in 12 min x 60% = 7.2 minutes. It’s getting closer every day to pumping gas, we just need better locations and more superchargers. Level 2, like many have said in these comments, should only be reserved for those places where people are expected to park for many many hours at a time (workplaces, hotels, etc). The idea of level 2 chargers at places like gas stations is just pointless. Also, it’s futile to argue against EVs at this point, that argument is already over. Let’s redirect the argument to how to best build out a charging infrastructure to support all these EVs.
I've mentioned Buc-ee's in Texas a few times. Maybe other states have something similar. These fuckwits think they can replace this:
Inside a Buc-ee's:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.0FslLc91IvPQY7Jn7MVE-gHaE8%26pid%3DApi&f=1
Outside, and normally there's another smaller line of pumps:
https://assets1.csnews.com/files/Buc-ees%20Store_100716.jpg
Luv mah Buc-ees in FL.
enjoy them as FL sinks under Globull Warming...
25 mm at a time...
Be very afraid...in a thousand years...
The geologic uplift in the the lower half of the state as the aquifers are reduced should easily offset any rise in sea level.
Many coastlines are determined by sedimentation, not elevation. Meaning, even if the bedrock sinks slowly, they’ll still stay above sea level.
Ideally, a trip to a charger would simply replace a trip to the fuel pump.
I don't think this is true. Ideally batteries will be treated like propane tanks are now. We used to get them refilled from a communal storage tank. But the time and inefficient labor to fill them drove their eventual replacement by interchangeable tanks. So the "ideal" is an exchange center with pre-powered batteries ready to go.
Of course right now batteries are not interchangeable nor are they quality-consistent. So the best solution is probably paid membership to an exchange business / chain which takes on the role of quality enforcement. Some design work has to happen to so batteries can be switched just a few minutes as well.
And, again, this is in an 'if wishes were like assholes and everybody had one' situation. Why stop at batteries that need charging?
"Ideally, atomic batteries would replace trips to the fuel pump or the charger entirely."
Never. Tried in the 1940s.
Dangerous
Ideally. My ideas/wishes need not be constrained by reality.
In reality conventional atomic batteries, even fairly large ones, don't generate enough power to propel a full-sized vehicle very fast or very far.
"So the "ideal" is an exchange center with pre-powered batteries ready to go."
To the uneducated.
Wont happen. The mechanical structure required to secure them due to their extreme weight wont allow it.
Not to mention that they don't make sense strictly logistically or market-wise. With ICEs the most valuable and critical component is the motor and/or transmission. In ICEs, it's the batteries. It's like trying to convert electric razors, the motors, not the blades, to the "Gillette Business Model".
"Ideally" I could just pull into a mechanic and have robots swap my engine and transmission out for a freshly tuned one for the cost of a tank of gasoline.
Admittedly, it wouldn't be ideal for Ford, or their dealers, to make 3X as many motors as the market demands just so one can be hanging on the shelf for me wherever I may go, and the guy building the robots has a lot of work ahead of him. And all those people who don't own Fords and think having a swap shop on every corner that can provide said service on par with the timing and cost of pumping a tank of gas is ludicrous can go fuck themselves. This is my idea and it's a popular one.
Come on, man! We’ll tax the rich to pay for it and create lots of good paying jobs! Everybody wins! How can you not see it?
/sarc
How long until we have Mr Fusion on each car? Toss in some banana peels and off we go...
Anybody investigating which "private" company will be supplying the chargers? And, how many Dems have recently invested heavily into said company?
Would be nice if we have hundreds of organizations with thousands of employees that could investigate and share that information with us. Hmmm.
China. Viruses and chargers.
We do. They are all run and staffed by registered democrats eager to protect Biden and destroy anyone who questions The Narrative.
As someone who drives an electric car every day, this article misses some important points. You cannot own an electric as a sole vehicle unless you never plan on leaving your city, or plan to rent something to drive if you do. The range just won't allow you to do real road trips. Additionally, charging ports differ between vehicles. Some will not accept the Tesla charging cables, others will accept nothing else. So, you not only have to find a charger, you have to find a compatible charger. They are good communter vehicles if you can make the round trip on a charge, otherwise, you have to stay with gas.
The funny thing is the blind adherence to the environmental cause. I'm not entirely opposed to Rivian's concepts/products. The vehicles offer some features that can't be acquired at the same price point (or can but with other tradeoffs). A Rivian with an on board or inline gas generator would further blur the lines but that would be admitting that ICEs may have some advantages and that can't be allowed because of the narrative.
They don't want to sell people greater power and mobility, they want to sell them on saving the environment.
You ignored a huge limiting factor.
NO AC OR HEATER. Will drain the batteries instantly.
All you people saying things like this are showing your ignorance.
Im Not Looking At You, Putz.
Youre Muted for Trolling.
Maybe not instantly, but it definitely decreases range. Significantly in extreme temperatures.
"instantly" in re normal transportation ranges and times...yes
And instantly, literally, in re system design as in ' non- starter'
And windshield wipers, radio, and headlights.
I routinely do daytrips of 260 miles without refueling. In case I do need to top off, my EV knows where the level 3 chargers are, how busy they are, and is accurate (within 10 miles or so) of what it thinks I'll have left in the battery for the trip. If I drive faster than expected, run the heater with the windows down, or have a headwind, it'll recompute on the fly my range and if needed, will direct me to a station to top off (as well as suggest driving more efficiently). Heck, it'll even, unless I override it, decide how long it needs to charger there to make it to where I'm going. That was a surprise when it topped off enough to get home faster than I could get to the bathroom and back.
If I were doing a 900 mile trip, it'll direct me to the needed chargers along the way (which, vs. my cannonball run ICE days, will add 3 hours to the trip- 18 vs. 15 hours) and tell me how long it wants to stick around to refuel (typically 20-30 minutes, but for my test case there are outliers at 5 minutes and 45 minutes due to the spacing of the chargers).
Tesla is a closed garden on charging (for now) so the other brands can't use their network. Teslas have adapters available so you can charge at the other brand's "fast" chargers. I say "fast" because the Tesla ones are typically 125KWH or 250KWH while the competition is often in the 50KWH range.
This is my only car, I don't have a 2nd (nor someone to mooch an ICE from), I've not rented a loaner since before getting an EV two years ago, and I not only leave my city, I drive from south of Charm City to the City of Brotherly Love every month for said daytrips. There are handy charging locations at the rest stops along the route (3- same count as rest stop gas stations and only a few hundred feet from them to boot) or near the highway (at least 3, probably 6+).
Yes, if you buy a short range (under 200 miles) EV, roadtrips are painful. 300 mile ones (Teslas, Bolts, some of the others) are viable for moderate range road trips. Heck, someone did a 72ish hour coast to coast drive in an Tesla Model 3 Performance (not their most efficient model) in winter in Canada with a two driver team and no support crew... That record lasted a year.
Yeah, see all I hear is
"have a headwind"
"recompute on the fly"
"direct me to needed chargers"
and
"closed garden on charging"
You aren't paying for greater freedom or mobility, you're paying to buy into their routes.
It would be one thing if we were talking about smartphones and data plans that didn't really exist before the iPhone, but you're talking about buying into data plans after 100 yrs. of unlimited free (speech, not beer) data available on every corner.
Great. As soon as I can replace my new compact Kia, with a 450 mile range, for an equivalent EV for the $25000 that I paid for it, I'm in!
I hear buyers remorse and cognitive dissonance.
"You cannot own an electric as a sole vehicle unless you never plan on leaving your city, or plan to rent something to drive if you do. "
LOL Yep.
A couple weeks ago I'm at poker with a group of friends. Mostly conservatives, a few who call themselves libertarians, and one out and proud leftist. We are discussing this exact issue. And the solution from one of the self-identified libertarians (who everyone else knows is just a leftist who likes his firearms) proposes exactly that as the solution.
Everyone just needs to have a second (or third) petro fueled vehicle as a dedicated long distance driver.
Sure, most all of the guys at that table could afford to have $80-100k sunk into a couple daily EV drivers (for him and the wife), and then probably afford the luxury of another $30-80k sitting around 90% of the time.
But is this remotely realistic for the population at large?
Let's project that someone is going to do something stupid and then criticize them for it before they have done it.
I was going to project you making a stupid post and then criticize you for it, but you beat me to it.
This.
Because crazy government proposals have no history of ever being passed into law.
Not to mention that when a President says "It should be easier to sue for libel." the refrain is "OMG, HE'S OPPRESSING JOURNALISTS! CHILLING EFFECT!" but when another President says "We're going to halve tailpipe emissions *again*." the refrain is "Wow! EVs are just really popular!"
Even if drivers wanted electric cars and they made the mileage better and costs lower, where is all this electricity suppose to be generated and distributed? We have shuttered most coal plants, most nukes are at end of life and we are short of natural gas fired combined cycles and peak-ers right now. Even if we had the generating plants, our aging distribution system would have no chance of supporting all the charging cars. Biden is trying to change the way we travel in the middle without considering the start and endpoints.
Yes the goal is to destroy transportation.
UN Agenda 21
Our goal should be to destroy marxists.
Damn strait, Homey.
Not just transportation, but the economy and civil society. That is how dictatorships are made. They need chaos to assume total power.
In a modern society energy is wealth. Materials, information, or communication; everything requires energy.
When they act in a manner that limits energy production or poses a restriction to your access to energy understand that they are seeking to immiserate and control you.
NPR. Story on Oregons EV highway. Drive 20 minutes. Charge for 30.
Thats progress!
Somehow.
I calculated electricity needed fot 127 M cars like the Lotus EV with a 30 KW motor. It was in the SAE magazine a few years ago.
Long story short, 5.6 x 10^ 24 KWH.
5600000000000000000000000 KWh
And shall that power cone from unicorns asses?
No, from fuel fired power plants at 40% efficiency so increase that insane figure by 60%
Abject stupidity.
On grids already brown/ blacking out?
Right...
Fuck Joe Biden.
"youre doing to me what hes been doing to you in the projection booth!"
Night of the Comet
Add what you would need for agriculture. Yo know all those tractors and harvesters.
so hugh it cannitbe counted.
Car = 30 K W. Convert that to HP.
Semi 500 HP, convert that to KWH. Then gasp.
Absolute insanity
Oh and that telephone booth ISNT " THE CHARGER"
Thats an analogy to a gas pump.
Oh and EVs were tried in the.....
1930s and failed
Member SAE...
Despite all your bleating, Tesla is selling all they can make
Tesla sells expensive cars. It’s a niche. We will see how they do as more and more competitors enter the market. The bottom line is that electric cars are very expensive outside of the luxury performance market. All subsidized with tax credits for buyers and carbon credits for manufactures. I highly doubt Tesla would be anywhere near as successful as they are without taxpayer largesse.
that was too many characters for the Assweasel to comprehend.
Its limit is 140.
Tesla sold out their 2020 and 2021 production without any national level subsidies in the USA (and their H2 2019 subsidy was a massive $1875...).
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit:
"[7/23/2020] Soaring Emission Credit Sales Drive Tesla’s Q2 Beat"
[...]
Tesla published Q2 2020 results on Wednesday, posting a net income of $104 million - well ahead of consensus estimates that projected a small loss. So how did Tesla manage to beat expectations by such a wide margin? Soaring regulatory credit sales were the primary reason..."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/07/23/behind-teslas-profits/?sh=40b8d11193e6
That has nothing to do with selling as many as they can make.
Just. Really. Popular.:
The ATF estimates that, despite a $200 tax stamp, getting your fingers rolled, background checked, and your name put on a registry, and regional outright bans in several states, there are over 1.5M silencers/suppressors in private hands in the US. Tesla, 10 yrs. after rolling out the first model and despite all kinds of subsidies and incentives both fiscal and social/cultural, just broke 1.5M in total sales.
Weed is popular. McDonalds is popular. Tesla is "popular" the way $100 designer jeans are "popular".
"Despite all your bleating, Tesla is selling all they can make.
Despite your bullshit, they are getting paid by the taxpayer at gun-point.
Tesla sells all they can make, because they can only make a half-million cars a year - and they only cranked up their plant to that capacity fairly recently. Will they continue to sell that many once the people who waited years for Tesla to solve its production problems have finally got the cars they were waiting for?
Ford alone produces ten times as many cars. Just GM's luxury division, Cadillac, produces and sells over 300,000 ridiculously over-complicated and over-priced cars each year, and has been doing that for decades. GM's 3 other divisions each produce considerably more cars than Tesla, but most of these are far less expensive than any Tesla model.
Tesla sells all the cars they can make because Biden is driving people taxpayers off of other manufacturer's sales lots at the point of a gun and doing so under the same ideology about the environment that Elon founded the company on.
So is Porsche. They sell into a luxury niche market subsidized by government.
This is “let them eat cake”.
yeah but thebastards are eating OUR CAKE!
And Edith too!
Except, again, bread is cheap and abundant. This is one side of the environmental movement saying "Let them eat cake! It's really popular!" while the other side of the movement says "Stop eating bread. Or else."
Optimistically, one side is unwittingly detached from reality. Realistically, at least a good portion don't care or even prefer forcing other people to give up bread at the point of a gun.
piss off, assweasel.
Oh and EVs were tried in the.....
1930s and failed
Yep. Same technology.
Idiot.
But...but...but...what about those revolutionary new battery technologies that are just around the corner? Something like one minute of charging gives you one million miles of range and the battery packs are too cheap to meter.
Ever seen a cell phone battery go super nova?
Yeah, that X 100,000
@ 01:35
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3zgy2JLjTXE
wait till they cant show the charred corpses in an EV accident on TV...
Itll be " DNA testing because not enough left for dental record ID"
Iirc, saw two news stories in Germany regarding EV bus charging stations. In each instance, the charging station caused the bus to catch fire.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/several-german-cities-halt-use-e-buses-following-series-unresolved-cases-fire
Cars never catch fire at gas stations?
Rarely. And usually because some idiot is smoking or using their cellphone while pumping gas.
The majority of the time, it's someone sloshing gas cans into the back of their vehicle. Not surprisingly, the Safe-T pour cans do exactly jack squat to resolve the fuel spill issue at its most critical.
nice meme but smokng and cell phones dont cause fires. Never have.
Thats Old Wives tales.
Cars sometimes catch fire, not buses. You can (I have) douse a lit match in gasoline and diesel fuel is even less flammable.
worse, light off that lithium pile and see how fast the Fire Dept RUN THE OTHER WAY.
Thatsfull on SCBA gear time.
Extremely dangerous.
Gas/ diesel will evaporate and the sun will break it down.
Not lithium smoke.
worse, light off that lithium pile and see how fast the Fire Dept RUN THE OTHER WAY.
If it's exposed metal, you don't even have to light it, ordinary water is sufficient to put you into 'oh, shit' territory. And, again, I say that as someone who's doused lit matches in gasoline and crushed aluminum cans with anhydrous.
Recently faced the EV versus ICE purchase. Candidates included:
- New Tesla SUV,
- 2013 BMW 760Li
Both priced identically. One accelerates zero to sixty in 3.3 seconds, the other in 3.8 seconds. One a bare bones offering standard entry level EV, the other a luxury sedan flagship of BMW with every creature comfort ever offered in an automobile anywhere.
I went with the twin turbo, 12-cylinder, identically priced “Ultimate Driving Machine”. I believe I made the only correct choice. Comments welcomed.
Wastes fuel?
Good choice.
Good to have " outrun the speeding semi" power.
Gas isn’t awful at 17 MPG combined. With a 21 gallon tank has great range. EV range ? Depends on the weather but published numbers are theoretical max, not the practical expectation.
So even if 93 octane premium goes to $5, not a severe pocketbook dent to just say, “Fill ‘er up !”
Theres a scam there...using EPA estimates AFTER the vehicle is in production.
Thats outright lying.
They KNOW the mpg!
I bot a Ford F250 on that logic. 15 mpg avg.
I dont use it much exc for vacation.
So it doesnt matter what fuel costs.
And if theres an accident, I stand a much better chance of not ending up with 100K in hospital and rehab bills.
Win. Win
He lost me when he used the Ford Focus as a comparison vehicle. The last model year of the Focus in the US was 2018.
My wife bought a Chevy Bolt. She did not buy it to save the planet. It was pretty well loaded for $24,000 and is a blast to drive. Now add $350 for a level 2 charger at our main residence. Add $1,500 to run 240v to our garage. Now add $2,500 to upgrade our service at our other residence from 60 amp to 150 amp and run a 240v outlet to our driveway. We didn't need to buy another charger since the one we have is portable. We both feel the car is still worth it. I have a pickup truck and will keep it till the wheels fall off.
Our experience with the Bolt tells us, travelers require level 3 quick chargers. Level 2 chargers might be OK for hotels/motels where you can leave them plugged in overnight if they are even available. The market will dictate level 3 chargers and no subsidies are needed. What moron did BBB use to come up with level 2 chargers anyway? 85% of EV owners still have an ICE vehicle available and not without good reason.
Problem is if everyone is running EV's the whole damn grid will have to be beefed up right down to your garage and massive amounts of new generation would be needed which will be impossible to get built.
And people that are presently taking advantage of "off peak" electricity rates to do their charging are going to be in for an unpleasant surprise in the not too distant future.
...when the electric cost is adjusted against fuel BTU / cost per gallon they will!
Theyll Shit a Brick.
TRILLIONSOF KWH.
The enviro whackos will go spastic.
"My wife bought a Chevy Bolt."
Im sorry!
When cars were invented no one needed to subsidize the production nor purchase of them. No one needed to subsidize gas stations either. Only tells you this EV mania is not ready for prime time that it can't go without being a government welfare case.
BTW how will all that electricity be produced to charge them? Gas, oil, coal primarily.
fossil fuels.
The total energy will be slightly less but absolutely IMPISSIBLE to supply that on commercial power grids on the edge of collapse already.
Yes, impissible.
Henry Ford did sort of subsidize early car production or maybe more like ' kick started' it by increasing wages so his employees could buy them.
That may not exactly be ' subsidy' but it sure as hell wasnt this nonsense of "Govt money for nothing."
Ford didnt steal from the Public to do it like Obiden is planning to do.
"With or without the Biden plan, electric vehicles are becoming more attractive: While they still cost more at purchase, they seem to cost less to maintain."
I just laughed so hard here...
https://provscons.com/teslas-body-damage-repair-cost-and-time-is-insane-it-needs-to-be-fixed-reference/
note the phrase " can be more attractive..."
Meaningless jibberish.
Can be also means cant be.
These Assweasels cant even lie effectively.
President Assweasel to be exact.
Again @2:45:
Tesla: We at Tesla will not sell you new batteries or a motor. Buy a new car instead. Buy.
Chevy: Welcome to Chevrolet! Do you need a motor? A new transmission? Any parts? But of course. Lol why wouldn't we sell you those?
Also, Tesla Model Y, which doesn't come with a spare, tire goes flat, AAA provides loaner tire, Tesla shows up to fix on Monday, charges $80 for a $6 plug. Indicates replacing single tire between $350 and $400: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3ak2M3b4Kg So, 2 days and $80 for what, if it would've occurred with a cheaper ICE with a spare, would've been $20 and 15 min. or less, but this Tesla
ownerdriverpart-time occupant is totally impressed with their customer service!if you think Arthur`s story is impressive..., A month-bAck my dAds neighbour Also mAde $6415 workin from there house And they're clAssmAte's mother-in-lAw`s neighbour wAs doing this for three months And brought home over $6415 pArt time on there pc. follow the steps AvAilAble here... go to this site home tAb for more ......www.paybuzz9.com
Most electric enthusiasts tell you to just use a type 2 charger overnight.
One son live in an apartment complex. Should he expect the owners to install a charger for each tenant's parking space?
My other son lives in a neighborhood where everyone parks one the street because none of the houses have garages or driveways. How's that supposed to work.
Or Sleepy could spend the money on 200,000 F150 pickups that people might actually drive.
i bot a 250. Uses more gas. Can live in it.
Can crush a Prius flat.
Don't try that. The battery pack would catch fire almost explosively when it was crushed under your wheels, and might burn through your rear tires and set your fuel tanks on fire.
Also, you don't want to be like that truck driver in Colorado that just got 110 years for vehicular homicide
then they best not pull out in front of an F250.
"But if the long-term goal is to get more people to make the switch, then those cars have to function like the gas-powered cars people have now."
Electric vehicles not only have to be as good as their ICE counterparts, they have to be better in order for people to make the switch. People need a perceived benefit in order to sway from the status quo. Level 2 charging is going in the opposite direction.
itll only work in cities. And at that, with redesign of the roads. Cant be heavy fast traffic mixed.
IOW, Europe but not here
2140289-17-2
https://ptc.bocsci.com/product/betd-246-cas-2140289-17-2-291895.html
BETd-246 is a potent, second-generation BET protein degrader that exhibits superior selectivity, potency and antitumor activity;
collagen material
https://www.matexcel.com/category/products/natural-materials/ Biomaterials can be classified into two main groups: synthetic and natural biomaterials. The latter exhibit several advantages over the former, such as biocompatibility,
I despise this administration, but the $15K per charger pricetag does not indicate Level 2. Nobody has built 500K chargers, Tesla has 30K.
Level 3 chargers do not cost $150K. It is closer to $50-75K, currently. However, nobody builds ten-stall Level 3 chargers outside of Tesla.
If you count this as stalls, vs transformers, $15K per stall is reasonable, considering the benefit of economies of scale. Each
stall only adds incremental costs, it's the basic infrastructure to add one stall that costs so much.
https://www.ohmhomenow.com/electric-vehicles/ev-charging-station-cost/
it is not infrastructure as BS Biden and you happily ignore the rest if the system required to make it work and the impossibility of doing it.
Yours is a purely political stance.
Mines automotive engineering.
It is a very interesting topic. I think that when you read informative post you gain new knowledge and it develops our mind. assignment writing services UK
The article and comments may be leaving out important considerations. If gov't can't afford to put in the expensive DC fast charge stations, their best bet, IMO, is to make sure people can charge overnight at their home/apartment. That is a very good and convenient way to charge your EV. Apartment charging is tricky, but there are reasonably priced solutions. (I happen to be working on one.) People who live in houses but have to park on-street is a tough issue, one I have not focused on, but there should be good solutions. This is where the money should go, IMO. So I think I agree with this article, that spending a lot of money for charging at grocery stores etc. may not help much, but the article doesn't go far enough to help that much.
Clueless.
The question here is NOT at home.
If you drive more tham 15 miles or so where will you recharge on the road?
Are you only going to drive < 15 miles one way?
Earlier in the current administration, I read an article somewhere detailing the many entanglements between the administration/cabinet, and the companies that build charging stations.
Assuming that information is correct, then whether the chargers are ever used, or even if there is electric infrastructure to support them, is irrelevant. The money is made when the chargers are installed.
I think a bunch of the current proposed spending works along the same lines. Vast amounts of money go to favored or connected contractors, who funnel some of it back to the politicians, either through contributions or by hiring the politicians family members to executive positions or as subcontractors.
Nobody cares if anything ever really gets built, or if it is even useful.
Look at the California high speed rail. Money is extracted at every stage of the process. Lots of folks have become rich, but the rail itself never really gets completed. it was never the goal.
California high speed rail = the rail line from nowhere to nowhere. They've given up on connecting it to the San Francisco Bay area, the Los Angeles Area, or the San Diego area, and it ends hundreds of miles south of the populous parts of Oregon.
Level 3 chargers produce considerably more power, and can charge some vehicles from empty to 80 percent in as little as 15 minutes.
15 minutes is a crazily optimistic number. I've never heard of anyone who can get to 80% nearly that fast. And even then it's about 7 to 15 times as long as it takes to fill a gasoline car to full.
Stop wasting government money trying to make people want things they don't want.
Electric vehicles not only have to be as good as their ICE counterparts, they have to be better in order for people to make the switch. Inside a Buc-ee's: https://thaihaclinic.webflow.io .Just keep gas powered cars.